"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[Got it]

Look at the differences between a strong personality in a woman and in a man.

In a business setting, he is commanding and authoritative. She is seen as bitchy or pushy.

 

We do not positively reflect onto women the strengths that we reward in men. In fact we do just the opposite. Women are supposedly suppose to be soft, quiet, shy, demure, deferential and sweet. All the things I am not.

[waterwoman]

Funny. Now I think about it 'homewrecker' is the antithesis of 'homemaker' - one dressed in black lace and stockings, the other in a gingham pinny and sensible shoes [ So a home can only be made or wrecked by a woman. Men are apparently an irrelevance.... hmmm.

[MissBee]

Funny. Now I think about it 'homewrecker' is the antithesis of 'homemaker' - one dressed in black lace and stockings, the other in a gingham pinny and sensible shoes [ So a home can only be made or wrecked by a woman. Men are apparently an irrelevance.... hmmm.

 

What a mess that is smh

[Silly_Girl]

So true Got It. I'm not any of those things either. Well sweet maybe. Sometimes. If I feel like it.

 

I go after what I want, I work hard to get it and I'm not ashamed of that.

Women are also taught to apologize... for everything, even things that are out of their control. It's ridiculous.

 

Words come and go with the times, and what's viewed as an insult today is often seen as hilarious tomorrow. Things that may have hurt or wounded in times past are not seen as hurtful or damaging now.

I never saw the word homewrecker as something to fear. I wouldn't

be afraid of adulteress either, but apparently I don't worry nearly as much about what people think of me as some people do.

 

I'm also not worried I just think folk should use their brain cells before they brand others. I have no clue who they were talking about but the Affair-Blame was landed entirely at one party's (the wrong party's, IMO) feet.

[carhill]

"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

 

Emotionally loaded language designed to and prosecuted for the purpose of evoking emotion.

 

'Affair partner', or AP in LS-speak, as comparison. Note the difference. Interesting.

 

Humans use language to evoke emotion, to manipulate perspective and opinion, as well as to express their own emotion and perspective. How one uses language paints a picture. Each of us is different.

 

In the OP, the person's ears 'pricked up', a discussion ensued and this thread was begun. A more pedestrian approach with neutral language might have faded into obscurity. Mission accomplished.

[anne1707]

So what does it say about those who wear gingham lingerie?

 

Thank you for a highly disturbing image

 

Sad that the man isn't being held responsible for any of it though. Unsettling actually.

 

I think as has been said, this is just another reflection on the use of language across a range of issues where the man is seen as just doing what comes naturally or behaving reasonably whilst a woman behaving the same way is all manner of unpleasant things.

 

Hence we have assertive men vs. aggressive women, stud vs. slut. We even get some who believe women are asking to be raped because they have a bit too much to drink or wear a short skirt (after all, what man would not take advantage) - all as per a very recent and disturbing thread here on LS.

 

We even get one or 2 who post on this forum who suggest that men will just naturally lie etc and say anything to get a woman into bed as if that is acceptable behaviour and it is for the women to act responsibly in those circumstances.

[jlola]

I think the term "Homewrecker" was coined long ago when many women were stay at home mothers ho depended on husbands for a roof over their heads and food. Man would have an affair. Often the women they were having an affair with would push for their man to divorce since back then being a single woman was looked down upon.

 

The men who left their wives for OW would rarely provide her with the financial support she needed(this is why laws are made for child support now) because he now needed to support another family.

 

A woman would be left with 3-4 kids to take care of. Often counting on family to help. Home was wrecked.

 

Therefore the OW was usually seen as the person who pushed the man into eventually leaving his family for her because casual sex was not acceptable and OW had huge incentive to make herself a respectable woman by convincing the MM she was a better partner.

 

Society felt men do not leave unless they are pushed to do so, Otherwise, they would just stay put and have both wife and lover.

 

Which back then, most wives felt cheating was ok as long as he was discreet and did not abandon the family.

 

Not that I agree with it. But I believe this is where the term came from. Now in this day and age many people are willing to just have casual sex and sex outside of marriage does not give you a scarlet letter as it once did. So many OW are happy with their situation. Also many women work now so if a husband leaves,she can go to work and also collect child support.

 

She is not left financially destitute as often was the case back in the day.

[ThatJustHappened]

You're welcome. :p

 

Leather and lace aprons?

 

I don't know, I was just thinking there HAS to be a happy medium right?

Most likely we're all wearing jeans, tshirts and sneakers at least some of the time right?

 

Never! I only ever wear ball gowns, unless I'm wearing leather unitards.

[Got it]

Thank you for a highly disturbing image

 

 

 

I think as has been said, this is just another reflection on the use of language across a range of issues where the man is seen as just doing what comes naturally or behaving reasonably whilst a woman behaving the same way is all manner of unpleasant things.

 

Hence we have assertive men vs. aggressive women, stud vs. slut. We even get some who believe women are asking to be raped because they have a bit too much to drink or wear a short skirt (after all, what man would not take advantage) - all as per a very recent and disturbing thread here on LS.

 

We even get one or 2 who post on this forum who suggest that men will just naturally lie etc and say anything to get a woman into bed as if that is acceptable behaviour and it is for the women to act responsibly in those circumstances.

 

Or, don't forget, get pregnant! Cuz you can't get prego if you really didn't want it!

[Got it]

I agree with you, but this is likely linked to evolution.

 

The male wants to spread the seed to replicate DNA.

 

The female also wants to replicate DNA, but is more selective. IN nature the male has to fight for the right to mate or put on a spectacular show for the female.

 

In other words, nature is full of males that want indiscriminate sex and females that are discriminant or selective.

 

I had a friend in college that told me that if he had been a female he would sleep with just about anyone. He secretly envied women because it was easier for them to get sex. As a guy he had to do the song and dance to get laid. Whereas the women simply selected the best suitor.

 

In other words SEX happens because the woman wants it to happen. At the end of the day the women have the power. Sadly, many don't know they have the power and think they are guys.

 

So when a man aggressively tries to commit adultery he is seen less culpable than the woman that agrees to have sex with him. The concept is that the woman holds all the cards regarding SEX.

 

Umm, doesn't this got contrary to your argument thrown at WS and AP about evolution, need to procreate, is no excuse to cheat. That we are more evolved.

 

[Got it]

Okay. Can I quote you on that in the future? You stand by that statement?

[waterwoman]

So what does it say about those who wear gingham lingerie?

 

.

 

Actually, now you mention it....... I have most types

[Quiet Storm]

Many women feel that other women should respect their marriage. It's kind of a "sisterhood" mentality. They expect other women to not pursue their husbands, as a common courtesy.

 

As a married woman, I expect my husband to protect our marriage. But as a friend, a sister, as a member of the community, I expect other people to respect my marriage. If men know I am married and flirt with me, I feel that is disrepectful to me, my husband, and my marriage. I am not naive to assume that all people will feel the same as me, but it is an expectation of mine. There are men out there who don't give two hoots about my marriage status, but those men won't lower my expectations for society's standards as a whole.

 

My family unit is very important to me. The obligation is 100% on me and my husband to protect the family unit from outsiders. If he chooses not to protect us and has an affair, although he would be 100% at fault for not protecting us, I would still feel that the OW was wrong for not respecting me, the marriage or my family unit. I don't feel that she would be absolved if she didn't know me. I don't feel that she would be absolved if my husband pursued. I feel that regardless of my husband's actions, she should still decline to engage in an affair. As a common courtesy to me. And I hold myself to the same standards I expect from others.

 

I believe that many women feel the same way. It's not about dividing up the blame for the affair and deciding who is most at fault. It's about each individual's actions, and their PERSONAL responsbility. The husband CAN STILL BE 100% to blame for not protecting the marriage, even if I were to hold the OW 100% responsible for her lack of respect towards me, my marriage or my family.

 

I know that many OW feel that there should be no expectation of respect for another woman's marriage, but I just don't agree. I think there are basic common courtesies, such as not pulling out a chair when someone is sitting down, picking up your dog's poop, not disciplining a neighbor's child, etc. Things you JUST DON'T DO. While my expectations for common courtesy will not be shared by everyone, I don't feel that this means I should lower my expectations. Of course, this means that if an OW does not share my views, she won't accept responsibility. I wouldn't be naive enough to expect her to own that or admit that, but from my perspective, she would be at fault for her actions.

 

In light of all that, I feel that while men are often the perpetrators of the betrayal in their marriage, women are the ones who create terms like "homewrecker", and they originate because of the disrespect a woman feels when another woman intrudes on her marriage. I don't think it has anything to do with financial means. I think it's because "the family unit" is very important to many women, and the affair feels like an assault on her family. It threatens the surivival of the family as a whole. Again, I am not saying the husband is not 100% at fault for not protecting his marriage or family unit. He is labeled too, as a cheater, a liar, a player, etc.

 

If you ever read gossip websites like radaronline or tmz, you will see in the comment sections that homewrecker is a term that is still widely used. LeAnn Rimes has had many fans turn on her because her current marriage began as an affair. I've had many friends & relatives that were huge fans of Alicia Keys, but now refuse to listen to any of her music. Kristen Stewart is another example.

 

I do understand how it must be annoying to OW that the MM doesn't get more of society's blame, but I also understand how a BW can hold her husband 100% responsible, and still blame OW for her actions. Just because MM opens the door, does not mean OW has to go in.

 

If the BW lives by the golden rule and would never, ever consider a married man as a valid option, it should be easy to understand how she would be feel disrespected by an OW. Although a BW's expectations of respect may be unrealistic considering the various differences in morals, standards, values, I don't think they are unreasonable.

 

All people want to be respected, and there are all kinds of terms created for individual's that "society" feels show a lack of respect. Spoiled brat, thug, mooch, gold digger, player are just a few others that I can think of.

[Got it]

Many women feel that other women should respect their marriage. It's kind of a "sisterhood" mentality.

 

Yeah I never understood that and sure has heck never heard about it until the affair. I am not sure what else this Sisterhood is supposed to do for its members? Help get jobs, support each other, support our rights, promote womankind?

 

I find it odd as you don't hear men saying the equivalent. I don't know, the Sisterhood has done little for me so I didn't know it even existed. Plus I feel it is a gender discrimination issue. Shouldn't the argument be more of support the fellow human, not doing to them, Golden Rule thing than some alliance just because we both share majical va ja jas?

[Quiet Storm]

Yeah I never understood that and sure has heck never heard about it until the affair. I am not sure what else this Sisterhood is supposed to do for its members? Help get jobs, support each other, support our rights, promote womankind?

 

I find it odd as you don't hear men saying the equivalent. I don't know, the Sisterhood has done little for me so I didn't know it even existed. Plus I feel it is a gender discrimination issue. Shouldn't the argument be more of support the fellow human, not doing to them, Golden Rule thing than some alliance just because we both share majical va ja jas?

 

Oh, I think men DO expect other men to respect their marriages. I think it's pretty much the same for both sexes. They blame their wife for the betrayal, but also blame the other man for not respecting the boundaries of marriage. Men that have relationships with married women are very much looked down on by other men. It's just not cool.

 

For me, it is all about the golden rule. But I think that some women feel a "sisterhood" with other women because in the past we have been discriminated against, and our worth marginalized, BY MEN. It's also common with minorities. A "united we stand" type midset. But men also have this unity thing going on, as well. The term "bros before hoes" comes to mind.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Quiet Storm

[jlola]

I also think you do onto others as you would have them do onto you. If you cannot respect others, do not expect respect back. Would anyone really sit back while friend embezzling from their business partner and think it's ok to help them spend the money since he or she owes nothing to the partner cause they don't know them. If you are willing to HELP destroy someone you do not know's family,self esteem,reality,finances. Do not feel bad hen someone does that to you.

 

I often think it's ironic how OW or OM are so hurt and feel betrayed when they find out there is an OW or OM. I will never forget the story of British football player who was cheating with his brother's wife. The OW(brother's wife) found out she wasn't the only mistress and this really made her feel betrayed. How ironic.

 

Or even Tony Hawks wife who felt betrayed when he left her for his best friend's wife. She was so hurt, but forgot she used to be the nanny and stole him from his publicist wife who stole him from 1st wife. Crazy!!

 

They only feel the hurt and pain when it is done to them. Realistically, there are many good women out there who do respect each other's relationships. If everyone thought they owed no respect to a woman's marriage it would be a free for all. Every beautiful or younger woman who needs validation would be out there stealing men (the ones with poor impulse control and no boundaries)left and right just to boost her ego .

 

I think every single woman has been hit on by a married man at one time or another.

 

Married men have been hitting on me since my late teens and they can come out with some outrageous lines. We all know as mistresses we will get treated better by a married man than by single guys since married men have to come up with something to make up for the fact they are married.

 

But many single women stay away because we respect ourselves, the MM's wife and his kids. We can see right through him and understand he is an egotistical jerk who wants validation. We feel sorry for his family, not him!!!

 

Too many men out there to settle for one with bad character.

[KathyM]

Quiet Storm makes some good points. Married people expect others to have respect for and show respect for a marriage by not crossing boundaries with a married person. Unfortunately, too many people nowadays consider marriage to be nothing but a piece of paper that has no meaning, no value, and is just a temporary state that can change at any time, and so they feel nothing is wrong with considering any married person as fair game, as if the marriage means nothing. They don't consider the marital status of a person to be a deterrant anymore in seeking a relationship or sex with that person. If they see someone they want, they go after that person or make their interest known, as if the marital bond has no meaning. It's unfortunate. No one would want others to disrespect their marriage and pursue their spouse, but yet they think it's OK if they themselves do it. Unfortunately, there isn't the respect for boundaries that a marriage is supposed to have, and that is one big reason why there is so much infidelity and divorce in today's society.

 

As far as the term "homewrecker", that term has been around for ages and will continue to be, just like the term mistress or concubine has been and will continue to be. Apparently some feel the term homewrecker is not politically correct enough for today's society because it implies harm to the family, and we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of those who act to harm the marriage/family. Maybe we need to get rid of the term "cheater" also. I mean, we wouldn't want to show disrespect towards this man or woman who is stepping outside his marriage unbenounced to his spouse. Maybe we need to stick to the designation of paramour or affair partner when referring to both the WS and his/her stud muffin. In fact, we could refer to them as lovers. That's a PC term, puts a nice spin on it. I'm just finding it a little odd that behaviors that were previously considered taboo (crossing boundaries with a married person) is now so readily accepted by so many people, but the terminology is such an offense to people.

[jlola]

As humans we are obligated to help and respect each other. Not knowingly help cause pain to those we do not know. But I guess people "forget" that. The "As long as I don't know them, I have no obligation" is what will be our downfall.

 

I remember being a teenager and coming back from the supermarket with my mother. There was a woman getting beat up in the street while people watched out the building window.

 

My mother told me to run upstairs and call the police. Noone did anything because she was noone to them. But had their daughter,sister,wife been the one being beat up while everyone did nothing, THEN it would have been a problem!!!

 

I watch dateline and there is a program called "What would you do?" They have actors pretend to be in a situation where they need help. Most people walk by because they claim it is none of their business. Even when an adult is pretending to beat a child. But few DO get involved or call the police. It shows at least some people are still watching out for their fellow man.

[Mrs.Dee]

I think I associate the term "homewrecker" with American society around 1950, where all the good women were housewifes, the bad women were homewreckers and what the men were doing was nothing but the mans own business!

[canuckprincess]

It is outdated. I personally find the term comically antiquated.

 

I think once someone's ready to cheat, it's because one of the married partners already wrecked it, long before the new person arrived on the scene.

 

I agree with you, I'm not the home wrecker.

[jlola]

I agree with you, I'm not the home wrecker.

 

How do you account for the people who say they are in a happy marriage and still cheat??

 

I believe lots of cheaters are unhappy people who blame their spouse for their unhappiness.

 

I have first hand view f 3 cheaters in my family. My father,sister and half sister.

 

My father could not ask for a better wife. But he is the sort who is never satisfied. Neither is my sister who has been married 5x and already after less than 2 years she finds fault with her new husband and ready to leave. But not till she as hold of another branch which I suspect she does.

 

One of her old HS boyfriends said if he had married her, she would only be married once. I thought how arrogant of him to think he could keep her faithful.

 

My half sister same thing. Cheater. But it's in her DNA. My father and her mother were both married and having an affair. So she learned well from both. The husband she had was wayyyyyyyyy too good for her just like most of my sister's husbands have been all real good men. But she just needed the attention and did exactly what her mother did. had a child for another married man while she too was married.

 

It takes 2 to keep a marriage. But only 1 to wreck it.

 

Ironically, most cheaters have the knack for finding people who fall for their victim story and their version becomes the version AP buys.

 

Ironically, when McCain was running for president my sister told me she could not vote for him because he was a cheater. I reminded her she was a cheater too AND that she cheated on all of her husbands. She then said,"well, but I am not running for president". I told her you are judging his character but not your own, why??

 

Then when she met husband #5 ,she proudly stated he does not like cheaters .Again,denial of who she is. But then she lives in her own land of denial. Sometimes I just shake my head at her logic. She is very intelligent, but so self absorbed she cannot see how her actions effect others. She too makes at least 6 figures and has nothing to show for it. I think it is due to her impulsive nature. She buys homes when market is about to drop. Then uses her credit cards like there is no tomorrow. later tries to cry to everyone she has no money and new husband is no help.

 

Some people just love to create their own drama.

[KathyM]

From Dictionary.com:

 

con·cu·bine

 

/ˈkɒŋkyəˌbaɪn, ˈkɒn-/ [/url] Show Spelled [kong-kyuh-bahyn, kon-] Show IPA

noun 1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

 

2. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.

 

3. (especially formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.

 

 

 

Origin:

1250–1300; Middle English (< Anglo-French ) < Latin concubīna, equivalent to concub- (variant stem of concumbere to lie together; see con-, incumbent) + -īna feminine suffix

 

Concubine is a term that has been around for hundreds of years. It refers to a woman who is kept for sexual purposes, i.e., a mistress. I had never actually heard the term before until coming to Loveshack a year ago, and it was used here a lot, actually, so I looked it up. It has nothing to do with purchasing a woman, except maybe in ancient societies when women were considered property in general. Today's meaning is mistress, and it is still used, even on Loveshack.

[Silly_Girl]

I think the thread shows that the modern day OWs do not want to be seen in the same light as in the OWs from the past. For example the term concubine is rarely used anymore.

 

Another concept that is changing is the term "cheater". Now the cheater is better known as the spouse who is not getting his or her needs at home.

 

It is more to do with the accuracy of the term and not about any offence taken. You seem keen to make it about something else. Best to start your own thread.

[MissBee]

Oh, I think men DO expect other men to respect their marriages. I think it's pretty much the same for both sexes. They blame their wife for the betrayal, but also blame the other man for not respecting the boundaries of marriage. Men that have relationships with married women are very much looked down on by other men. It's just not cool.

 

For me, it is all about the golden rule. But I think that some women feel a "sisterhood" with other women because in the past we have been discriminated against, and our worth marginalized, BY MEN. It's also common with minorities. A "united we stand" type midset. But men also have this unity thing going on, as well. The term "bros before hoes" comes to mind.

 

I was going to say that

 

That among any group that has been systematically discriminated against, and women have certainly seen that, like other racial/sexual/ religious/other minorities, it fosters more of a survival mentality to band together to help each other out and has nothing to do with magical vaginas, or skin color or anything...but a shared strength that comes in numbers with people who face what you do.

 

 

And bros before hoes smh lol...yepp it exists. A friend of mine was commenting on how guys will lie to their gfs/wives all day but have a mentality that they have to be loyal to their "bros".

 

 

 

Right now my university is going through

[Mrs.Dee]

Isn't "concubine" originally from Japan, meaning about the same thing as a mistress or "kept woman", a second "wife" rich men would have for sex, entertainment ( and additional reproduction in many cases) and pay the lifestyle for, in the real old days.

I think the difference between concubines and OW is the economic support element, like OW is normally not supported by the MM, and the last thing a MM would have with a OW is a child.