"Homewrecker" - lazy terminology?

[whichwayisup]

Some people offer an opinion, others are disdainful, critical and sit in judgement.

 

I totally agree with this. And why I laughed is because everybody accuses everybody (OK I am exaggerating. but there are plenty of people who do exactly this then turn and get angry at someone else for doing the exact same thing they just did..Just a bit comical..well at 1:30am it is..) of doing this, depending on what side of the fence one is on.

[Summer Breeze]

Well you did ask whether it was just lazy terminology. I happen to think it's a short-cut way of saying something, that happens to be quite appropriate in the circumstances. Although I agree the term "homewrecker" applies also to the WS.

 

In my case the blame for betraying me and our children, breaking his promises and failing to keep his commitments rests squarely with my fWH. On the other hand the OW gets all the blame for inserting herself into my marriage, without my knowledge and for coming into my home to screw my husband (irrespective that she may have felt "invited" - I certainly didn't invite her into my marriage and family home).

 

Sounds like you believe you had a blameless OW when your H cheated. That must have been so painful. I know it would have been very difficult for me had I felt she was blameless except perhaps if she was an unknowing OW.

 

 

Why is it painful to not blame the OW? Painful was seeing the man who wilfully and consistently broke every promise he made me in front of people and in our private moments. Painful was to realize every moment of the months he cheated were a lie and what I had seen as my life was laid waste by someone who was meant to protect me. I didn't care what she did. I cared what he did. That was pain.

 

Away from your post now SL. I did a search for homewrecker and it almost always came out as the AP and not the WS. And almost all seemed to reference a female. In my mind it's a reference from the 50s and 60s and to me it basically shows the mindset that the blame of an A does not rest on the shoulder of the party that did the actual betraying. I think it's now outdated other than to use as an insult.

 

Recently I struggled in therapy with my own mindset on the blame on As. I've made no secret over the years I held my xH 100% accountable and never thought of his OW as consequential. What he did was the betrayal. He could have had one OW, 5 ONS, or gone to a prostitute. To me the act of the betrayal is from the one who betrayed me because on the other side it could have been anyone or a bunch of anyones.

 

Yes. I think homewrecker is definitely lazy terminology.

[OpenBook]

When applied to a woman, is it sexist? Yes, it is. but men are often perceived as hound dogs who need to be brought to heel, waaay too easy to snare by flirting, seduction, ego validation,little boys, etc., and the woman who does not respect the wife and family IS often judged more harshly.

 

Just out of curiosity, does your H buy into that perception?

[Spark1111]

Just out of curiosity, does your H buy into that perception?

 

Who said that?

 

Who said the WS isn't blamed?

 

But I think the term Homewrecker, whether fair or unfair, show many do blame the AP too.

[Got it]

I may judge a point of view. I judge the words on the computer screen. I look at the differences in philosophy and points of view and take a position.

 

I don't know who writes the words. It could be anyone, that is not important. The only thing we can do is read the sentences.

 

What is your issue with being judged?

 

I can only judge the words. I cannot judge you because I don't know you. You could be a man or a woman.

 

More importantly why personal attacks?

 

Because what you write does not show that it judges the words but the person. You will state "you are X". This is judging the person. Now whether or not it is lazy writing and you are leaving out the above qualifying verbiage is your choose but in the short hand writing it does not convey with what you are saying your message is.

 

By saying you are X, You have Y, You suffer from Z, you are making personal attacks because you are making it personal. You are not speaking generally or generically. You are not discussing solely the actions at hand on a macro level.

[Got it]

I know. but many people do not feel as you do. They see devastated wives and destroyed children and they do judge those they perceive as not having strong enough boundaries, whether for love or sex, to not intrude and wreck the home.

 

When applied to a woman, is it sexist? Yes, it is. but men are often perceived as hound dogs who need to be brought to heel, waaay too easy to snare by flirting, seduction, ego validation,little boys, etc., and the woman who does not respect the wife and family IS often judged more harshly.

 

I believe many do hold women to a higher moral standard, a sisterhood of women that will not engage a married man and destroy his wife and family because the assumption is women do not think as often with their little heads as men are want to do and are therefore better able to resist temptation, say no, and walk away.

 

is it fair? of course not. but who said life is fair?

 

But it begs the question why not and should it be? I think there is this emphasis on "sisterhood" because there is a throwing up of arms about actually having men step up. So by continuing this belief it continues to give allowance to men to have a lower bar and continue poor behavior. Why allow that and shouldn't men be held to the same standards? And I think first steps if for women NOT to hold women to higher standards because of their sex but to hold the two genders the same. If women stop continuing to push this message it will be a step in the right direction towards equality.

[Got it]

The cheater should be blamed.

 

Perhaps the term homewrecker refers to a woman that seduces a man that was not looking to cheat. The male physiology is a bit different and resistance to female advances is not always easy.

 

Blaming the cheater does nor remove the burden of the other party.

 

Right there. An excuse and an allowance. The male physiology is no different and men and women both struggle with advancements from the opposite sex.

 

You are continuing and pushing the whole inequality every time you write something like the above. Shame on you!

[TheOW]

I think it's age dependant I do not think the same way my mother or my xMM wife does, different generations - we are more open as a society nowadays and maybe respect has been lost over the decades.

 

This is where I've noticed alot of views differ, not all but some.

[Got it]

I totally agree with this. And why I laughed is because everybody accuses everybody (OK I am exaggerating. but there are plenty of people who do exactly this then turn and get angry at someone else for doing the exact same thing they just did..Just a bit comical..well at 1:30am it is..) of doing this, depending on what side of the fence one is on.

 

Which, I am not sure if I know exactly what you said but it did make me chuckle. Nothing like middle of the night communication attempts. I have done many myself and have come back scratching my head when at the time it sounded brilliant!

[Got it]

When I say someone wants external validation I am simply quoting their remarks. Every judgment is backed by evidence. If a poster says "I want to be loved" I will use that to say she or him wants attention.

 

My opinion is based on whatever the poster writes.

 

And I can do that right now with you.

 

Why are you so afraid of judging? I don't get it. I love to be judged. Whenever I am judged I learn something new. And if I am doing something wrong I welcome the judging.

 

What is your problem with judging?

 

Since I did not place me in my post at all why the assumption I like or dislike being judged?

 

Why do you have a need to constantly judge others? Why the drive to have to analyze and dissect others? It is a very hands off/power play approach. Because it seems like a power play, keeping one's self in a position of authority of superiority there seems to be narcissistic traits tied to it as well. There is little relating to the other person like a peer.

 

If we are judging based on what's written and since you are open to feedback.

[Got it]

Opps, you are judging me. The "shame on you" gives it away. You take it to a personal level, no doubt.

 

Ha, ha. No big deal, you can judge me all day. I do not mind being judged at all.

 

Back to your post above. Despite what the PC police says: Men and women are not identical when it comes to sexuality. That is quite obvious!

 

Female and male sexuality is also different in many other species. You don't see a female lion killing the cubs so the male lion has sex with her. This is only done by the male lion.

 

Please note how I did not make my reply personal. I only answered the words on the screen.

 

Okay so now we are like lions????

 

Fine, its okay if you stand by yours statement. It is one that supports the inequality of men and women and who is responsible for who's sexuality and promotes the idea that women are ultimately responsible for both sexes sexuality and fidelity.

[Spark1111]

But it begs the question why not and should it be? I think there is this emphasis on "sisterhood" because there is a throwing up of arms about actually having men step up. So by continuing this belief it continues to give allowance to men to have a lower bar and continue poor behavior. Why allow that and shouldn't men be held to the same standards? And I think first steps if for women NOT to hold women to higher standards because of their sex but to hold the two genders the same. If women stop continuing to push this message it will be a step in the right direction towards equality.

 

Equal for what?

 

Blame?

 

Women file 70 percent of all divorces today. I'd say that's putting the blame where it belongs if infidelity was involved in the break-up.

 

And those they committed it with are not held blameless by a large portion of society, sorry.

 

I have never heard a devastated BS marching towards divorce say, oh, if it wasn't his assistant, it would have been someone else, or, she didn't make any vow to me, he did.

 

Not once. I've heard things much more vile than homewrecker too.

 

The only time I have heard this defense are from former BS who go on to become OW, or current OW.

[Spark1111]

What I find offensive is that blame and labels are stuck to the only party who did not make vows to prioritise the relationship and promise to stay true to the betrayed spouse.

 

Many, many people are never going to split this hair.

 

If an H cheated and the M is now over, I have NEVER heard a woman say, "Well, he broke the vow to me, she didn't, so I won't call her names because....she is innocent in all of this."

 

Rarely to ever going to happen.

 

Lots worse terms than homewrecker going to be bandied about that house regarding BOTH of them.

[Summer Breeze]

Many, many people are never going to split this hair.

 

If an H cheated and the M is now over, I have NEVER heard a woman say, "Well, he broke the vow to me, she didn't, so I won't call her names because....she is innocent in all of this."

 

Rarely to ever going to happen.

 

Lots worse terms than homewrecker going to be bandied about that house regarding BOTH of them.

 

I've been saying it for years. I was in my 20s when I D my xH and I was the one who went to his family to make sure they laid the blame where it needed to be. Why be mad at her for what their son, brother, uncle did to me? There are others in here that say it too but every time someone says it the whole notion is summarily dismissed. I completely accept that you and many others blame the OW and that's fine. I don't understand it one bit but I accept people feel that way.

 

I see you countered your own comment with the rarely to ever line. I'm answering to the bolded as it was stated so definitively.

[Summer Breeze]

Can you write a post without a straw man?

 

Men chase, women respond to the chase. That is the nature of the beast.

 

Exceptions to the rule exists, but the norm is: The man chases, the female responds.

 

It seems pretty clear from this thread the other norm is: A man cheats, it's socially accepted the woman gets the heat.

[Summer Breeze]

But in the bolded portion, she said SHE has never heard it said. How can one argue with what someone else may or may not have ever heard in their life?

 

Well with the women in here who say it quite regularly, even if she didn't read my posts I bet she would have seen it somewhere.

[Summer Breeze]

It is an unfair judgment by society.

 

However, ultimately the woman is the one that controls the SEX.

 

Men want sex all the time, women decide when and where there is sex.

 

Women have all the power when it comes to sexuality (assuming a civilized society).

 

.

 

So you're pretty much giving men a free pass on any sort of accountability at all and you're putting the blame for anything that goes wrong with sex involved at the feet of women?

[Summer Breeze]

Those who say it here are current or former OW, thus, they have a vested interest in finding the OW not at fault - for anything.

 

When I was in my mid 20s and my H cheated on me I had no vested interest in NOT finding fault with the OW. In my mind the focus was on the one who cheated on me.

[Silly_Girl]

The blame thing - I don't need to go to 'evil BS sites' I was simply referring to posts by a couple of posters on the thread.

[Silly_Girl]

When I was in my mid 20s and my H cheated on me I had no vested interest in NOT finding fault with the OW. In my mind the focus was on the one who cheated on me.

 

I was the same - you get it!

[Silly_Girl]

I know. but many people do not feel as you do. They see devastated wives and destroyed children and they do judge those they perceive as not having strong enough boundaries, whether for love or sex, to not intrude and wreck the home.

 

When applied to a woman, is it sexist? Yes, it is. but men are often perceived as hound dogs who need to be brought to heel, waaay too easy to snare by flirting, seduction, ego validation,little boys, etc., and the woman who does not respect the wife and family IS often judged more harshly.

 

I believe many do hold women to a higher moral standard, a sisterhood of women that will not engage a married man and destroy his wife and family because the assumption is women do not think as often with their little heads as men are want to do and are therefore better able to resist temptation, say no, and walk away.

 

is it fair? of course not. but who said life is fair?

 

Who has blamed the secondary person more? Just because the secondary person gets called out for their role in an affair does not mean they are blamed more.

 

There ^^^ is why I said more.

[Silly_Girl]

When a couple are married they generally share a family and a home. To me the term "homewrecker" seems to be quite an apt term for a person, outside the marriage/home who inserts themself into somebody else's marriage. It's irrelevant who invited who to do what, and whether or not the marriage breaks up. And yes I agree that it's an equally apt description for the WS too.

 

No doubt there may be exceptions but so far I haven't noticed any either IRL or here on LS, although I've seen a few that claim there is something special about their situation.

 

I have heard the term in the UK and Australia and I have lived in both places.

 

That is just it. I don't think you realize how much blame is placed on the WS. I kindly recommend that you checkout the evil BS websites that are mentioned periodically throughout this board. You will find out just how blame and pain comes from the WS well before our eyes become focused on the OW/MOW/OM/MOM.

 

I personally raised a hand to my FWH (evil I know). Where I probably would have looked at his MOW with pity (which to me is worse than disgust).

 

Underwater - the post above does not - to me - say that the WS bore more responsibility.

 

I thought it would be a no-brainer and the fact it isn't is of interest to me.

[Silly_Girl]

Well you did ask whether it was just lazy terminology. I happen to think it's a short-cut way of saying something, that happens to be quite appropriate in the circumstances. Although I agree the term "homewrecker" applies also to the WS.

 

In my case the blame for betraying me and our children, breaking his promises and failing to keep his commitments rests squarely with my fWH. On the other hand the OW gets all the blame for inserting herself into my marriage, without my knowledge and for coming into my home to screw my husband (irrespective that she may have felt "invited" - I certainly didn't invite her into my marriage and family home).

 

Sounds like you believe you had a blameless OW when your H cheated. That must have been so painful. I know it would have been very difficult for me had I felt she was blameless except perhaps if she was an unknowing OW.

 

Why would it have been painful? She did not cause me pain. The actions of my OH caused me pain. She made a decision for herself, for her reasons. He went against a promise to me, knowing full well it would hurt me.

 

I had no opinion on them. My fiancé and I spent ages chatting about this last night, he's neither cheated nor been cheated on that he's aware of, his father cheated and left his mother. Our opinions on this are totally in time. You may choose to question the character of someone who has been in a relationship with a cheater, and you may choose to dislike them as a result, but the responsibility lies with the person in the pre-existing relationship. It feels very simple and clear-cut to us both.

[Silly_Girl]

But it begs the question why not and should it be? I think there is this emphasis on "sisterhood" because there is a throwing up of arms about actually having men step up. So by continuing this belief it continues to give allowance to men to have a lower bar and continue poor behavior. Why allow that and shouldn't men be held to the same standards? And I think first steps if for women NOT to hold women to higher standards because of their sex but to hold the two genders the same. If women stop continuing to push this message it will be a step in the right direction towards equality.

 

This is the best post I've read on LS for a very long time.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I could try and insert myself in to anyone of a number of marriages. If I get a short shrift every time there can be zero homewrecking going on.

 

If a person is trying to insert themselves in "anyone of a number of marriages," I would deem them to be a world - class wannabe homewrecker even if their efforts were all failures.

 

Seriously, wouldn't you?