why do some ow think this...?

[Hope Shimmers]

Not sure I need an analogy of a AL when speaking directly about an infidelity would be more revealing, but okay.

 

CHOICE: A person who has moved from a committed relationship to an A (EA/PA) has been making choices a along the line. This is not about A choice.

I think that this is important to remember.

 

Then people talk about A CHOICE to enter into the affair. or THE choice to make it PA. Now while it's true, a moment occurs in which our WS has to actually remove some clothing, I don't see that this was the moment "of choice to enter into a PA" at all. There were hundreds of little choices along the way.

 

Now we have D-Day. Again, hundreds of little choices (what to say, what not to say, denial, open confession, which details, run? hide? burst into tears?, all three? blame the BS, blame the job, blame the sex, blame the kids, blame the depression, blame the boss who came onto you... lots of decisions.

 

The decision to stay? pfff. Many a WS has made "the decision" to stay which was nothing more than again, a tiny decision to keep the issue rolling, keep the game going, reel back in the BS, take care of the AP later, all of these and more, available choices and some made some held for later, some never made.

 

Yeah, maybe a WS "decided to stay" but was really deciding not to have the world find out about the A, and later, after some work, ACTUALLY found him/herself actually experiencing a deep feeling and desire to stay. The choice to stay? I don't think we can pinpoint many "real life decision" choices in this complex push and pull, give and take, destroy and repair, bent or broken world of infidelity.

 

How often do we hear of a BS who "chooses to forgive", moves on, and then 2 years later chooses again to end the M. Or a BS who chooses to D, and years later regrets/recants or wishes s/he had chosen differently. More choices still being made along the relationship years later.

 

I may be misunderstanding the intent of the original poster of the analogy, but I don't think so. If I am, my apologies and I stand corrected.

 

To me, the point is being missed. The point is not whether there are little decisions that lead up to the big decision. That's all stuff that happens as part of the process. Regardless of this, eventually there has to be that overall choice. I understood the point to be that there are simply two dichotomous, categorical overall outcomes (either he leaves his marriage, or he doesn't). Because this seems so simplistic, there is a tendency for both OW and BS to assign a simplistic rationale behind the decision (eg, he loved her more than me). When in reality, there are many complex factors that play into the outcome that may affect the decision and will impact the subsequent fallout for Al.

 

Since these are nominal you can actually put them into a table with two major headings: 1) He decides to leave and 2) he decides to stay. But importantly, there are an infinite number of subheadings that can go under these two headings which illustrate the decision-making process going into the decision and the subsequent effect it has on Al. And those are the various things that were listed in the original post of the analogy - 'sub-outcomes', if you will.

 

That is my understanding of it, and it illustrates that just because the decision is dichotomous and looks simplistic, it may lead to the desire to forget everything that resulted in - and from - the decision.

 

And yes - as alluded to at the end of the post I quoted - the decision may not stand forever. It may be eventually reversed or changed - again as a result of all these complex factors.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Hope Shimmers

[fellini]

I believe my point is that decisions are choices. We can use language to distinguish them, but a "decision" to go have lunch with a co-worker that results in dopamine injections that cause a otherwise happily married S to make decisions in that lunch to talk the talk that continues to feed the possibility of more interaction is no less relevant or minor than a "choice" to cheat, or a "choice" to stay.

 

And as I was trying to show, even the "choice" to stay is not necessarily what the "choice" was.

 

Ill use an analogy since this seems to be the day for analogies.

 

My wife nags me to take her to the Bahamas which I do not want to do. I make the "choice" to relinquish and so I choose to spend my holiday with her on the beach in the lovely but boring bahamas.

 

Is it really true, that just because I made the "choice" to take my wife to the Bahamas that I am ACTUALLY on VACATION if nothing about going to the bahamas is important, interesting or even remotely FEELS like being on vacation?

 

If my WS, (which in fact did happen almost exactly one year ago) makes the "choice" to stay in the marriage and work it out, telling me she loves me, is that the "choice"? if I find out she simply needed more time to think and was more in a panic seeing how her entire university career was about to be destroyed by me telling everyone and their sister about her sick affair with a colleague? You want to call a quick strategic decision to avoid conflict synoymous with her "choice". Was she really "back in the marriage"? Is that the "choice" she actually made?

 

And I further disagree with your concept of major choices vs. what I called "little decisions along the way"

 

For me, my wife's CHOICE of AP was more important then her CHOICE to cheat. My wife's decision to call her EAP up into her office to kiss was far more relevant than her later decision to go to his studio for sex. Later her choice to stay or go seem pale in comparison to the little decisions she made during months and months along the way.

 

Like her CHOICE NOT to talk to me about a man who was coming on to her, and her feeling things she knew she shouldnt have a year before.

 

It seems its all the "little decisions" that were the major game changers, not the "biggies".

 

 

I may be misunderstanding the intent of the original poster of the analogy, but I don't think so. If I am, my apologies and I stand corrected.

 

To me, the point is being missed. The point is not whether there are little decisions that lead up to the big decision. That's all stuff that happens as part of the process. Regardless of this, eventually there has to be that overall choice. I understood the point to be that there are simply two dichotomous, categorical overall outcomes (either he leaves his marriage, or he doesn't). Because this seems so simplistic, there is a tendency for both OW and BS to assign a simplistic rationale behind the decision (eg, he loved her more than me). When in reality, there are many complex factors that play into the outcome that may affect the decision and will impact the subsequent fallout for Al.

 

Since these are nominal you can actually put them into a table with two major headings: 1) He decides to leave and 2) he decides to stay. But importantly, there are an infinite number of subheadings that can go under these two headings which illustrate the decision-making process going into the decision and the subsequent effect it has on Al.

 

That is my understanding of it, and it illustrates that just because the decision is dichotomous and looks simplistic, it may lead to the desire to forget everything that resulted in - and from - the decision.

 

And yes - as alluded to at the end of the post I quoted - the decision may not stand forever. It may be eventually reversed or changed - again as a result of all these complex factors.

Edited April 10, 2014 by fellini

[Hope Shimmers]

I believe my point is that decisions are choices. We can use language to distinguish them, but a "decision" to go have lunch with a co-worker that results in dopamine injections that cause a otherwise happily married S to make decisions in that lunch to talk the talk that continues to feed the possibility of more interaction is no less relevant or minor than a "choice" to cheat, or a "choice" to stay.

 

And as I was trying to show, even the "choice" to stay is not necessarily what the "choice" was.

 

Ill use an analogy since this seems to be the day for analogies.

 

My wife nags me to take her to the Bahamas which I do not want to do. I make the "choice" to relinquish and so I choose to spend my holiday with her on the beach in the lovely but boring bahamas.

 

Is it really true, that just because I made the "choice" to take my wife to the Bahamas that I am ACTUALLY on VACATION if nothing about going to the bahamas is important, interesting or even remotely FEELS like being on vacation?

 

If my WS, (which in fact did happen almost exactly one year ago) makes the "choice" to stay in the marriage and work it out, telling me she loves me, is that the "choice"? if I find out she simply needed more time to think and was more in a panic seeing how her entire university career was about to be destroyed by me telling everyone and their sister about her sick affair with a colleague? You want to call a quick strategic decision to avoid conflict synoymous with her "choice". Was she really "back in the marriage"? Is that the "choice" she actually made?

 

And I further disagree with your concept of major choices vs. what I called "little decisions along the way"

 

For me, my wife's CHOICE of AP was more important then her CHOICE to cheat. My wife's decision to call her EAP up into her office to kiss was far more relevant than her later decision to go to his studio for sex. Later her choice to stay or go seem pale in comparison to the little decisions she made during months and months along the way.

 

Like her CHOICE NOT to talk to me about a man who was coming on to her, and her feeling things she knew she shouldnt have a year before.

 

It seems its all the "little decisions" that were the major game changers, not the "biggies".

 

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

 

"Is it really true, that just because I made the "choice" to take my wife to the Bahamas that I am ACTUALLY on VACATION if nothing about going to the bahamas is important, interesting or even remotely FEELS like being on vacation?"

 

Yes, because you made a choice (decision) to go to the Bahamas. You may love it or you may hate every second of it. It was still your choice.

 

That is the point - despite dichotomous, sometimes easy-appearing choices, there are many factors that play a role in how those choices affect everyone.

[fellini]

But that reduces my decision to go have pee a choice. It just becomes a technical definition for choice or decision. Surely the MEANING WE ASCRIBE to our choices is as important as the "idea" that we "made a choice".

 

So you think it's a simple as that. I think where I see your discussion is you think that once a choice is made, it ends there. And everything I have been saying is that choices, like communication are always embedded in meaningful ways to the past, the present and the future. There is no single choice. There are only a series or sequence of active/passive choices along the timeline of your lives.

 

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

 

"Is it really true, that just because I made the "choice" to take my wife to the Bahamas that I am ACTUALLY on VACATION if nothing about going to the bahamas is important, interesting or even remotely FEELS like being on vacation?"

 

Yes, because you made a choice (decision) to go to the Bahamas. You may love it or you may hate every second of it. It was still your choice.

 

That is the point - despite dichotomous, sometimes easy-appearing choices, there are many factors that play a role in how those choices affect everyone.

 

And so I have to disagree. I've seen this discussion about choice before. Yeah we make "choices" but to think that does not have something to do with how others make choices negates a huge part of the discussion. I'd say, I did not choose to go to the bahamas, I chose to make my wife happy. The Bahamas did not make me happy, my pleasing my wife did. The choice to go to the Bahamas was not mine, but the choice to do something to appease my wife was. So even there, we don't have a dichotomy do we really, we have complex LAYERS.

 

And I think the idea that choices are complex interlocking layers goes further to explain, back to the topic, how people can cheat. They are on the one hand making choices that are about pleasure (to put it simply) for themselves and for this new person who has suddenly entered into their life. And they need to make choices about how to sustain that pleasure, and all the while, not disrupt other choices they made about their marriage. So they justify the cheating as a solution to this impasse. This impossibility to choose a lover and a spouse simultaneously. Layers and layers of strategies and complex choices so as to have both. Later a BS will ask how can you have chosen AP over ME? After 15 years of marriage? and the WS will answer, and here we are trying to get our heads around it, "I didn't" "I still love you"...

 

And contrary to our ideas about choice, dichotomies, our WS has found a way to beat the logic and get what they want and not necessarily lose everything in the choosing.

Edited April 10, 2014 by fellini

[Hope Shimmers]

But that reduces my decision to go have pee a choice. It just becomes a technical definition for choice or decision. Surely the MEANING WE ASCRIBE to our choices is as important as the "idea" that we "made a choice".

 

So you think it's a simple as that. I think where I see your discussion is you think that once a choice is made, it ends there. And everything I have been saying is that choices, like communication are always embedded in meaningful ways to the past, the present and the future. There is no single choice. There are only a series or sequence of active/passive choices along the timeline of your lives.

 

[/b]

 

And so I have to disagree. I've seen this discussion about choice before. Yeah we make "choices" but to think that does not have something to do with how others make choices negates a huge part of the discussion. I'd say, I did not choose to go to the bahamas, I chose to make my wife happy. The Bahamas did not make me happy, my pleasing my wife did. The choice to go to the Bahamas was not mine, but the choice to do something to appease my wife was. So even there, we don't have a dichotomy do we really, we have complex LAYERS.

 

I don't think it's simple at all. And I don't disagree with you.

 

I don't think that once a choice is made, it ends there. I am just looking at the choice that was examined in the analogy. Whatever particular 'choice' you are looking at is by definition (in this case, did he leave or did he stay in the marriage). That is the outcome - it seems simplistic, but it isn't. In your case, 'did you go to the Bahamas or not' - yes you did, but you did it to make your wife happy (seems simplistic, but it isn't). And of course, there are millions of choices that are made throughout life.

 

I won't get into a debate with you - despite how you feel, as far as I'm concerned, it's six of one thing, or half a dozen of another. It was just a novel way of looking at the issue.

[DKT3]

If you don't understand the irony, no sweat... no reason to pursue it further.

 

Those guys are adults, and yes my friends. I voice my opinion about the cheating however its none of my business what goes on in their marriages.

[Hope Shimmers]

Those guys are adults, and yes my friends. I voice my opinion about the cheating however its none of my business what goes on in their marriages.

 

Yet it's your business what goes on in the lives of the OW they cheat with, to the point where you participate in ridiculing them.

 

That is one of the biggest double standards I have ever heard.

[Speakingofwhich]

I may be misunderstanding the intent of the original poster of the analogy, but I don't think so. If I am, my apologies and I stand corrected.

 

To me, the point is being missed. The point is not whether there are little decisions that lead up to the big decision. That's all stuff that happens as part of the process. Regardless of this, eventually there has to be that overall choice. I understood the point to be that there are simply two dichotomous, categorical overall outcomes (either he leaves his marriage, or he doesn't). Because this seems so simplistic, there is a tendency for both OW and BS to assign a simplistic rationale behind the decision (eg, he loved her more than me). When in reality, there are many complex factors that play into the outcome that may affect the decision and will impact the subsequent fallout for Al.

 

Since these are nominal you can actually put them into a table with two major headings: 1) He decides to leave and 2) he decides to stay. But importantly, there are an infinite number of subheadings that can go under these two headings which illustrate the decision-making process going into the decision and the subsequent effect it has on Al. And those are the various things that were listed in the original post of the analogy - 'sub-outcomes', if you will.

 

That is my understanding of it, and it illustrates that just because the decision is dichotomous and looks simplistic, it may lead to the desire to forget everything that resulted in - and from - the decision.

 

And yes - as alluded to at the end of the post I quoted - the decision may not stand forever. It may be eventually reversed or changed - again as a result of all these complex factors.

 

Thank you, Hope Shimmers! Back on target!

[janedoe67]

If al made a vow not to do something and he sneaks around and does it anyway..

 

Al is a liar

 

The end

[Hope Shimmers]

If al made a vow not to do something and he sneaks around and does it anyway..

 

Al is a liar

 

The end

 

Yep, although that's completely irrelevant as to what decision he makes. Which is what the discussion is about.

[gettingstronger]

Yep, although that's completely irrelevant as to what decision he makes. Which is what the discussion is about.

 

 

Right, so our promises and vows we make to ourselves and others have nothing to do with the decisions we make?

Talk about whitewashing and romanticizing poor boundaries and the inability to cope with being responsible for your actions-

[Hope Shimmers]

Right, so our promises and vows we make to ourselves and others have nothing to do with the decisions we make?

Talk about whitewashing and romanticizing poor boundaries and the inability to cope with being responsible for your actions-

 

So much for people understanding analogies.

 

Of course promises and vows have (or should have) everything to do with decision-making. The point is not to whitewash or romanticize anything, but to explain why people make the decisions they do and the thought process that occurs and how their actions may affect them.

 

I give up. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can continue to think what they will - that everything in life is black and white. Which in my opinion is both inaccurate and narrow minded. I have a different view, which is both my opinion and prerogative.

[gettingstronger]

Our character should always guide our decision making process and being able to honor our vows is part of that. I fully understand analogies so don't take the easy way out when challenged in your thinking by claiming some mythical intelligence higher ground.

[fellini]

Not so sure. If he sneaks around and assures he hasn't he is lying (perhaps even A liar.)

 

If he vows to be faithful, and then later, cheats, he is not a liar.

 

If i claim an A is aa deal breaker, and later i reconcile, am i a liar???

 

 

 

If al made a vow not to do something and he sneaks around and does it anyway..

 

Al is a liar

 

The end

[FoolishOW]

Those guys are adults, and yes my friends. I voice my opinion about the cheating however its none of my business what goes on in their marriages.

 

 

You couldn't have proven my point more clearly. The fact that you don't understand that is unfortunate.

[Arieswoman]

HS,

The point is not to whitewash or romanticize anything, but to explain why people make the decisions they do and the thought process that occurs and how their actions may affect them.

 

Hmmmm.

 

I think it is an attempt to explain the unexplainable.

 

I think that there is the assumption that there were some thought processes involved when the WS or AP entered the affair.

 

If every WH sat down and thought to himself -" If I stick my ****in this OW it could result in the end of my life as I know it. I could be consumed with guilt and have to face my wife everyday knowing I betrayed her. I could ending up feeling real bad."

Would he still go ahead and do it?

Probably not.

 

People involved in affairs are deluding themselves, either consciously or unconsciously that it is an OK thing to do. They are in an "affair fog", high on endomorphins that keep them hooked into it. They are in a fantasy universe where nothing matters apart from the object of their affection.

 

It is only when divorce papers come popping through the letterbox and their clothes are thrown out onto the street that the WS comes back to reality and realises the real enormity and consequences of their actions.

 

I do not know of any BS, including myself, who got a sensible answer from their WS about why they did what they did. Surely if some thought had been involved then they could give the answer?

[gettingstronger]

If he vows to be faithful, and then later, cheats, he is not a liar.

 

If i claim an A is aa deal breaker, and later i reconcile, am i a liar???

 

 

Huh? So, the act of betrayal and the act of forgiveness are on the same level-

[DKT3]

This topic will never reach a middle ground.

 

Do married men stay for reasons other then being in love with his wife? Yes, we can all agree on that. Sometimes he stays simply because the affair wasn't that serious for him.

 

I recall reading a story on another site were MW had an affair with MOM. MOM leaves his wife and files for divorce. MW quickly confesses the A to husband the runs to MOM who then rejects her saying that he doesn't want any relationship, not with his wife and not with her. Tells her she need to work on her marriage. She then returns to the husband. After a few weeks they go to a party where MW gets drunk the tells H how much better MOM was then him at sex, understanding her and meeting her needs. Her focus then seems to be finding a way to force the H to throw her out. She never heard what MOM told her, her chioce was to believe what she wanted. Instead of hearing the rejection she heard your marriage is keeping us apart. This will end poorly for her. She will lose both men.

 

Point is people hear what they want, no matter what is said or what the actions show. It goes for all BS, WS and OM/W

[DKT3]

You couldn't have proven my point more clearly. The fact that you don't understand that is unfortunate.

 

No, your point was a personal attack on me for who my friends are. I don't agree with their cheating, yet what they convince the OW's to believe is funny, sad funny but still funny. Does that mean I'm taking part? Not at all. Once it even triggered me as I thought of what my ex wifes AP told her.

[Arieswoman]

GS,

If he vows to be faithful, and then later, cheats, he is not a liar.

 

No, he isn't a liar in the first instance - unless he made the promise knowing that he would cheat anyway.

He has decided he can't stay faithful. He has decided to involve his wife in an open marriage without her knowledge and/or consent. The lies come later when he tells his wife he's at the gym when he's with the AP

The honest course of action would be to tell his wife that he can't keep his vows and give her the option of staying in the marriage or not.

 

If i claim an A is aa deal breaker, and later i reconcile, am i a liar???

No, you have changed your mind. If you tell your WS you want to reconcile that is perfectly reasonable.

 

So, the act of betrayal and the act of forgiveness are on the same level-

 

No, and they never can be.

[Arieswoman]

DKT3

 

Point is people hear what they want, no matter what is said or what the actions show. It goes for all BS, WS and OM/W

 

Yup. Self-deception is one thing that most human beings excel at. We don't need others to deceive us when we can do it so effectively ourselves.

[Hope Shimmers]

Our character should always guide our decision making process and being able to honor our vows is part of that. I fully understand analogies so don't take the easy way out when challenged in your thinking by claiming some mythical intelligence higher ground.

 

Hmmm. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever challenged in my thinking.

[Hope Shimmers]

No, your point was a personal attack on me for who my friends are. I don't agree with their cheating, yet what they convince the OW's to believe is funny, sad funny but still funny. Does that mean I'm taking part? Not at all. Once it even triggered me as I thought of what my ex wifes AP told her.

 

Her post wasn't a personal attack; it was just a simple observation based on your own words.

 

You said in your earlier post: "I have tons of friends that has or is cheating, in most cases we will sit around and joke about the things they say to the OW to prolong the affair."

 

And now you are saying: "I don't agree with their cheating, yet what they convince the OW's to believe is funny, sad funny but still funny. Does that mean I'm taking part? Not at all."

 

Do you not see the discrepancy in what you said before and are saying now? You said yourself you were taking part, so there was nothing personal about the observation that you are living a huge double-standard. Even having these cheaters as friends, while saying negative things about the women they cheat with, is a double standard.

 

I find it interesting that the BS's here side with you and defend you, which I assume is because you have that 'BS' label. I prefer to think for myself and avoid labels when deciding whether I agree with people or not, but that's just me.

[fellini]

Why would you chose to take the entire point out of context.

 

The poster claims that if someone makes a vow, then cheats, they are a liar: my point was, no, a liar says what he knows to be untrue. Either he is a liar, or if he is a politician, he misspoke.

 

But if I claim to love my wife until death do us part, at the alter,

and later we divorce, THAT MAKES ME A LIAR???

 

Well, frankly, no it doesn't.

 

Same logic. If I say, If you cheat on me, I will divorce you, and then I don't, I am not a liar, just because I did something that earlier I said I wouldn't do.

 

It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with weighing in one action over another! Why would you put ideas into my post that clearly are not there?

 

If he vows to be faithful, and then later, cheats, he is not a liar.

 

If i claim an A is aa deal breaker, and later i reconcile, am i a liar???

 

 

Huh? So, the act of betrayal and the act of forgiveness are on the same level-

[Livingeachday]

HopeShimmers....not suprising to me at all that he doesn't see the discrepancy - reading some of his posts on other parts of this forum (especially the dating one) can give a great inside on that.