mopar crazy Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 There is a woman that works at the convienant store that H and I go to all the time. She use to work w/ him at their last job. She was/is the OW. The MM and his W were seperated at the time of the assault. The OW was at the bar and the W knew she was there so she went in, confronted her, then punched her. She was arressted for assault. My H feels the W had no right to do this b/c they were separated. So maybe they were seperated but they were still M. This brought his A into my thoughts. We were also separated when he had his A. We were even going through a D. However, we were talking about getting back together but he was still banging the exOW and that is why I feel he did cheat on me. And besides, the A was going on b4 we were even separated. Their A started out as an EA. So what do ya think...did the W have a right to punch this women (even though violence is never the answer) b/c she was sleeping w/ her H or do you think she was out of line b/c they were seperated?
slubberdegullion Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 Punch her? No, that's way out of line. It's only proper that she went to jail to cool off for a while. The only reason that I can think of which would make it OK to thud somebody is if they either struck you first or were threatening to strike someone smaller & weaker. 1
littlekitty Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 The violence was out of order full stop. Regardless of how hurt you are, I don't believe you have the right to hit anyone. We all dream of it, imagine getting our revenge etc. The point is most of us don't act on it. With regards to whether she should have confronted the OW or not, I presume the OW was involved before the separation, and was the cause of the marriage breakdown. If she was, then I guess the W had a right to have her say - although only to a point. If the H and W were separated before the OW was involved then of course not! Simply because someone is still married, if they are separated, then effectively they are single (provided no reconciliation is being discussed). I don't think the question of the assault taking place during the seperation has anything to do with anything. It doesn't matter to me whether they were seperated or together when she punched the OW, the question is more of how involved was the OW in the marriage break-up.
Mz. Pixie Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 And it surprises you Mo, that your husband would defend the OW??? Because they were separated?? The OW is beside the point and would be a non issue for me, it would be my H that would be on the line. While I might hit him with a frying pan upside the head, I'd probably leave her alone. He made the vows with me, not her.
Kat2006 Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 No, I agree violence is never the answer. But I think the W can be forgiven for her emotions running high. With regards to separation, do not know all the story, do we? This OW may in fact be the reason for their separation and why the wife sought her out. I am inclined to suspect as much since she did seek her out and attacked her. Not that that excuses the violence. But in the position to say, I have been there, done that ( not the violence) and now own the t-shirt, and am sympathetic to W.
lilmoma1973 Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 Mopar i agree violence isn't the best answer but i think if it was me i would have beat the **** out of her too!!! I can't blame ,you don't know what you will do when you are in someone else's shoe's .. I think it was very wrong for the h to have an affair while being married but separated .. You take vows no matter what !! Just my opinion..
reservoirdog1 Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 A betrayed spouse getting legally punished for smacking the person who f*cked their spouse is a clear demonstration that law and justice are sometimes not the same thing.
lilmoma1973 Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 A betrayed spouse getting legally punished for smacking the person who f*cked their spouse is a clear demonstration that law and justice are sometimes not the same thing. Exactly Reservoirdog doesn't seem that is fair to us . Does make us feel much better to kick some a@@ though!!!
Author mopar crazy Posted January 13, 2006 Author Posted January 13, 2006 And it surprises you Mo, that your husband would defend the OW??? Because they were separated?? The OW is beside the point and would be a non issue for me, it would be my H that would be on the line. While I might hit him with a frying pan upside the head, I'd probably leave her alone. He made the vows with me, not her. No Pixie, it doesn't surprise me that H would defend the OW at all.I know I never thought my H would have and A and if he did, he would be the one that would get my wrath, not the OW, but believe me, when you know the OW and know they have been persuing your H for several years you tend to want to let her have the wrath too. He might of made his vows to me but she knew from the beginning he was M but she continued to persue him. I don't agree w/ violence, and nothing ever gets solved w/ violence but I thought to myself "WTG!" for the W b/c of my own situation, I guess. No, I never attacked the OW, the only thing I did was told her to stay the he!! away from him so we could figure out what we were going to do, D or stay M. Believe me, the thoughts went through my head beating the s*** out of her but that would of gotten me nowhere but jail and the last thing I was going to do was go to jail and leave my children w/o their mom. No way in he!! was she worth all that. If this OW knew for a fact that this man was a MM and she was a cause for the breakup of the M then honestly, I don't blame her for slugging her. Not that I would do it myself, b/c I didn't, but obiviously this W was so pissed off she didn't care about it. And who knows, maybe the OW tried punching her first.
In mourning Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 Hitting the other w I agree is not right. My personal fantasy of how I will handle the situation when I run into the ow is to warn every w in the area that she has no morals and is a homewrecker waiting to prey upon your husbands.
whichwayisup Posted January 13, 2006 Posted January 13, 2006 Sorry I am confused. The OW who got smacked by the W is the OW your H had the affair with in the past? Honestly, the W should not have smacked her, violence like that is wrong... Yet with that being said, under the circumstances the OW should have sucked it up and took the punch. (Yeah I will probably get into some s*** for saying that, sorry, no harm intended here...) Isn't that what a man would have done if he found the OM who was banging his wife? I KNOW IT IS WRONG, but the wife felt justified obviously by her actions...Two wrongs do not make a right. It, I'm sure was worth the punch, even if the w ended up in jail overnight.
My_Other_I Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Affairs are not against the law, assaults are. She needs to turn to her hubby and smack him, not the OW. There are other ways of resolving issues like that, violence is not the answer. On the other hand I hope she feels better and got some of it out of her system.
Author mopar crazy Posted January 14, 2006 Author Posted January 14, 2006 Sorry I am confused. The OW who got smacked by the W is the OW your H had the affair with in the past? Honestly, the W should not have smacked her, violence like that is wrong... Yet with that being said, under the circumstances the OW should have sucked it up and took the punch. (Yeah I will probably get into some s*** for saying that, sorry, no harm intended here...) Isn't that what a man would have done if he found the OM who was banging his wife? I KNOW IT IS WRONG, but the wife felt justified obviously by her actions...Two wrongs do not make a right. It, I'm sure was worth the punch, even if the w ended up in jail overnight. Sorry WWIU, this post kind of ran together w/ two diff situations so it is confusing. No, the OW is not the woman that my H had an A w/, she is an OW that H use to work w/ and that is how he knows about the story. I agree, that violence is not right but I couldn't help but chuckle about it.
Ladyjane14 Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Affairs are not against the law, assaults are. Fair point. But I think there really ought to be laws on the books that protect betrayed spouses. In some states there are at least a few legal responses afforded to a BS in terms of dealing with the affair partner. Alienation of Affection springs to mind here. It's patently unfair that the person who 'f*cks your spouse' can walk away scot-free. That too is an "assault" of sorts. It's not as if the BS has interfered in the affair partner's life or committed some personal transgression that would warrent such a deliberate, intrusive, disruption. Oftentimes the BS doesn't even KNOW the affair partner. Yet this stranger can take a figurative sledgehammer to the foundation of your life, and then point the finger at the cheating spouse, because afterall....s/he's the vow-taker. In most cases the OP is not only legally free to deny any personal responsibility in the harm they've caused, but to continue harassing the BS's domestic arrangement as well. There are very few avenues of compensation for the BS, and even less opportunity to vent their hurt and frustration. We're not just talking about the loss of family dynamic, financial security, and emotional damage from the BS's perspective, we're also talking about possibly terminal health risks regarding STD's. At the minimum, both the cheater and the OP should be court ordered to prove that they're of sound health if they've exposed a non-consenting third party. That's not too much to ask. This kind of exposure ought to be viewed as Reckless Endangerment. It's such an easy shirking of responsibility to say, "I'm not the one who took the vows". Too many people buy into it.....even at the legislative level it would seem. It's a load of CRAP...and just plain wrong. It would seem to me, that if there are sooooo many people who can't understand why it's wrong, then maybe it's time to DEFINE it in exact legal terms. Let's face it... if you're caught driving the getaway car while someone else robs the bank....you're still just as culpable as the stick-up man. And while I can't recommend that we criminalize adultery and go around jailing the Unfaithful, (sad but true....we'd run out of cells. ), there ought to be legal recourse available in our civil courts for the injured spouse. I don't see how an OP in full knowledge of their affair partner's marital status is intrinsically different than the "getaway driver" above. The cheating spouse may have 'robbed the bank'....but they sure as hell had help, didn't they? We need better civil laws in this country. We need protection for our families. We need specific legal means of redress for those who are willfully wronged. Marriage should be regarded as a binding contract, not significantly different from a business arrangement or partnership. Properly defined, it can be legislatively protected. This would open a whole new can of worms regarding same-sex couples. But hey, maybe defining 'marriage' (or domestic partnership) would finally force a legislative decision on that as well. I'm all for it. Infidelity doesn't just hurt straight people afterall. We really ought to be writing more letters to our legislators.
elmejor Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 If you think legislators need to help keep your marriage together, you shouldn't be married, IMO. The OW is having sex with a MM, who is choosing to be with her, rather than his wife at that particular time. Whatever brought the marriage to that point cannot be blamed on the OW. Wives who post here being sympathetic to a W assaulting the OW-that's shameful. Lashing out in such an irrational way can/does land women in jail cells for specified lengths of time--because they've committed a criminal act. Hello? Attack the problems in your marriage from the start, rather than the OW who now has your H affections. Jealously attacking people, and crying for help from congress? How notable that nothing is the wife's fault. It must be the OW, or the government's fault that your marriage has failed. Look to yourself to solve your problems instead of thinking it's the OW, or the "government's" failure to "protect" your marriage from any strife that is the cause of your bitterness and anger. Ladyjane, you accuse the OW of causing the loss of a wife's "family foundation" and "financial security" like being a wife entitles a woman to these things. Well, it doesn't, welcome to life! That's the whole problem I have with the W blaming the OW for all their woes...it seems that some wives think having a husband really is an irrevocable lifetime contract and guarantee. No it is not a lifetime guarantee, no matter how many wives like to think otherwise! But, nice try! Go ahead and lobby that congress, (so full of "faithful" spouses) to care about your marriage. And good luck with that!
Ladyjane14 Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 ...it seems that some wives think having a husband really is an irrevocable lifetime contract and guarantee. No it is not a lifetime guarantee, no matter how many wives like to think otherwise! But, nice try! :lmao: :lmao: I'm so glad you cleared that up for us Elmejor. The 'til death do us part' portion of the marriage vows turns out to be MISLEADING. But now that you've defined the meaning of the marital bond so elequently for us....we can all just relax. Think I'll have a beer. IT'S MILLER TIME!!! Our work here is done.
elmejor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 :lmao: :lmao: I'm so glad you cleared that up for us Elmejor. The 'til death do us part' portion of the marriage vows turns out to be MISLEADING. But now that you've defined the meaning of the marital bond so elequently for us....we can all just relax. Think I'll have a beer. IT'S MILLER TIME!!! Our work here is done. I wouldn't say MISLEADING so much as MEANINGLESS--your shrill diatribe was MEANINGLESS also, by the way....it sounded like it was written by a person who has no power of any kind in her life...just this imagined FORCED LOVE contract that some wives seem to think marriage is! I could be wrong about that, though. You were probably having a bad moment.... This is VERY entertaining to people like me though! Ladyjane, you are very very funny! By the way, I'm sure husbands LOVE IT when their wives remind them constantly that they HAVE TO STAY WITH THEM FOREVER......really adds to the romance, doesn't it?
Ladyjane14 Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Ladyjane, you are very very funny! But not as funny as you! I nearly busted a rib laughing while you were venting your spleen. :lmao: I have over 1400 posts here at LS, and a good many of them are descriptive of my marriage. So, if you're THAT curious...by all means, be my guest.
whichwayisup Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Whatever brought the marriage to that point cannot be blamed on the OW. Ofcourse not...But...As soon as OW IS in the picture, she has to be partially to blame. I mean, knowing that the guy is a MM she HAS the choice to say NO and walk away. She isn't so innocent in the deal. Eyes wide open...
elmejor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 But not as funny as you! I nearly busted a rib laughing while you were venting your spleen. :lmao: I have over 1400 posts here at LS, and a good many of them are descriptive of my marriage. So, if you're THAT curious...by all means, be my guest. LOL! Yes, I get it that you've got hundreds of posts here describing your marriage. Your marriage sounds really boring by the way, so no, I do not want to read all your messages! I can hear you laughing really loud right now at this statement! You have struggled, endured, and put up with a lot of crap that many women would not tolerate, I think. You make sandwiches for your husband, for cripe's sake--what is wrong with you? LOL! I would never be a good wife, because I would not be making sandwiches for anyone unless I was being paid to do it. But what's most hilarious to me is that you ranted about lobbying congress(!) in order to legislate your particular morals, to give you some kind of federally-mandated if you will, assurance that NO ONE in the USA should dare attempt to interfere with your sacred marriage! Please! --IMO--That's ludicrous!
Ladyjane14 Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 You make sandwiches for your husband, for cripe's sake--what is wrong with you? :lmao: :lmao: Guilty as charged. Cuff me!
elmejor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 :lmao: :lmao: Guilty as charged. Cuff me! LOL! Er, I don't think making sandwiches for someone is a crime! (Just as having an affair isn't a crime, by the way) You have much confusion about legalities, don't you Ladyjane? By the way, if laws were passed "protecting" wives, how would that work? A wife would go to the police and file a "failure-to-love-me anymore" complaint against her unfaithful spouse? It would become society's fault if a wife no longer had the "security" of a husband's paycheck? Hmmm? Couples would no longer just "promise" to love each other forever, but would be required to do so? Silly, silly, silly.....
elmejor Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Ofcourse not...But...As soon as OW IS in the picture, she has to be partially to blame. I mean, knowing that the guy is a MM she HAS the choice to say NO and walk away. She isn't so innocent in the deal. Eyes wide open... To blame for what? For "breaking up" the marriage? (Which is already down the tubes if one of the partners is straying) "Blame" is to be assigned to a woman for loving someone who obviously is choosing to be with her, rather than the woman who thinks she OWNS the man?
EnigmaXOXO Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 "Blame" is to be assigned to a woman for loving someone who obviously is choosing to be with her, rather than the woman who thinks she OWNS the man? Actually, someone who is involved in TWO relationships at the same time isn't really "choosing" anyone at all. As a matter of fact, all the secrecy, manipulating, lying and deceiving is actually to avoid having to make that "choice." Put your married partner's feet to the fire (whether spouse or secret lover) and INSIST they make a "choice" and you'll quickly discover with whom their priorities really rest… the greater portion of which is usually invested in their own self-interests. And it's fear that the person might actually MAKE that choice which often keeps spouses and affair partner's (alike) from demanding one. It's not so much about "owning" someone as it is trying to desperately hang onto someone (or something) you can't bare to live without. Even if means making excuses for not accepting accountability for one's own selfishness and looking to blame everyone and everything else except the person who is actually calling the shots.
basscatcher Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 Assalt is something I wouldn't want to be charged with. Yikes but gosh just the thought of being able to smack the OW across the face would give me such satifaction. The idea of how insulted she would feel have me blast her with an OPEN hand.. Not fist.. would give me some peace of mind. I suffered humiliation because of my XH actions and then for some OW to accept his advances knowing he is married. Gawd aweful... (I have been the OW (after his infidelity) and I wouldn't blame the MMs wife if she smacked me. I would have been insulted but I know I deserved it. (When I chose to cross that line I crossed it and it was wrong no matter how you try to look at it or explain yourself right. ) But in all reality this is what I did: I walked up to XH (when we were still married); he was standing in front of the band with his arm wrapped around the other woman; I grabbed him by the arm and spun him around hard to face me and I hauled off and smacked HIM across the face in front of everyone and walked off and went outside. He was stunned and she was shocked.. She was lucky she didn't get it too.. She and I use to work together and I helped her out when she was struggling to survive and raise a son alone. I gave her all of my sons baby clothes (new stuff, hardly used and used) and that is how she respected me??? I think what we want to do and what we actually do can be very extreme and a very fine line.. I smacked him because he was my H she wasn't.. He is the one who was doing what he did she just accepted it. He was the one who took a vow of loyality and then lied to me over and over.. (My actions after that experience cannot be excused; what he did to me didn't give me the right to do what I did. NOTE: I didn't do what I did for revenge. I was neglected, abused, hurting, borderline suicidal, depressed, and desperate). Still thinking about it: It would have felt good to smack her too!!
Recommended Posts