Mz. Pixie Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 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? Let me guess, Honey, you're a OW??? And you're the only one who understands your MM??? Look, I've been a OW- and I don't think it's all the OW's fault. To me, it's the person that says the vows that should be the one on the line. I KNOW what my husband's committment to me should be, the OW couldn't care less about me or my situation. Perhaps she's lonely, perhaps she just wanted to get laid, whatever the reason, I think the H's should be called on the carpet- or the wives for that matter- for their behavior. That being said, if the person- the OW or the OM is a friend of the betrayed spouse, I can see how the BS could be a little more violent with a friend. I don't know much about you, but I know alot about LJ. She's a longtime poster here who has helped alot of people! Her marriage is a good model of what one can be after it's recovered and neither you, nor anyone else here should be making generalizations about her marriage based on a few comments here at LS.
whichwayisup Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 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? The OW has to take responsibility of her actions in this situation. She IS partially to blame once she becomes a factor in his marriage going further down the tubes.
Author mopar crazy Posted January 16, 2006 Author Posted January 16, 2006 The OW has to take responsibility of her actions in this situation. She IS partially to blame once she becomes a factor in his marriage going further down the tubes. Agree. I don't care if a MM persues the OW for years, if he is a MM then he's off limits. Who gives a s*** if their M is bad or not, the OW shouldn't get involved. I just don't understand how some OW think there was nothing wrong for getting involved w/ a MM b/c their M was bad. You only hear the MM point of view on why the M was bad. They are never the bad guys in the M, it's always the cold, bitter, b!tch of a W that is causing all the M problems.
whichwayisup Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 You only hear the MM point of view on why the M was bad. They are never the bad guys in the M, it's always the cold, bitter, b!tch of a W that is causing all the M problems. And because of that, (some) OW will fall for it and think that his wife is an awful person.
Author mopar crazy Posted January 17, 2006 Author Posted January 17, 2006 And because of that, (some) OW will fall for it and think that his wife is an awful person. It just prooves how a MM can be so convincing w/ his lies just to get in a woman's pants and how gullilable (some) of these OW can be to believe it. And then when they finally get the MM and his true colors come out do they start realizing why the W is such a cold, bitter b!tch to him.
lilmoma1973 Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 It just prooves how a MM can be so convincing w/ his lies just to get in a woman's pants and how gullilable (some) of these OW can be to believe it. And then when they finally get the MM and his true colors come out do they start realizing why the W is such a cold, bitter b!tch to him. Exactly some men just think about what is between women's leg and not the consequences of their actions of others feelings!!!
Ladyjane14 Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Thanks for the kind words, MzPixie. Very interesting conversation, Mopar and WWIU. I know we always end up in heated discussion whenever we discuss the culpability of the OP....but I think it's valid if it helps anybody make a personal decision in their life. The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that IF the institution of Marriage could potentially be better defined legally as a domestic partnership, (similar to a business partnership)....there would be better protection for everyone. It's a thorny question....and we'd need an entire 'think-tank' of lawyers to manage the intricacies of it, but I think it's a question that's worthy of consideration given the state of Marriage today. Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to look at Marriage as only a product of romantic love without consideration to the practicalities involved in day-to-day living. Perhaps that's why so very many people end up disappointed in it. Is it sexy to examine the business angle of the relationship? Probably not. But I begin to think it's necessary. What if EVERYONE had to negotiate a marriage contract or prenuptual agreement before they were married? Couldn't you then negotiate your expectations. If it's not okay for your spouse to have sexual contact with other people...you'd be in a position to void the contract. The terms of settlement would have already been hashed out. If it's not okay for your spouse to put on 100 pounds or to avoid sexual relations after saying "I do"....you've got a loophole in the contract. I don't think that ANY divorce should be "No Fault". The potential to leave one partner is a lurch is too great. It's patently unfair to change the course of someone's entire life....just because you got bored and wanted some strange. People get married, they commit to financial plans, they become parents...their lives are irrevokably changed. It's just not right to pull the rug out from under them without cause. Contractual agreements would define the meaning of sufficient "cause". I don't agree that a betrayed spouse should have no recourse in our court system. Certainly, they should be able to seek compensation from the wayward spouse. But if it can be proved, beyond the shadow of doubt, that an OP executed a decisive and well-considered plan to divide a domestic partnership....I think they should be held accountable. Why would that be any different than interfering in a business partnership? It's a tired argument that an OW/OM has no moral accountability in abetting adultery. It's a REALLY tired argument that the OW/OM shouldn't be "judged" because of it. Doesn't the OP sit in judgement of their affair partner's spouse? Don't they try and convict the BS in their own personal biased court?....often with no other evidence or testimony than that of the disgruntled or bored MM/MW? How is it conceivably defensible in this day and age, where STD's are potentially lethal, to have ANY part in perpetrating a fraud of this magnitude on ANYONE? It doesn't matter if you like them or not. It doesn't matter if you're "in love" with the married affair partner or not. When you swap bodily fluids with another person who is involved in an ostensibly monogamous relationship with someone else...you're HURTING someone. It's not a pleasant experience for anybody to have to go to the doctor's office for the entire battery of STD tests. It's no picnic either to repeat the process every six months until you're certain you're not infected with something. It's scary, and it's embarrassing. And that's just one aspect of the betrayal. The emotional and financial aspects of it are more than I'm willing to type tonight. I don't know HOW anyone can defend that....and still feel good about themselves. It's one thing to make a mistake. Everybody slips and falls. I know I have, and I don't know a soul who hasn't. It's another thing entirely to live in a constant state of defiance and defensiveness....to willfully aid and abet an injustice against another person, all the while crying 'foul' if anyone dares to notice.
Author mopar crazy Posted January 17, 2006 Author Posted January 17, 2006 Good post LJ. About getting tested for STD's. There is nothing more degrading than telling your doctor you need STD's test done b/c your H (a man that has been seeing this doctor since he was a boy) is having an A. It was a lot easier when I was single and sexually active to have the STD's test done than having them b/c your H couldn't keep his d!ck in his pants. And to top it all off I was "stupid" for spending the money to have the STD test done! Oh like I was going to risk going through life not knowing what I was carrying around. The exOW had been around the block a few times and the last thing I was going to risk is my health by not getting checked. There was no way I could start my life over w/ someone new (my plans b4 I decided to work on my M) and give them a STD.
Ladyjane14 Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 There is nothing more degrading than telling your doctor you need STD's test done.... Yeah, it's tough. I think it's worth mentioning....(for those folks who have to make that phone call to the doctor's office)...that it's perfectly okay NOT to get into alot of detail with the office staff. It's alright to say that you want to talk about a personal health issue. And if they have to document a reason for seeing the doctor, they can call it a "consult". It's bad enough to have to share all your personal stuff with your physician. It's even worse when you're worrying about what the nurses are thinking. The bottom line is... it's not at all offensive to anyone if you want to keep your business to yourself. The 'reason why you want to see the doctor' question is only to make sure that you receive the appropriate amount of appointment time, and that the doctor has the right instruments to see to your needs.
My_Other_I Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 And because of that, (some) OW will fall for it and think that his wife is an awful person. I believe that the W might become an awful person after she discoveres what's been going on behind her back. The affair might turn her into something the OW always thought she was/or the H always said she was.
elmejor Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that IF the institution of Marriage could potentially be better defined legally as a domestic partnership, (similar to a business partnership)....there would be better protection for everyone. I don't think that ANY divorce should be "No Fault". The potential to leave one partner is a lurch is too great. It's patently unfair to change the course of someone's entire life....just because you got bored and wanted some strange. People get married, they commit to financial plans, they become parents...their lives are irrevokably changed. It's just not right to pull the rug out from under them without cause. Contractual agreements would define the meaning of sufficient "cause". I don't agree that a betrayed spouse should have no recourse in our court system. Certainly, they should be able to seek compensation from the wayward spouse. But if it can be proved, beyond the shadow of doubt, that an OP executed a decisive and well-considered plan to divide a domestic partnership....I think they should be held accountable. Why would that be any different than interfering in a business partnership? Lady, you don't get out much, do you? Because things can happen in your marriage that are unfair, laws need to be passed? Please! The world does not work the way you wish it did. You seem awfully worried about the wife's loss of $$$--your comments re losing your "security" and getting "compensated" by the OW, etc. Why don't you just work and earn a paycheck like others within your socioeconomic group have to? Just a suggestion that might help you.
Mz. Pixie Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Lady, you don't get out much, do you? Because things can happen in your marriage that are unfair, laws need to be passed? Please! The world does not work the way you wish it did. You seem awfully worried about the wife's loss of $$$--your comments re losing your "security" and getting "compensated" by the OW, etc. Why don't you just work and earn a paycheck like others within your socioeconomic group have to? Just a suggestion that might help you. It has nothing to do with getting a job and earning a paycheck. Many wives put their careers on hold to raise the children PER THEIR HUSBANDS REQUEST. That leaves them unable to enter the workforce later and make enough money to support themselves. Or the wife takes a more flexible job so they can take off with the kids etc while the husband works his. In a long time marriage, they have invested money together, purchased real estate, autos etc. The wife should be entitled to her portion in that situation. If he wanted her to stay home and raise the kids, shouldn't he be willing to support her at a later date for doing what he wanted her to do? When I left my marriage, I felt the fair thing to do would be to give him everything of his- most women do not feel the same way. I felt since I wanted the divorce, why should he have to suffer financially for that?? I only asked for what was right for my children. I gave him the house, the cars, etc- I wanted to be free more than I wanted all of that stuff, even though I'd worked for it just as hard as he had. I think it would be fair to expect the same for the man. If they are so in love with their OW and want to be with her, then giving up a little money shouldn't stand in the way of them both being happy. And since, as we know, the OW loves them so perfectly, shouldn't the OW still want him without all of that stuff??
Author mopar crazy Posted January 17, 2006 Author Posted January 17, 2006 I believe that the W might become an awful person after she discoveres what's been going on behind her back. The affair might turn her into something the OW always thought she was/or the H always said she was. If my H thought I was a cold, bitter b!tch b4 his A then he really thought I was one when I found out. I didn't plan on going for alimony but when my lawyer suggested that I did I went for it. I didn't plan on taking the big screen tv but when my brother asked me why I felt so bad for taking it when my H was doing what he was doing to me I took the big screen. When H came to tell our children good bye the first thing he noticed was that the tv was gone. He asked me where it was (already heading towards my new house in my brother car trailer) my dad said "It's gone." My H called the police and said I stole his tv! Needless to say the police could do nothing about it. His anger about the tv was nothing compared to what I was feeling when he was screwing around me. Maybe I wouldn't of been such a b!tch to him if he was a responsible father, and a husband. He wanted the M life but he wanted to live it like he was single still, it doesn't work that way.
erika2610 Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Lady, you don't get out much, do you? Because things can happen in your marriage that are unfair, laws need to be passed? Please! The world does not work the way you wish it did. You seem awfully worried about the wife's loss of $$$--your comments re losing your "security" and getting "compensated" by the OW, etc. Why don't you just work and earn a paycheck like others within your socioeconomic group have to? Just a suggestion that might help you. What is your problem? You're always attacking people & on the defense. Are you trying to justify being an OW? There is no justifaction. And I doubt she's married to her H just for his paycheck. And yes, the OW has to take some responsibilty for what she's done. She has no right to stick her nose into the marriage.
whichwayisup Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 I believe that the W might become an awful person after she discoveres what's been going on behind her back. The affair might turn her into something the OW always thought she was/or the H always said she was. I wouldn't say she will become an 'awful' person, but I do I think it's completely justified if she's MAD as HELL and reacts. Her whole life, turned upside down, NOT by choice. Wouldn't you be pissed off and react? That last line I can't even comment on, to me that is JUSTIFYING it in your head. Makes NO sense. None.
elmejor Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 What is your problem? You're always attacking people & on the defense. Are you trying to justify being an OW? There is no justifaction. And I doubt she's married to her H just for his paycheck. And yes, the OW has to take some responsibilty for what she's done. She has no right to stick her nose into the marriage. The-very legitimate- problem I have with LadyJane's ideas in this thread is that I think her logic is faulty. Rather than address my specific questions about her ideas for lobbying Congress, she makes comments about my venting my spleen. Not helpful. You, Erika seem to have a burning desire to know details about my personal life. I'm flattered. But, sorry! This discussion is not about me, and I do not post my life on the web, just my opinions. Oh, and what's all this about Mopar, with her details of her DIVORCE because of an affair in her marriage? But wait, wives! How does Mopar's story fit in with your constant insistence that THE MM NEVER LEAVES HIS WIFE FOR THE OW? Please DO EXPLAIN, I would LOVE to hear anything you have to say about this. HMMMMMM elmejor--who hates hypocrisy
erika2610 Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 The-very legitimate- problem I have with LadyJane's ideas in this thread is that I think her logic is faulty. Rather than address my specific questions about her ideas for lobbying Congress, she makes comments about my venting my spleen. Not helpful. You, Erika seem to have a burning desire to know details about my personal life. I'm flattered. But, sorry! This discussion is not about me, and I do not post my life on the web, just my opinions. Oh, and what's all this about Mopar, with her details of her DIVORCE because of an affair in her marriage? But wait, wives! How does Mopar's story fit in with your constant insistence that THE MM NEVER LEAVES HIS WIFE FOR THE OW? Please DO EXPLAIN, I would LOVE to hear anything you have to say about this. HMMMMMM elmejor--who hates hypocrisy Who's talking about Mopar Crazy in particular? And I don't care about your personal life. All I said was it looks like you're trying to justify being an OW. That's all. I do know the MM do leave the W for the OW.. but rarely. And most of them, if they do leave the W, they go back most of the time. And I believe Mopar was thinking about divorce, but decided to work it out, now she's been working through it.
elmejor Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Oh, I'm sorry Erika. I see what you mean about Mopar. I did read a few more of Mopar's messages. But, please tell me that the marriage was not saved by a big-screen TV! You know what occurs to me, though? Ok, so here's a MM screwing around with the OW. Not Mopar's husband necessarily, but anyone's husband. The wife finds out, chaos breaks out, then the result is that there are two stupid women with poor judgement (and questionable taste in men) fighting over a lying cheat. I don't know, we can never totally predict our future reactions, but if I were either one of those women I guess I'd be tempted to look for yet another lying cheat! er, I mean a man--is there a difference?---half kidding---
erika2610 Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Oh, I'm sorry Erika. I see what you mean about Mopar. I did read a few more of Mopar's messages. But, please tell me that the marriage was not saved by a big-screen TV! You know what occurs to me, though? Ok, so here's a MM screwing around with the OW. Not Mopar's husband necessarily, but anyone's husband. The wife finds out, chaos breaks out, then the result is that there are two stupid women with poor judgement (and questionable taste in men) fighting over a lying cheat. I don't know, we can never totally predict our future reactions, but if I were either one of those women I guess I'd be tempted to look for yet another lying cheat! I'm not arguing that they should both leave. I'm saying that from an ex-OW point of view, I see what damage an affair does. I really felt horrible for what I did. I felt horrible everytime I saw his W and the kids, and she smiled at me, not having a clue what I was doing.. And for you to say that the OW has no blame in it.. that's wrong. The M may've already been crap before, but nobody should stick their nose into it. If the M is falling apart, don't let it be because of you..
sylviaguardian Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that IF the institution of Marriage could potentially be better defined legally as a domestic partnership, (similar to a business partnership)....there would be better protection for everyone. It's a thorny question....and we'd need an entire 'think-tank' of lawyers to manage the intricacies of it, but I think it's a question that's worthy of consideration given the state of Marriage today. Personally, I think it's a huge mistake to look at Marriage as only a product of romantic love without consideration to the practicalities involved in day-to-day living. Perhaps that's why so very many people end up disappointed in it. Is it sexy to examine the business angle of the relationship? Probably not. But I begin to think it's necessary. What if EVERYONE had to negotiate a marriage contract or prenuptual agreement before they were married? Couldn't you then negotiate your expectations. If it's not okay for your spouse to have sexual contact with other people...you'd be in a position to void the contract. The terms of settlement would have already been hashed out. If it's not okay for your spouse to put on 100 pounds or to avoid sexual relations after saying "I do"....you've got a loophole in the contract. I don't think that ANY divorce should be "No Fault". The potential to leave one partner is a lurch is too great. It's patently unfair to change the course of someone's entire life....just because you got bored and wanted some strange. People get married, they commit to financial plans, they become parents...their lives are irrevokably changed. It's just not right to pull the rug out from under them without cause. Contractual agreements would define the meaning of sufficient "cause". I don't agree that a betrayed spouse should have no recourse in our court system. Certainly, they should be able to seek compensation from the wayward spouse. But if it can be proved, beyond the shadow of doubt, that an OP executed a decisive and well-considered plan to divide a domestic partnership....I think they should be held accountable. Why would that be any different than interfering in a business partnership? It's a tired argument that an OW/OM has no moral accountability in abetting adultery. It's a REALLY tired argument that the OW/OM shouldn't be "judged" because of it. Doesn't the OP sit in judgement of their affair partner's spouse? Don't they try and convict the BS in their own personal biased court?....often with no other evidence or testimony than that of the disgruntled or bored MM/MW? How is it conceivably defensible in this day and age, where STD's are potentially lethal, to have ANY part in perpetrating a fraud of this magnitude on ANYONE? It doesn't matter if you like them or not. It doesn't matter if you're "in love" with the married affair partner or not. When you swap bodily fluids with another person who is involved in an ostensibly monogamous relationship with someone else...you're HURTING someone. It's not a pleasant experience for anybody to have to go to the doctor's office for the entire battery of STD tests. It's no picnic either to repeat the process every six months until you're certain you're not infected with something. It's scary, and it's embarrassing. And that's just one aspect of the betrayal. The emotional and financial aspects of it are more than I'm willing to type tonight. I don't know HOW anyone can defend that....and still feel good about themselves. It's one thing to make a mistake. Everybody slips and falls. I know I have, and I don't know a soul who hasn't. It's another thing entirely to live in a constant state of defiance and defensiveness....to willfully aid and abet an injustice against another person, all the while crying 'foul' if anyone dares to notice. Interesting points Lady Jane. I live in the UK so it might be different to the US but isn't that already enshrined in law, in the sense that a divorce can be granted on the grounds of adultery? Incidentally, in a religious arena it is the only grounds (I think) for a legitimate divorce. On the other hand, I agree with what you are saying about a pre-nup agreement that lays out what people expect because so many people get married without even really listening to the vows. I sure as heck wish I'd told my husband that copping off with a co-worker who was bored with her husband was not really on my list of things that would make for a great marriage. However, I think to say that if a person puts on 100 pounds that you can annull a marriage is taking it a bit far. What happened to the 'for better, for worse' bit of the vows? Sometimes people put on weight because they are ill/depressed whatever. Being dumped by their spouse because of it would be the last straw. If someone is worried that they won't love their spouse because they get fat, depressed, mentally ill etc then they shouldn't really be getting married in the first place. Infidelity is different because it does indeed annull many of the things on which marriages are built like trust, empathy, security, respect and so on. On the subject of slapping/punching the OW I would have loved to have done this, of course. Would have loved to have done it to him as well but I never did. Now all the heat has gone out of me and I don't care anymore. I realise the OW will mess up her own life far better than I could do it for her. Why? Because she still thinks that what she did was alright, she is still mad at me for discovering a text and exposing it all and now she feels 'cheap and used'. :lmao: Sometime people go through life learning nothing and blunder from one mistake to another. It's all about learning. Make the mistake but learn from it and be better for it. Syl
whichwayisup Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 How does Mopar's story fit in with your constant insistence that THE MM NEVER LEAVES HIS WIFE FOR THE OW? Please DO EXPLAIN, I would LOVE to hear anything you have to say about this. I saw this and just wanted to say that ofcourse every situation is different, just like the people involved. No two situations are exactly the same...BUT, with that being said, enough of us have read, replied and given advice to OW, seen ALL the threads and from what I've seen on LS, it is very rare where the MM leaves his wife for OW. And if he does leave, ends up with OW, it is rare too, that the MM and OW stay together long term. I am not saying that is always the case out there in the World...But from what I've seen on here, seen with afew friends, the odds are not good. Most of the time the MM works things out at home.
newbby Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 so the ow shouldnt really f*** somebodys husband, but, that is an act of trying to be happy. what is violence an act of? those that condone this violence, do you still consider yourselves to be above ow in terms of morals? just questions.
Kat2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Newbby, Hmm . . .your point (question) to be made is rather interesting in a got to stretch my mind sort of way to wrap it around. Though I am not exactly sure just what happiness has to do with the motivation of morals? But do I as a brave spouse consider myself above the OW in terms of morals? Definitely! I have not committed adultery, or in the case single OW/OM, fortification. Do I believe violence is the answer, NO. If brave spouse struck OW/OM does that throw their morals in to suspect? Funny that, while assault is against the law–as such a crime-- you might think, and I did, but I think it’s highly unlikely that the majority would question brave spouse’s morals. I think in the circumstances of hitting the other woman/ OM that a brave spouse would have/ get a majority of public sympathy and even private and maybe even pubic support. Why? Well the irony here is I suspect ibecause OW/OM’s morals would be in suspect. Sad but true.
newbby Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 yes kat, i agree. possibly it is because the bs in such a case would be seen as acting in self defense. the wife probably feels fully justified, but how far does it go then? the bs can do what she likes and justify it with emotional pain yet the ow's emotional pain is scoffed at (both pre and post affair). it seems alot of the time that the world is so perfectly set up for married people. married people certainly have it easy and get away with more. i mean to think that the ow is as much to blame for an affair as the mm is ridiculous, and to think that only married peoples vulnerability is valid is outrageous. from where the bs stands the situation is one way and from where the ow stands another. the only person who sees both sides is the mm.
Kat2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 "the bs can do what she likes and justify it with emotional pain yet the ow's emotional pain is scoffed at (both pre and post affair)." Do what ever brave spouse likes? I don’t agree. I do think in the case of assault/ violence against OM/OW that there would be limits to public support/understanding of. If OM/OW were seriously injured, probably not nearly as loud as it should be–because some would still take a hypocritical moral ground that suggested they got what they deserved. I do agree with you with relation to OW/OM pains. Because if the shoe was on the other foot and the OW/OM thought to salve their hurt and jealously with an attack on the brave spouse– U know, for not getting what they wanted-because MM/MW returned to brave spouse. They would be at the very lease metaphorically crucified by public opinion. And the reason for this is because, same thing, moral suspect. "from where the bs stands the situation is one way and from where the ow stands another." I agree in both instances, it is generally flawed. And yes, wandering spouse is indeed responsible for this. So why does the OW/OM get blamed, again it is a issue of morals or lack there of. But what of the wandering spouse’s morals? They are thrown in suspect to be sure, however, he/she can repent and be forgiven by returning to brave spouse and everybody loves a repented sinner. At least this is the view I believe most of the civilized world carries.
Recommended Posts