looking for other perspectives (very long)

"Rupa Bose" wrote in message
m...
"Joy" wrote

You would prefer listening to others say "never mind that he/she dumped
you
and left you and the kids financially screwed, too bad about you losing
the
house and your health insurance, but it isn't important, we can't
condemn
somebody for that, must be civilized you know"?

That's assuming the original spouse got dumped. What about situations
where the errant spouse has a continuing affair, but stays married so
the spouse and children keep the house, share in the wealth, and stay
on his health insurance? That's what OP's co-parent is probably
after.


My response above wasn't to the OP, or even about the OP, but rather to
Marty Billingsley, who was talking about people he knew with happy marriages
that started out as affairs. He went on to add about these folks:

They are indeed lovely, wonderful people. Maybe folks around here are
a bit more flexible in their outlook than people in calinda's circle.
Affairs aren't condoned, but neither are adulterers shunned. The days
of the scarlet letter are over, at least around here.

IMO, implying that lovely, wonderful people should be "more flexible in
their outlook" than people in calinda's circle came across as having rather
a callous attitude toward the injured spouse - some of whom really and truly
get screwed.

Joy

(shinypenny) writes:

5) With you, it's *different.* It's about *love.* And *emotions.* Not
just sex. You are *special.* You are not like all those other women he
slept with! And, see, the proof of it is that we were blessed with a
bio-child neither one of us ever thought we could have!!!! That must
mean we are meant to be!!

I like it when you get sarcastic, jen. It makes me feel so virtuous
for reining myself in!

"Paula" wrote in message ...

I told him about this thread yesterday and about some of the
responses that I've gotten. I agree that while he and I have
contact he is not really working on the marriage. And I talked
to him about that. He agreed ... we'll see if he will agree to not
see me. There's more to discuss, and we will do so.

We'll see if *he* will agree to not see you? Nah, if you're doing it
right, it has nothing to do with whether he agrees or not! If *you*
don't agree to see him, it's end of story. Doesn't matter what he
wants.

No, this is not how true love operates. It does not destroy others'
lives so it has room to flourish. On the contrary, it flourishes and
in the process lifts up and shines on the lives of all those around
it.

I will tell you what it is, if it isn't love. It is two people who
were living separate lives while deeply fearing truly intimate
connections. This man had all the opportunity in the world to develop
such an intimate connection within his own marriage, but he didn't
because he feared it. Instead, he went running scared and into your
arms, another person just like him.

Because he feared it, or because it was denied to him? He tried
to talk to her, and it did nothing.


Rationalization. You're trying to idealize his motives again.

And anyhow, I bet she's listening now. Thanks to you. Your affair with
him was likely just the wake-up call she needed.


You fear intimacy so much you've made a lifetime habit of getting
involved only in relationships that are not possible. It's your way of
getting all the benefits of a relationship that feels like love - all
the swooning, song lyrics, romance - while ensuring one foot is
perpetually planted firmly on the floor. These relationships of yours
can never get too intimate, too scary, because they cannot possibly
live in the real, day-to-day world. Not while the man is still
married.

No, my relationships cannot get too intimate because of the people
with whom I choose to enter into them. I may be afraid, but I've
stopped running.

No, you haven't stopped running at all. You're still holding out for
involvement with a man who 1) is currently not available; and 2) even
if he left his wife, has proved he's incapable of intimacy. When
things get too intimate, he flees. He did it throughout his marriage,
by having affairs, and likely he's doing it now, escaping to see you
when the going gets too hot at home.

It may feel like intimacy, but it's not. Your relationship to date has
not included physical day-to-day proximity, for one thing. You do not
know this man like his wife does. You can't. You haven't slept beside
him, night after night. You haven't washed his underwear. You haven't
held him when he's sick. You haven't argued about who's going to get
up in the middle of the night and bring a bottle to the baby. You
haven't cooked him supper even though you're sick and tired of cooking
his supper. You haven't picked up the newspapers he left on the
bathroom floor. And, you haven't been there when his dad died.

That last one actually has a lot of significance, I think. Losing a
loved one is very often a major trigger for those who fear intimacy to
go flying. Why? Because it makes you realize how fragile life is, how
you could lose the person you love the most, the person who's your
life-mate, the one you depend on. That's scary as hell. It is not
uncommon at all for people to be vulnerable to infidelity when they
have lost someone close to them, such as a parent or child. It's a way
of putting distance between those they love the most, so the idea of
losing that love isn't so scary.

I suspect this man flew into your arms, 6 months after his dad died,
because he loves his wife deeper than anyone in this world. I know it
sounds completely counter-intuitive. I would even go so far as to say
that the deeper he loves his wife, the greater his fear of losing her,
and thus, the more he has deluded himself into thinking he has this
awesome emotional connection with someone else. Because if he loves
you, then he can't possibly love her quite so deeply.

jen

"shinypenny" wrote in message
om...


5) With you, it's *different.* It's about *love.* And *emotions.* Not
just sex. You are *special.* You are not like all those other women he
slept with! And, see, the proof of it is that we were blessed with a
bio-child neither one of us ever thought we could have!!!! That must
mean we are meant to be!!

Besides, lots of songwriters talk about this very thing, so it must be real.

dragonlady wrote:
Poly isn't always more than one family. Sometimes, it's one
family,
and each partner may have additional relationships -- but not with
children.

Sometimes it's a small group -- like a marriage of 3 or 4 people
instead of 2.

And, when you think about it, you're capable of loving more than
one
child; why not more than one partner?

Nothing that the OP has stated has anything whatsoever to do with a
poly relationship. That would mean that the scum that the OP was
sleeping with had an open agreement with his wife, which he didn't
according to all the accounts so far by this OP.

In any case, this whole sub-thread of the poly relationship was a
way for someone to throw off the suggestion that cheating is wrong.

He is a cheater, plain and simple- a user who found someone willing
to let herself be used because it suited her purpose.

I am _very_ skeptical by nature and I have begun to wonder a few
things, one of which is how much this woman saved by not having to
go through a sperm donor and by getting pregnant in the fashion she
did, qualifying for CS. Almost makes me wonder who was using whom?
Or perhaps I've just read ASD for too long, I dunno.


Cal~

Paula wrote:
"sue" wrote in message ...


Paula wrote:
I'm actually going to reply to this one again ... I've looked back
over the thread and see nothing from you except this post. I have
no clue at whom you are angry ... but go take it out on them!


I was one of several respondants who, much earlier in the thread, took
issue with the fact that you didn't consider a lie of omission (not
mentioning that he was married) to be a genuine lie.

Ahh, I remember you know. We didn't mesh well the first time
'round, either.

I don't believe anyone is angry at you, but I must say that after
starting to read the thread again after dropping out for a while, it
seems that you haven't made any progress--either in moving on with your
life, or in getting people to validate your and his choices and excuses.

I didn't say that anyone was angry with me ... I sensed anger in
your post, and it doesn't seem seated in my situation. My comment
was just that you should direct it at whoever "owns" it rather
than me.

And although it may not seem like it to you, I am making progress.
I neither want nor need validation ... I'm just searching for my own
understanding.

Paula

But progress is defined by actions, not just words. What progress?

Joy wrote:
"Rupa Bose" wrote in message
m...
"Joy" wrote

You would prefer listening to others say "never mind that he/she dumped
you
and left you and the kids financially screwed, too bad about you losing
the
house and your health insurance, but it isn't important, we can't
condemn
somebody for that, must be civilized you know"?

That's assuming the original spouse got dumped. What about situations
where the errant spouse has a continuing affair, but stays married so
the spouse and children keep the house, share in the wealth, and stay
on his health insurance? That's what OP's co-parent is probably
after.


My response above wasn't to the OP, or even about the OP, but rather to
Marty Billingsley, who was talking about people he knew with happy
marriages
that started out as affairs. He went on to add about these folks:

They are indeed lovely, wonderful people. Maybe folks around here are
a bit more flexible in their outlook than people in calinda's circle.
Affairs aren't condoned, but neither are adulterers shunned. The days
of the scarlet letter are over, at least around here.

IMO, implying that lovely, wonderful people should be "more flexible in
their outlook" than people in calinda's circle came across as having
rather
a callous attitude toward the injured spouse - some of whom really and
truly
get screwed.

Joy

Of course, Joy. Evidently you, too, are falling behind the times.

shinypenny wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

(I think) I've really tried to not defend him, but maybe I should
provide a little more information. He lost his father (to whom he
was very close) to leukemia 6 months before we started talking.
I have no idea how long he'd been trying to reconnect with his
wife as a wife rather than as a mother, but I got the impression
that it was a while. He did say that they'd had the conversation
about what he needed more than a couple of times. He's at
the right age to have had a mid-life crisis ... and considering the
fact that the day we found out that I was pregnant with our
daughter was their 15th anniversary, he may have had the "7
year itch" thing going on, too.

I can't speak for his conflict prior to our weekend, but I can
give an impression of after, and he was struggling and conflicted.
The connection that we made was so strong and on so many
levels, though. I don't know that either of us could have walked
at that point.

I would also like to say, though, that I, too, believe that this was
not his first affair ... maybe the first with such an overwhelming
emotional component, but not the first physical one.

Hmm.

So his pattern of infedility is forgiveable, in your opinion, because:

1) He was still reeling in grief;

2) He tried several times to fix his marriage, but his wife wouldn't
cooperate;

3) He was having a mid-life crisis;

4) He was having a 7-year itch;

and (drum rolls please) the biggie:

5) With you, it's *different.* It's about *love.* And *emotions.* Not
just sex. You are *special.* You are not like all those other women he
slept with! And, see, the proof of it is that we were blessed with a
bio-child neither one of us ever thought we could have!!!! That must
mean we are meant to be!!

jen

I think you really hit the nail on the head with the last one, Jen, but I
seriously doubt Paula will ever admit to that. Because to do so would me
*giving him up*. And that would be too hard. Admitedly, that would
take some courage and conviction.

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
k.net...
Paula wrote:
"sue" wrote in message ...


Paula wrote:
I'm actually going to reply to this one again ... I've looked back
over the thread and see nothing from you except this post. I have
no clue at whom you are angry ... but go take it out on them!


I was one of several respondants who, much earlier in the thread, took
issue with the fact that you didn't consider a lie of omission (not
mentioning that he was married) to be a genuine lie.

Ahh, I remember you know. We didn't mesh well the first time
'round, either.

I don't believe anyone is angry at you, but I must say that after
starting to read the thread again after dropping out for a while, it
seems that you haven't made any progress--either in moving on with your
life, or in getting people to validate your and his choices and
excuses.

I didn't say that anyone was angry with me ... I sensed anger in
your post, and it doesn't seem seated in my situation. My comment
was just that you should direct it at whoever "owns" it rather
than me.

And although it may not seem like it to you, I am making progress.
I neither want nor need validation ... I'm just searching for my own
understanding.

Paula

But progress is defined by actions, not just words. What progress?

Holy ****, I agree with you.

(shinypenny) shared:

"Paula" wrote in message ...

I told him about this thread yesterday and about some of the
responses that I've gotten. I agree that while he and I have
contact he is not really working on the marriage. And I talked
to him about that. He agreed ... we'll see if he will agree to not
see me. There's more to discuss, and we will do so.

We'll see if *he* will agree to not see you? Nah, if you're doing it
right, it has nothing to do with whether he agrees or not! If *you*
don't agree to see him, it's end of story. Doesn't matter what he
wants.

Yes, you're right.


Because he feared it, or because it was denied to him? He tried
to talk to her, and it did nothing.


Rationalization. You're trying to idealize his motives again.


Actually, I wasn't trying to idealize anything. I didn't mean that he
didn't fear it, only that it was possible that it was denied.

And anyhow, I bet she's listening now. Thanks to you. Your affair with
him was likely just the wake-up call she needed.

Quite possibly.

You fear intimacy so much you've made a lifetime habit of getting
involved only in relationships that are not possible. It's your way of
getting all the benefits of a relationship that feels like love - all
the swooning, song lyrics, romance - while ensuring one foot is
perpetually planted firmly on the floor. These relationships of yours
can never get too intimate, too scary, because they cannot possibly
live in the real, day-to-day world. Not while the man is still
married.

No, my relationships cannot get too intimate because of the people
with whom I choose to enter into them. I may be afraid, but I've
stopped running.

No, you haven't stopped running at all. You're still holding out for
involvement with a man who 1) is currently not available; and 2) even

if he left his wife, has proved he's incapable of intimacy. When
things get too intimate, he flees. He did it throughout his marriage,
by having affairs, and likely he's doing it now, escaping to see you
when the going gets too hot at home.

My biggest problem with this is that it's based on pure speculation.

It may feel like intimacy, but it's not. Your relationship to date has
not included physical day-to-day proximity, for one thing. You do not
know this man like his wife does. You can't. You haven't slept beside
him, night after night. You haven't washed his underwear. You haven't
held him when he's sick. You haven't argued about who's going to get
up in the middle of the night and bring a bottle to the baby. You
haven't cooked him supper even though you're sick and tired of cooking
his supper. You haven't picked up the newspapers he left on the
bathroom floor. And, you haven't been there when his dad died.

I question whether she was in the way that he really needed her to be.
He's mentioned it quite a few times. He has at least a little
unresolved there.

That last one actually has a lot of significance, I think. Losing a
loved one is very often a major trigger for those who fear intimacy to
go flying. Why? Because it makes you realize how fragile life is, how
you could lose the person you love the most, the person who's your
life-mate, the one you depend on. That's scary as hell. It is not
uncommon at all for people to be vulnerable to infidelity when they
have lost someone close to them, such as a parent or child. It's a way
of putting distance between those they love the most, so the idea of
losing that love isn't so scary.

I suspect this man flew into your arms, 6 months after his dad died,
because he loves his wife deeper than anyone in this world. I know it
sounds completely counter-intuitive. I would even go so far as to say
that the deeper he loves his wife, the greater his fear of losing her,
and thus, the more he has deluded himself into thinking he has this
awesome emotional connection with someone else. Because if he loves
you, then he can't possibly love her quite so deeply.

I had not thought of this. It very well could be quite significant.
Thank you for sharing it.

--
Paula

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
Deconstuction - Indigo Girls