Talk About Marriage banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The OM/OW owe you nothing! yes, they do! here's why!

19K views 250 replies 50 participants last post by  russell28 
#1 · (Edited)
Some on TAM argue that exposure of or revenge on the POSOM/W is wrong, because they owe you nothing, it is all down to your WS. It's all the fault of your WS.

That is not true.

Let's use an analogy.

Let's suppose that you are a police officer dealing with a business where a member of staff has been suborned into helping a con artist steal millions of $£ from the business.

Imagine your anger when the boss refuses to prosecute the con man, but only wants to prosecute his/her member of staff because "The con man owes me nothing but my employee is under contract to me so I will only prosecute them! "

It would be an utterly mad decision, as mad as punishing your WS but NOT punishing the POSOM/W!
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#147 ·
In my fathers opinion I should have walked up to the OM, Said well played old chap, shook his hand and walked away.
The thing is it's not a game, he thought it would be "fun" to humiliate me in my house, by using a support for my condition to place me on the floor. He is living in pain, He wakes up screaming don't hit me again, He lost his wife, and everyone was put on notice that I don't lose with grace.
 
#5 ·
I hear what you are saying, but the person who cheated on you is the one who said vows to you, not the OW/OM. That doesn't make the OW/OM good though. Clearly you can't have an infidelity without two willing parties. sometimes the OW/OM doesn't even know the married is married. (I know this isn't the most likely but sometimes it does happen). Happened recently to a friend of mine. She was seeing a guy and just found out his has a wife. She went totally off on him. Your spouse is the one you are married to who cheated on you. They owed you the vow. OW/OM could be anyone.



 
#38 ·
I hear what you are saying, but the person who cheated on you is the one who said vows to you, not the OW/OM.
It's ridiculous logic like this above that gives OW and OM the green light to trespass into other people's marriages without remorse.

How can we expect others to respect our marriages if we can't even agree they ought to be respected?

I don't give a crap who made vows and who didn't.

My neighbor didn't vow to keep his dog's poop off my lawn, but I still expect him to take his dog's business elsewhere.

And if he doesn't take the dog elsewhere, I blast him off my property.

Vows are nothing. Respect is everything. And everyone ought to be given a degree of respect WITHOUT the need to make a VOW first.

Vows, shmows.
 
#6 ·
Right with you, MattMatt. Morals have so relaxed (or deteriorated) now that many people believe the fallacy of no-responsibility. This spreads across all kinds of behavior, unfortunately. Its hooey BS.

These OM/OW know it is wrong. They know it is harmful, and dangerous. They just don't give a crap about anyone else. The new normal. Is this the best thing for society?

At the risk of being repetitive, it is a good thing for people to expect retaliation, punishment, and basically a black eye for intruding on another's spouse.

Dang, here I go with the boiling blood again. Why does he have to be such a sissy hiding coward? :banghead:
 
#8 ·
Think of it this way: if your house gets broken into you'd certainly want the thief prosecuted. But you'd also take a good, hard look at why your house could be broken into, because if it's possible to get in there will be no end to thieves willing to break in. If you can't fortify your house you might have to move to another house. And even if you can you might never feel safe in your house again.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#10 ·
Think of it this way: if your house gets broken into you'd certainly want the thief prosecuted. But you'd also take a good, hard look at why your house could be broken into, because if it's possible to get in there will be no end to thieves willing to break in.
Not the same at all. You can't compare a spouse who willingly chose to cheat with your house being broken into. The house doesn't choose to be broken into. The spouse who cheated chose to do it.

My point with taking retribution to the AP isn't that the con man is blameless. My issue is that in many cases, the business owner focuses all their anger on the con man, while the employee remains on the job, collecting salary and benefits.
:iagree:



 
#9 ·
I think your analogy is flawed, in many cases. Oftentimes (as in my case), the wayward spouse was out looking for outside "expert" to help them complete a job they couldn't do on their own, like a bank employee who had access to the bank, but needed a safe cracker. Or if nothing else, the "con man" simply came up to them in the bar and said "hey, you work over at so-and-so. Wanna help steal millions of dollars from there?", and the WS thought about it for a minute, and then said "You know what? My boss has been a real SOB for the last few years, and I didn't get my Christmas bonus this year. Let's so it!"

Plus, with regards to the after effects... My point with taking retribution to the AP isn't that the con man is blameless. My issue is that in many cases, the business owner focuses all their anger on the con man, while the employee remains on the job, collecting salary and benefits. Oh, sure... Maybe they don't have quite as much freedom anymore, and maybe they take a small cut in pay... But they still are there, feeling like they dodged a bullet.

My analogy... Worry about dealing with the weasel (WS) in the henhouse (marriage) before you worry about the fox (AP) 3 miles away. All bets are off though, if the fox and weasel are BOTH pillaging in the henhouse still... Or if the weasel is all safely caged up, and the fox is at the door, trying to dig his way in...

C
 
#14 ·
Equally, many times the AP is out on the prowl, and aggressively pursuing a spouse that eventually comes around to his/her advances. No excuse for that, by the way.

By all means, deal with that weasel. I think most all of us do, and very strongly. Once that is done, go find that fox.
 
#17 ·
I'm only interested in the reverse, obviously.

I'd say they owe the spouse at least a face to face meeting, though. To stand somewhere at be held accountable. If they don't agree, there should be nothing wrong with arranging the meeting without their consent.

Debts are paid in many ways. If you owe the IRS, do you have to bring the money to them? No, they take it from you.

If you commit a crime do you have to walk into prison? No, society seeks you out and does it for you.
 
#18 ·
See to me, the weak seek vengeance. It just shows that the OW/OM are still on your mind and in that case have power over you. YMMV.
Your standing in the society determines whether you are judged as weak or strong. If I was a crime lord with a hundred button men, my forgiveness would have had value. A normal guy having normal family and friends living a normal life - if I didn't avenge myself, I would have painted a bullseye on myself as a weakling.

Before anyone tells me I shouldn't be concerned about what the world thinks of me, ask yourself - if the world wasn't important, why do you wear clothes, even in summer?
 
#16 ·
He f'd with my relationship, so I at least owed it to him to f with his.. and he made it easy by cheating on his girlfriend and sugar momma with my wife, all I had to do was tell her all about it. Part of me wanted to tell her because I thought she deserved to know, but a big part wanted to make sure he felt some pain since I was feeling pain that he helped cause. The fact that it saved her from a life with a dbag was just a bonus. I wanted to beat his face in but didn't want to risk punishment, or more horrible finding out he's a better fighter than I am and leaves me with more damage than I can inflict on him.
 
#19 ·
The analogy really doesn't work. As a police officer, I don't serve the business owner. I serve society. Both the employee and the con man conspired to violate the laws of society. I would arrest them both and if the business owner interfered, I'd arrest him/her, too.
Now, the business owner does have a relationship with the employee that he does not have with the con man. The owner can't fire the con man. The owner doesn't have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to punish the employee. The employer doesn't even have to incur a loss to fire the employee. The main difference between the con man and the employee is one violated the trust of the employer.
The employer never placed any trust in the con man. The con man never had access to steal from the employer. The con man can repay the money stolen and agree to never come into the store again. The con man and the employer would be restored to their original status (two people who don't really know each other and don't particular trust each other).
The employee and the employer can't just kiss and make up. The employee can't just repay the money and be restored to the original relationship. The employer will have to conduct an audit because he can't trust any transaction his employee ever made. Any advise or recommendation ever made by the employee will be suspect.
In an adultery, there is more than just a sexual violation. The OM/OW's violation was taking sexual rights legitimately belonging to the spouse. The married partner's violation was vastly compounded and so was the damage. There were series of lies and deceptions, violations of intimacy, massive violations of trust. You were not just a sexual partner with this person but a financial partner, a child-rearing partner, a future planning partner, a property owning partner, secret sharing partner, etc. You were none of those things with the OM/OW. Without the complicity of your spouse, the OM/OW had no power to harm you. Considered in this light, the OM/OW hasn't really harmed you, because the door to your marriage was guarded by your spouse. If your spouse wishes to cheat, does it matter who the OM/OW is or even how many OM/OW there were?
Now, if the OM/OW also had a position of trust with you (a family member, close friend, employer, co-worker, etc), then their violation of you was compounded, but the violation caused by your spouse will always be the greatest.
There is a third person who deserves some share of guilt in an adultery. That is the "victim" spouse. They willingly married a person who would cheat. They failed to guard the relationship.
In your analogy, the employer bears some responsibility. He hired a dishonest employee. Maybe he should have conducted a better background check. He helped create conditions where his employee believed his crimes would go undetected. Maybe he failed to adequately compensate or show appreciation for the employee, thereby giving the employee little reason to remain faithful.
Of the three, the employer can only really fix himself. He has some influence over the employee (if he permits the criminal to remain employed). He has no real influence over the con man. There would be little value in outing the con man because anyone who knows the con man has already figured out he's dishonest. Being a con man, he likely cares little about what others think.
 
#30 ·
Unbelieveable,
Your assessment isn't perfect either, as you neglect to see that the employer/ owner did have a relationship with the con man, if nothing more than as a client/customer. A cursory relationship existed just the same as with any other client/ customer. By having this relationship, the employer/owner has placed a level of trust in the con man that they would act like a law abiding citizen and moral person within their place of business and not steal. Without outting the con man, he is free to go about his business and perform the same disservice to your fellow merchants/ business owners and you have a duty to them to also aid them in knowledge of such low lives that would prey on their trust and decency in mankind, just as the police have a duty and diligence to arrest them.

Also you seem to make the owner responsible for being stolen from. Even with the best background checks, and security in place, they only serve to keep honest people honest. Although I agree to an extent the owner possibly bares some responsibility (depends on the amount of diligence they have taken to protect their inventory/ assists). If you are going to make them responsible and accountable then you have to also hold the con man accountable as well and not just let them roam free to do this again. IF everyone knows they are of shady character then they will have less opportunity in the future to perform the thefts, but if you just let them get off scott free and don't out them, then people whom aren't aware in the future are just as susceptible to being stolen from as you the business owner originally was.

Jellybeans,
As to the house situation, it is fair to want the theft prosecuted and the thief to be held accountable, but it is not fair to try and place human properties on an inanimate object. The house can't think and make choices, so saying that it didn't make a choice to be robbed is unfair as it had no capability to choose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattMatt
#32 ·
What if the OM/OW was a good friend to both spouses?

at a minimum there is a double betrayal there
I have been in his exact situation (actually was told he was my friend, but in reality was only "friending" her to bed her and not really my friend). So I have felt that betrayal and how it hurts, especially when I am not the type to make those I consider to be friends easily (I have lots of acquaintances, but few friends, and even less after that fiasco).
 
#33 ·
Those of you who do not know of my story...After D-DAY I outed the OM ( My wifes Boss) to his BW and filed , ( with the help from and friend who is a well known atty) a multi million lawsuit against their company....They BOTH were fired as a result..

In retaliation the OM came to my off ice and showed me pics of him and my wife doing sex acts she had said for over 20 yrs were sick and disgusting...but there she was doing them...he made the MISTAKE of leaving me a flash drive with the pics on them and as he flipped it to me this is burned in my memory he said "I want you to have this so will always know your wife was a ***** your entire marriage...Just not with you"...

I took the pics to his STBEXW and her ATTY DESTROYED him in the divorce...

After showing the pics to ALL family members and and coupled with them both losing their jobs..She had no fight left..

And the Utter Devastation of 2 families was realized.
If anyone here thinks that the OM/OW should walk free and coutinue with their life as if nothing happened while mine is in ASHES..PLEASE THINK AGAIN.....
 
#34 ·
There are many victims in your scenario. The OM was a boss, so his violation was against whoever owned the company, against every employee, every family member of every employee, and even against every customer and stock holder.
He had a duty to the owner and he placed his own selfish interests above that duty. He had a duty to his employees and to their spouse's and family. He had a duty to any stock holders and a duty to customers to use his time at work to tend to their needs and not to play hook-up with a subordinate.
 
#36 ·
"Also you seem to make the owner responsible for being stolen from."

Obviously, the greater guilt is on the sexual parties. I include the owner (victim spouse) for one simple reason. Productivity. The owner can't undo the wrong that was done. He can't fix his employee or the con man. He does have the power to learn from this event, grow from it, and decrease the odds of it ever happening again. This isn't about fairness. It's about expending one's time in useless pursuits (seeking revenge/stewing about the wrongs of others) or using it as an opportunity for personal growth.
 
#39 ·
Morals have so relaxed (or deteriorated) now that many people believe the fallacy of no-responsibility. This spreads across all kinds of behavior, unfortunately. Its hooey BS.

These OM/OW know it is wrong. They know it is harmful, and dangerous. They just don't give a crap about anyone else. The new normal. Is this the best thing for society?

At the risk of being repetitive, it is a good thing for people to expect retaliation, punishment, and basically a black eye for intruding on another's spouse.

Dang, here I go with the boiling blood again. Why does he have to be such a sissy hiding coward?


It's a delicate thing, this retaliation. I would love to have hurt him, but I have a child. Anything other than a physical beating would not have done much for me.
 
This post has been deleted
#47 ·
There was never any doubt to me that I would out the OM. I didn't go to HR at their workplace, and that's where I held back during exposure. For the rest... family and friends, I told those closest to us about what happened. It put a lot of pressure on her, and it made her fantasy of having + eating her cake collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

As for the OMW, there was never any question she should know. She had been betrayed just as I had been, and what happened had affected both of our marriages. I gave the OM some time to do the right thing while I was dealing with my own troubles... then I did my own PI work, found her, and contacted her. I was told she knew what happened. Of course, she did not. We exchanged about a dozen emails over the course of a day, she thanked me, and we haven't spoken since.

I also exposed an affair wherein my mother's long-time boyfriend had been borrowing my car for a bartending job, and I found a note to him from a waitress at the bar detailing an affair. I stayed home the next day and she kicked him out.

Liars and cheaters love the dark, but they scurry like roaches when you turn on a light.
 
#48 ·
The OM clearly wanted to have sex with my wife. In my state, that is illegal, a felony. He did anyway, he got what he wanted.


I clearly want to face the OM and beat him up. Under most any scenario, this would be a misdemeanor, but also highly likely viewed as "mutual combat". Why should I not get what I want, also?

I don't think any of us care about the "two wrongs" crap in this context.
 
#49 ·
These analogy things are silly. Most of us don’t know the OP personally. So flip it….
You see a picture of a person you don’t know. Do you owe them anything?

Why on earth would you think at all a stranger owes you diddly? Your spouse is hitting on them, your spouse is welcoming that flirtation and asking for more. Your spouse is removing their clothes and screwing them well. A ‘advantage’ of having a SA; You aren’t so blinded or don’t really have those voices in your head trying to convince you this stranger somehow did some jedi mind trick to your otherwise rational, devoted spouse. Your spouse, whether you like to hear it or not, wanted them in their pants and weren’t ‘tricked into it’. If that OP told them no, there were hundreds others in line behind them quite willing too… And, it should be noted, there are a zillion others who wouldn’t.

Your spouse sought out the specific sort of person that wouldn’t say no, or maybe even went so far as to seduce a reluctant ‘no person’ into saying ‘yes’ eventually with promises of discretion and sex they’d have a hard time finding elsewhere.

The OP had a choice. But it had nothing to do with you. It had to do with themselves.
 
#52 ·
These analogy things are silly. Most of us don’t know the OP personally. So flip it….
You see a picture of a person you don’t know. Do you owe them anything?
Yes, you owe them the same respect, humility, courtesy, and dignity that all other humans deserve. By messing with your spouse and family, they are not giving you the same as is suggested above.

So on that same flip side, since I don't know this person and have only seen a picture of them should I be able to disparage, discriminate, and harass them based upon what I see within that picture and not be held accountable since I didn't take a vow to them, I choose to do this , and don't owe them anything either (as that is exactly what they did to me and my family)?? This should be enough to exonerate me of all wrong doing, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattMatt
#56 ·
Oh… You are also leaving out the part where your wonderful wayward actually sought out the kind of person who wouldn’t think about the ramifications it’d have to your family or flat out didn’t care. AND YOUR SPOUSE KNEW THIS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER. She didn’t seek out those who’d oppose adultery and hid it from anyone who’d advise against it… like you, your family, her parents, your parents, etc. She didn’t want to be talked out of it, so she sought out those (which are the minority) who would go along with it. Bet she used “deserve” a lot too when justifying herself….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top