# Husband vs Player



## WhiteRaven

Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


----------



## Lostinthought61

maybe its not the hard player that can change the course of someone desires but the weak wife (partner) who allows themselves to be prone to invitations even those unwarranted and unwanted originally


----------



## Jellybeans

Free will, my friend.

You can't make her do or not do anything.

Ultimately it's up to her.

But you can set boundaries and enforce them...


----------



## happi_g_more2

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


Thats a pretty nondescript scenario. My initial response is:

If the husband has no idea..hasn't been told and doesn't suspect anything then

yeah, be such a great, phenomenal husband that your wife literally cries at the thought of being with another man for all the pain it would cause her husband.

If he does suspect that his wife is being pursued
Go nuke that ****. confront both people, spread the word that OM is going after your wife.

just my opinion


----------



## xakulax

happi_g_more2 said:


> If he does suspect that his wife is being pursued
> *Go nuke that ****. confront both people*, spread the word that OM is going after your wife.
> 
> just my opinion




:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## adriana

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.



I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


----------



## Jellybeans

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


THE TRUTH!!!

:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


It IS that simple. Women who don't want the attention outright avoid it. They don't hang around to be charmed. There's absolutely nothing a man can do to "player proof" his SO. Its all on her.


----------



## badmemory

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her?


I don't believe it's possible to "stop" a wife from straying if she's inclined to do so.

As far as I'm concerned, any man who would cheat with a married woman is a player - and much worse. So I'd be less concerned about watching out for players; than knowing I could trust my wife with one. 

That said, if I knew another man was hitting on my wife; I'd do everything I could to make him regret that he did.


----------



## WhiteRaven

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


Then why do players have far more success getting women?


----------



## Squeakr

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


Because they read the women and only go after those that are susceptible. Thye schmooze them and talk to them for a little while and know whether they are happy in their current relationship or not. They know the buttons to push to get the results they and the women want.


----------



## yeah_right

Any secure, confident semi-intelligent woman with a lick of maturity can easily shut down a player. Period. Guys, you know I'm right because you've probably all experienced a shut-down/rejection at some point.

If she doesn't shut him down, it's all on her.


----------



## bryanp

It is because the woman wishes to be played. If some hot woman wanted to jump your bones would you cheat on your wife? Make it clear to your wife if she cheats on you she is looking at divorce. If your wife does not want to cheat she will not cheat. If she is willing to cheat then your marriage is already shot.


----------



## yeah_right

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


Because they target women who are needy, classless, have poor boundaries or lack common sense. Confident women can smell a player's bullshizzz from a mile away.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Any secure, confident semi-intelligent woman with a lick of maturity can easily shut down a player. Period. Guys, you know I'm right because you've probably all experienced a shut-down/rejection at some point.
> 
> If she doesn't shut him down, it's all on her.


Shutting a guy down isn't enough. I've gotten the "shut down" and still ended up hooking up with the girl. I ignore it and continue building rapport. Never anyone married, but I doubt its any different for any woman open to the attention - even if she gives the knee jerk cold shoulder or rejection because she doesn't want to be "picked up". As long as you're talking, you can be seduced. The ones who are "impervious", if you will, don't hang around for the song and dance. The ones who do hang around, enjoy the dance. To the others, every overly friendly guy seems to be a "threat" and they actively avoid.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Because they target women who are needy, classless, have poor boundaries or lack common sense. Confident women can smell a player's bullshizzz from a mile away.


Untrue... unless liking the attention is "needy". Again, if you sense he's a player, he's probably not a very good player. If a woman doesn't want to be played, she doesn't entertain overly friendly guys. She doesn't give them a chance to build a connection.


----------



## Jellybeans

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more *success* getting women?


A player is* only* successful if a woman green lights his advances. 

It takes two. A player can't play if a woman won't let him.


----------



## Jellybeans

bryanp said:


> It is because the woman wishes to be played.


I think not. Nobody WANTS to be played. What is normally happening is that the supposed player talks a mean game (and doesn't back it up with actions); so the woman hangs on with the hopes that something will actually culminate/become a real thing. Most of it is just wishful thinking. 

One of my dearest friends has pulled more a$$ in his life than one would think is even humanly possible. I have seen it in action. It's unreal. He gives the woman just enough to keep them coming back. Promises of a lot of sh!t, really, and it works for him.

The only ones it doesn't work on is the ones who shut him down. Can't play someone if they don't want your advances.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Jellybeans said:


> Promises of a lot of sh!t, really, and it works for him.


If you don't mind, would you elaborate about the promises part?


----------



## weightlifter

The player is stronger. They will probe damn near FOREVER.

Does not make the cheating wife innocent.

We've seen it here at least 4 times.


----------



## weightlifter

yeah_right said:


> Because they target women who are needy, classless, have poor boundaries or lack common sense. Confident women can smell a player's bullshizzz from a mile away.


Bzzzzt WRONG! (respectfully. maybe YOU can) The friending player comes off WAY different than bad boy or the looks player.


----------



## davecarter

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


Exactly.
I'd like to see admissions from betrayed husbands, who, hand-on-heart, can say _"My marriage was perfect. There were NO problems. But this guy went after her hard and she cheated."_

It doesn't happen.

A Player / Predator / OM / whatever...does not even get to 1st-base unless there is a problem in a marriage...and even then, he'd probably have to work the wife hard.

My marriage, was, quite frankly, _sh!t_ before my wife had her head turned by OM#1:
friendship > boundaries tested / pushed > problems admitted / right things said > affair...separation.

Looking back, I can see how it wasn't that hard for the OM to bag my wife...


----------



## Philat

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Untrue... unless liking the attention is "needy". Again, if you sense he's a player, he's probably not a very good player.* If a woman doesn't want to be played, she doesn't entertain overly friendly guys.* She doesn't give them a chance to build a connection.


This is where boundaries come in. If they are strong enough it doesn't matter who is trying to breach them or how good a player he is.


----------



## davecarter

weightlifter said:


> Bzzzzt WRONG! (respectfully. maybe YOU can) The friending player comes off WAY different than bad boy or the looks player.


RIGHT!
My wife's OM#2 (a so-called 'friend' of mine) had an almost perfect combination of friendship, intelligence, attitude, confidence and looks.
He even turned her head away from OM#1!


----------



## weightlifter

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


I am NOT a player and I could teach any man median looks and median charm or better how to be a friending player The formula is SICKENINGLY easy. DV8 is simply very good at using the formula and will move more quickly away from women who have zero chance.

DV8 (IF he is all he says he is) could be your best friend if he was inclined. HE would be able to tell you very early the odds of your prospect cheating, long before the ring giving stage.


----------



## WhiteRaven

weightlifter said:


> The formula is SICKENINGLY easy.


:iagree:.


----------



## weightlifter

We are ~4 weeks from me going to print with the RDMU diaries. He is currently in a massive work project but has my first draft and wants a few changes.

I have in hideous gruesome detail just how long and how Mrs. RDMU was played and yes, 11 years in it was her first affair. At this point of all the hate and angry PMs I've received I don't care if that is not believed that it was her first affair. 

For those mentioning boundaries... It is a big PART of it.

SHE WAS WORKED BY A FRIENDING PLAYER FOR 9 MONTHS before she gave in.


----------



## azteca1986

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


No. The husband can't. But the wife can. Her choice.


----------



## hawx20

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


:iagree: Doesnt matter if you are a man or woman. Even if the most beautiful woman I've ever seen came up to me and told me to take her, I couldnt do it.

I love my family to much to damage it. Sadly, not everyone thinks this way.


----------



## Jellybeans

WhiteRaven said:


> If you don't mind, would you elaborate about the promises part?


Selling the idea that they have a future together of any sort (that could be a date together on the weekend, sex somewhere together, together years down the line). It's feeding them HOPE in any way/form/fashion. 



weightlifter said:


> I am NOT a player and I could teach any man median looks and median charm or better how to be a friending player The formula is SICKENINGLY easy. DV8 is simply very good at using the formula and will move more quickly away from women who have zero chance.


It is a numbers game, I guess. The only numbers you can work with are the ones who are willing to let you in.

Simple as that.


----------



## davecarter

weightlifter said:


> We are ~4 weeks from me going to print with the RDMU diaries. He is currently in a massive work project but has my first draft and wants a few changes.
> 
> I have in hideous gruesome detail just how long and how Mrs. RDMU was played and yes, 11 years in it was her first affair. At this point of all the hate and angry PMs I've received I don't care if that is not believed that it was her first affair.
> 
> For those mentioning boundaries... It is a big PART of it.
> 
> SHE WAS WORKED BY A FRIENDING PLAYER FOR 9 MONTHS before she gave in.


But as the diary will show, there was a rather large problem that existed in that not-as-perfect-as-you'd-imagine marriage. :nono:


----------



## weightlifter

Jellybeans said:


> Selling the idea that they have a future together of any sort (that could be a date together on the weekend, sex somewhere together, together years down the line). It's feeding them HOPE in any way/form/fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a numbers game, I guess. The only numbers you can work with are the ones who are willing to let you in.
> 
> Simple as that.


Partly right. Players will do numbers but also will know the strongest ones earlier and go on to easier targets AND work the formula better AND have far more angles to get to a woman's issues and weaknesses to exploit.

Usually the issue is the husband ironically.. or not. Kinks are another. turning 40, 50 or menopause is another set. Side note: We are likely to see a spike in the following 3-12 months following the 50 shades movie. That set cant wait for the movie. There is a reason AM cheatersite recommends that book.


----------



## WhiteRaven

weightlifter said:


> We are likely to see a spike in the following 3-12 months following the 50 shades movie.


Or spike in sale of sex toys


----------



## Jellybeans

What's that saying? Don't hate the player, hate the game?


----------



## happy as a clam

Midwest Guy said:


> My apologies if this sounds like a stupidly obvious question, but what are the "signs" of a player? In other words, how do you spot one in action?:scratchhead:


My experience with players trying to play (especially in the workplace) are the following signs:

> Flashes a lot of smiles at you
> Will wink at you as though the two of you are sharing an "inside joke"
> Very physical -- touches your arm, touches your leg, will "steer" you by your elbow if you're walking in somewhere
> Will create a crisis or "problem" that only YOU can help with. "Boss wants this report by Thursday. Since you worked on this account last year, can you help me get this done ASAP?" Never mind that there are 5 other people on his team that are better suited to help.
> Will say things like "With a beautiful smile like yours, why aren't you smiling more?!" All in an attempt to get you to open up about your problems.
> When you DO help him with his report, he will suggest the two of you "wrap things up" over a quick drink after work. He knows that one drink leads to two (then three, then four). Then you're half-lit and he can really start dropping his smooth lines and go for the kill.
> No to him never means no. He'll just try again tomorrow. You have to be very assertive with these guys.
> If you do say no, he will announce in front of everyone, "Well, Carol NEVER comes out with us after work!" All in an attempt to get the coworkers to side with him in a friendly ganged-up way to coax you out.
> He gets too close, invades your "personal space." If you're at the copier or coffee station he will come up right behind you. At your desk, he will lean over your work, much closer than a normal person would. If someone walks by, he may even whisper a wisecrack in your ear, of course he's once again "letting you in" on a little "innocent" office humor. The real reason is to lean in and whisper in your ear to throw you off guard and send a tingle down your spine.

Those are just a few examples that come to mind from the resident office jerk I once worked with. Truly nauseating...


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


Stop? Not without consequence. Far better to prevent the opportunity for a player to look enticing in the first place.

Simplest thing you can do? 
Pay attention. 

If the man (you) that your wife fell in love with has quietly transitioned from independent, fun, adventurous, romantic and spirited, weekend warrior to complacent, eager to please, predictable, pudgy, boring couch potato, than you have some adjustments to make.

This is why it is NEVER going to hurt a married man to be familiar with the attraction play book.

If a player shows up, you'll know it. If he's gaming your wife, you'll know it.

If he takes her away from you ... and you think that's 100% on her, then you're naieve.

You should KNOW at any given moment in your relationship where things stand with your partner. Its your job to know whether or not you are meeting her needs ... or not ... or if you are even interested in doing so. 

In summary, if your wife has already disconnected from you and made the decision in her head that its over, odds are the problems have been entrenched long before a player showed up. There is precious little you can do to change that in the short term if she now has eyes for someone else.


----------



## davecarter

Deejo said:


> Stop? Not without consequence. Far better to prevent the opportunity for a player to look enticing in the first place.
> 
> Simplest thing you can do?
> Pay attention.
> 
> If the man (you) that your wife fell in love with has quietly transitioned from independent, fun, adventurous, romantic and spirited, weekend warrior to complacent, eager to please, predictable, pudgy, boring couch potato, than you have some adjustments to make.
> 
> This is why it is NEVER going to hurt a married man to be familiar with the attraction play book.
> 
> If a player shows up, you'll know it. If he's gaming your wife, you'll know it.
> 
> If he takes her away from you ... and you think that's 100% on her, then you're naieve.
> 
> You should KNOW at any given moment in your relationship where things stand with your partner. Its your job to know whether or not you are meeting her needs ... or not ... or if you are even interested in doing so.
> 
> In summary, if your wife has already disconnected from you and made the decision in her head that its over, odds are the problems have been entrenched long before a player showed up. There is precious little you can do to change that in the short term if she now has eyes for someone else.


Crack-on.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



Midwest Guy said:


> My apologies if this sounds like a stupidly obvious question, but what are the "signs" of a player? In other words, how do you spot one in action?:scratchhead:
> 
> Thank you in advance for any feedback.


Get yourself a copy of a dating or pickup artist book.

Learn the game.

Whether or not you choose to play is up to you.


----------



## WhiteRaven

happy as a clam said:


> My experience with players trying to play (especially in the workplace) are the following signs:
> 
> > Flashes a lot of smiles at you
> > Will wink at you as though the two of you are sharing an "inside joke"
> > Very physical -- touches your arm, touches your leg, will "steer" you by your elbow if you're walking in somewhere
> > Will create a crisis or "problem" that only YOU can help with. "Boss wants this report by Thursday. Since you worked on this account last year, can you help me get this done ASAP?" Never mind that there are 5 other people on his team that are better suited to help.
> > Will say things like "With a beautiful smile like yours, why aren't you smiling more?!" All in an attempt to get you to open up about your problems.
> > When you DO help him with his report, he will suggest the two of you "wrap things up" over a quick drink after work. He knows that one drink leads to two (then three, then four). Then you're half-lit and he can really start dropping his smooth lines.
> > No to him never means no. He'll just try again tomorrow. You have to be very assertive with these guys.
> > If you do say no, he will announce in front of everyone, "Well, Carol NEVER comes out with us after work!" All in an attempt to get the coworkers to side with him in a friendly way to coax you out.
> 
> Those are just a few that come to mind from the resident office jerk I once worked with.


This guy was a one trick pony. Players vary their game depending on women. Give attention to the needy, give a problem to the fixer, give a challenge to the arrogant.


----------



## yeah_right

I guess I'm seeing it from my perspective and it seems easy to me. I've been shutting guys down for 30 years. Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.

If it's not generic talk about work, sports, tv shows, then I really don't chit chat with men. Because I'm in the camp of thought that men and women can't be friends. I also don't need a lot of ego-stroking from guys. But I realize that there are women with low self-esteem or even divas who crave attention that can open themselves up to players.

I just want you guys to know that there are some women who maintain boundaries. We're not all easy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

weightlifter said:


> I am NOT a player and I could teach any man median looks and median charm or better how to be a friending player The formula is SICKENINGLY easy. DV8 is simply very good at using the formula and will move more quickly away from women who have zero chance.
> 
> DV8 (IF he is all he says he is) could be your best friend if he was inclined. HE would be able to tell you very early the odds of your prospect cheating, long before the ring giving stage.


To be fair to myself, I've never intentionally pursued "taken" women. I ignore things like "I have a bf" and what not because a LOT of the time, these are bs things said because a woman doesn't want to be "picked up". ie she's actually single, waiting for her girls to arrive on a GNO, and can't see herself dating anyone she met in a bar or whatever. Its a common refrain and really just a sign she has her defenses way up. Others act dismissive or uninterested, and warm up to you once it seems like you're not trying to get anything from her.

On the prospects of cheating, I'd say that not avoiding - in effect allowing him to play or quietly enjoying male attention *could* be a bad sign. I still wouldn't pursue a "taken" woman, but I'd think such a woman is more likely to be "vulnerable" if the circumstances line up (rough patch w hubs... whatever).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Philat said:


> This is where boundaries come in. If they are strong enough it doesn't matter who is trying to breach them or how good a player he is.


Right, can't be charmed if you don't hang around to hear the song.


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> Get yourself a copy of a dating or pickup artist book.
> 
> Learn the game.
> 
> Whether or not you choose to play is up to you.


Hmm...even I may pick this book so I can learn some tips to use. Hahahaha.



WhiteRaven said:


> This guy was a one trick pony. *Players vary their game depending on women. *Give attention to the needy, give a problem to the fixer, give a challenge to the arrogant.


Yes. Absolutely right.


----------



## happy as a clam

WhiteRaven said:


> This guy was a one trick pony. Players vary their game depending on women. Give attention to the needy, give a problem to the fixer, give a challenge to the arrogant.


Well, he may have been a one-trick pony, but I saw him score with all kinds of women -- from middle-aged, tired, overworked, married women all the way to the fresh, young, single intern. H*ll, he even scored with our courier delivery gal!!!

I'm thinking he had more than one trick in his bag.

Btw, he was divorced but supposedly had a girlfriend who he always talked about but no one ever saw or met. I guess he was too busy banging everyone else to bring her around :scratchhead:


----------



## WhiteRaven

yeah_right said:


> I guess I'm seeing it from my perspective and it seems easy to me. I've been shutting guys down for 30 years. Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.
> 
> If it's not generic talk about work, sports, tv shows, then I really don't chit chat with men. Because I'm in the camp of thought that men and women can't be friends. I also don't need a lot of ego-stroking from guys. But I realize that there are women with low self-esteem or even divas who crave attention that can open themselves up to players.
> 
> I just want you guys to know that there are some women who maintain boundaries. We're not all easy.


You are one in a million. Not many women think in the same way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

weightlifter said:


> SHE WAS WORKED BY A FRIENDING PLAYER FOR 9 MONTHS before she gave in.


That's dedication! TBH, most aren't going to run it for 9 months... but some just keep "being available" if they sniff something "off" about her relationship. I think this is a sleazy, weak tactic - being the guy who she can complain about hubby to. "Why doesn't he 'get me' like you do?" Bleh.


----------



## yeah_right

WhiteRaven said:


> You are one in a million. Not many women think in the same way.


I have to respectfully disagree. There are plenty of us out there. Unfortunately, stories of those women aren't typically posted on TAM.


----------



## WhiteRaven

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's dedication! TBH, most aren't going to run it for 9 months... but some just keep "being available" if they sniff something "off" about her relationship. I think this is a sleazy, weak tactic - being the guy who she can complain about hubby to. "Why doesn't he 'get me' like you do?" Bleh.


The playa that hit my marriage ran the game for 14 months.


----------



## Squeakr

yeah_right said:


> Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.


But doesn't this apply for women as well. We all have problems in our life, so why would they care about yours and what happens behind your front door, if not to make themselves feel better about their life? 

I just don't understand while anyone feels the need to confide in someone other than their spouse about the "negative" issues in their life, be it the same sex or not. It just seems that this does nothing but drive a wedge between the couple and is akin to exposure of an A. It is this hidden knowledge and complaint system that undermines the marriage.


----------



## weightlifter

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's dedication! TBH, most aren't going to run it for 9 months... but some just keep "being available" if they sniff something "off" about her relationship. I think this is a sleazy, weak tactic - being the guy who she can complain about hubby to. "Why doesn't he 'get me' like you do?" Bleh.


I believe it the difference between the mundane and ones that work the married/ attached women deliberately. Weve had a couple in the six month range.

I know a looks player and a bad boy player. NEITHER would work a woman a week. Hell the looks player gets propositioned outright.


----------



## WhiteRaven

yeah_right said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. There are plenty of us out there. Unfortunately, stories of those women aren't typically posted on TAM.


If there are plenty like you out there, why do men in TAM end up with the rotten eggs?


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's dedication! TBH, most aren't going to run it for 9 months... but some just keep "being available" if they sniff something "off" about her relationship. I think this is a sleazy, weak tactic - being the guy who she can complain about hubby to. "Why doesn't he 'get me' like you do?" Bleh.


I disagree with this. The "friending" player will run it as long as they need and want to, there is no predetermined time, because they are a "friend" and getting a desired response of attention which they are using to their advantage,


----------



## yeah_right

Squeakr said:


> But doesn't this apply for women as well. We all have problems in our life, so why would they care about yours and what happens behind your front door, if not to make themselves feel better about their life?
> 
> I just don't understand while anyone feels the need to confide in someone other than their spouse about the "negative" issues in their life, be it the same sex or not. It just seems that this does nothing but drive a wedge between the couple and is akin to exposure of an A. It is this hidden knowledge and complaint system that undermines the marriage.


Yes, it applies to women. I don't ask men about their wives unless they just gave birth. I certainly don't want to hear about anyone's marriage woes, because I can't solve them. I also don't talk badly about my H in front of anyone, male or female, beyond nodding about toilet seats or dirty underwear on the floor in the shallow way a group of women will. No one is going to fix my marriage except the people in it.

I'm sorry, this just seems so basic to me.


----------



## Miss Taken

Pardon while I get on my soapbox for a moment. :soapbox:

After being a member here for one and a half years, I'm pretty tired of reading all about these "players". A cheating wife is not without a mind of her own. 

Some men might be better at schmoozing than others but when it comes to cheating, she is not some hapless victim of a player. If she cheats all of the onus is on her. Most of the anger and the responsibility should be towards her. I don't care if he's Don Juan. I don't care if he's hung like Ron Jeremy but has the looks of Channing Tatum. 

Speaking from just one of my experiences, back in 2010, I was both sexually and emotionally unsatisfied with WS and I could have cheated with a supervisor. I knew he wanted me and he was inappropriate towards me, for example, he even leaned over me one day, both arms on either of my sides, against the filing cabinet until I told him I was going to knee him in the balls if he didn't move. 

He was rich, he was smart, very popular at work and he was attractive and giving me all the signs that he was available. Still I DID NOT CHEAT. I didn't cheat because I have boundaries and when I'm in a relationship - fulfilling or not, I commit to that one person until that relationship is over. Actually, I made the choice to tell WS (before he was a WS) what this coworker was doing and we decided not to renew my contract at that company at the end of my term because I was uncomfortable working there - especially because a lot of his advances happened in front of other coworkers and bosses who didn't care. If your wife cheats, it's not the fault of some player. She cheated because she made a choice.

I have had many other experiences similar to this (including one involving a "befriending player" that was actually WS's friend) but not one resulted in me spreading my legs or opening up my heart for another man and it never will. 

/Rant over


----------



## survivorwife

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


Because they prey on several women at a time until one "bites". A Player will flirt and pursue several women. If one doesn't take the bait, it's possible that the next one will. A player has no conscience and their game does not involve emotions, so dropping one woman, pursuing another, and still looking for more doesn't bother them at all. 

That's why it only appears that they are more successful. The truth is that they are shallow, selfish creatures who don't care who they score with. Quantity over Quality.


----------



## Jellybeans

I think your post spot on, Miss Taken. No player can edge their way in unless it's welcomed.


----------



## Squeakr

yeah_right said:


> Yes, it applies to women. I don't ask men about their wives unless they just gave birth. I certainly don't want to hear about anyone's marriage woes, because I can't solve them. I also don't talk badly about my H in front of anyone, male or female, beyond nodding about toilet seats or dirty underwear on the floor in the shallow way a group of women will. No one is going to fix my marriage except the people in it.
> 
> I'm sorry, this just seems so basic to me.


I agree on the seems basic to me part, as that is how I feel as well. But (when I said the applying to women as well) I was more interested in the exchange from woman to woman, as even though the thought of sharing marriage, kid, other issue information with a man is taboo, some women seems to feel that exchanging this with their girl friends is a different story. I see it as undermining the relationship (and yes I feel the same way about exchanges solely between men, but those generally don't happen as we are not as open and emotional creatures with our close buddies) and driving the wedge as well. 

It just seems to me that we would be better off if we confided in our spouses more and left more to the imagination with our friends.


----------



## Clay2013

I think it really is all on your SO. If they cheat then they chose to do it. You can say a player just worked them but in truth they allowed this person to get that close to them. They allowed it to happen. Its on them. Now if you choose to stay with someone like that then that is the choice you make. If they cheat again well you knew what you were getting into. I own my mess with my xW. I knew she had low morals. I thought I could help her and we could have a better life together. She just played the game they all do and the only ones that got hurt is me and the kids. I personally will never allow her back in my life again. Do I hate her? No. I just don't care anymore. You have to choose what you will put up with. 

Clay


----------



## WhiteRaven

Squeakr said:


> It just seems to me that we would be better off if we confided in our spouses more and left more to the imagination with our friends.


We don't like to tell our spouses our problems because we would have to resolve them. Friends lend a sympathetic ear, blame your spouse for the problem, and in general make you feel better.


----------



## mahike

If your wife was played it was because she allowed it to happen. I am betting she was really hoping something would happen.

Guys that are players are usually very confident guys and that is what the woman really wants or she really wants.

I think you should tell us what happened and maybe we can give you some advice


----------



## WhiteRaven

I divorced my WW 4 months ago and then paid the OM in the same currency. His playa days are over and BS years have started.


----------



## Squeakr

WhiteRaven said:


> We don't like to tell our spouses our problems because we would have to resolve them. Friends lend a sympathetic ear, blame your spouse for the problem, and in general make you feel better.


...at the expense of your spouse and marriage, because by doing this all they are doing is feeding you bull, prolonging the issues, and not really helping. If they were helping they would point out your issues as well and help you to work through them instead they are pacifying. 

Sorry but your definition of what a friend does sounds like the beginning of the textbook definition of a toxic friend to me as the pain never gets better, but the hatred for the spouse grows and the marriage breaks down with this prescribed recipe.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Squeakr said:


> ...at the expense of your spouse and marriage, because by doing this all they are doing is feeding you bull, prolonging the issues, and not really helping. If they were helping they would point out your issues as well and help you to work through them instead they are pacifying.
> 
> Sorry but your definition of what a friend does sounds like the beginning of the textbook definition of a toxic friend to me as the pain never gets better, but the hatred for the spouse grows and the marriage breaks down with this prescribed recipe.


:iagree:


----------



## survivorwife

Squeakr said:


> But doesn't this apply for women as well. We all have problems in our life, so why would they care about yours and what happens behind your front door, if not to make themselves feel better about their life?
> 
> I just don't understand while anyone feels the need to confide in someone other than their spouse about the "negative" issues in their life, be it the same sex or not. It just seems that this does nothing but drive a wedge between the couple and is akin to exposure of an A. It is this hidden knowledge and complaint system that undermines the marriage.


And yet this whole forum is full of people, men and women, who are confiding to strangers about their private lives and problems, looking for answers. Sometimes people go outside of their marriage partner for answers, looking for an objective point of view. 

Enter the player who fills that role. Is willing to listen. Is willing to side with and sympathize with the poor soul who is sharing their problems. The player doesn't care, but will listen. A woman who falls for this will feel that she can't talk to her husband. Husband is unavailable. Player is. Soon that intimacy which once belong to the husband is now being bestowed upon the player. And there you have the game.

And what we have here on the forum is story after story from the BS, and sometimes the WS because the family intimacy was broken because one of the parties shared their vulnerability with someone other than their spouse.


----------



## naiveonedave

the problem is there are no boundaries anymore. plus the internet making it easy to talk to someone and much more work interaction between the sexes.


----------



## yeah_right

survivorwife said:


> And yet this whole forum is full of people, men and women, who are confiding to strangers about their private lives and problems, looking for answers.


This is a small segment of the population and also a niche because it's mostly people who have been affected some way by an affair and/or marital problems. It is better to confide to some nameless people here than the seemingly nice person sitting in the next cubicle at work.

Plus, to only use my own example, I feel I post quite a bit and still have not shared my full story because it is my own personal journey. Again, I can only speak for myself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.
> 
> If it's not generic talk about work, sports, tv shows, then I really don't chit chat with men. Because I'm in the camp of thought that men and women can't be friends. I also don't need a lot of ego-stroking from guys. But I realize that there are women with low self-esteem or even divas who crave attention that can open themselves up to players.
> 
> I just want you guys to know that there are some women who maintain boundaries. We're not all easy.


I don't think that women who are susceptible to these things are "easy" in a derogatory sense. Its a play on emotions. If you're signaling emotional neglect, lonely or needy - he'll be there for you. If you're the "hard" type, he'll focus on getting past the defenses and being "real", or not seeming to try to get you at all. I approached a whole table of girls once, rather innocuously, and still got called out ("shot down"). They were ribbing me pretty good. I rolled with it admitting what I was looking for and ended up spinning it into a conversation where they helped me pick someone else to go hit on - but it kept the conversation going and that meant the ball was still in play - more time to build rapport. I kept talking, cracking jokes about the women they pointed out and we all had fun. Ended up getting one of the girl's to give me her number when they left - so I could ask her on a proper date. She said she knew she'd regret it but still gave me the number. 

Now, maybe they were just playing hard to get, I don't know... but its not just vulnerable women. Personality plays a big part in attraction, and if you're already attached, you don't give someone a chance to connect. They could have asked me to move on so they could girl talk. They never sent me away... they just tried to ridicule/pick at me and I rolled with it instead of being defensive; I joked and teased them back. Nobody objected when I pulled a chair up, they just picked at me saying I was a glutton for punishment.

Its all about connection. If she keeps talking there's a good chance I'll find a way to connect. I like to talk and verbally spar. lol

I agree that men and women can't be friends... at least, unless there is zero spark of attraction. But women who really don't want attention, avoid it... and that's how you don't let players get a hook. All will power can be broken if the right person says the right things and makes a connection. That's just human nature I think. Once a connection is made, instead of reasoning why we can't/shouldn't, we rationalize why its not that bad.


----------



## survivorwife

yeah_right said:


> This is a small segment of the population and also a niche because it's mostly people who have been affected some way by an affair and/or marital problems. It is better to confide to some nameless people here than the seemingly nice person sitting in the next cubicle at work.
> 
> Plus, to only use my own example, I feel I post quite a bit and still have not shared my full story because it is my own personal journey. Again, I can only speak for myself.


Agreed. We all came here with a marital question and/or problem to garner some advise from strangers. We are all anonymous so that the focus is on the issue and not the person. We withhold some personal information to retain our privacy and anonymity. The point - in general terms - is that we are all going outside of our marriage to seek and/or offer advise.

A Player will offer the same service, listening/advising/shoulder to cry on in real life and for an obviously different purpose.

I submit that sharing on this forum among anonymous friends is the healthy and safe way to get answers. Dealing with a real-life Player is not.


----------



## Squeakr

survivorwife said:


> And what we have here on the forum is story after story from the BS, and sometimes the WS because the family intimacy was broken because *the cheating spouse shared * vulnerability with someone other than their spouse.



:iagree: This is so true. I ma a correction for you, as even though the BS is just as responsible for the problems in the marriage, it is the WS that chose to violate the sanctity of the vows and desecrate the M that causes the BS to seek out someone else, as their WS is not there for them and has moved on to others.

If we had more WS and BS marriages that mirror'd the Adam's R and way about it, we would have a lot less threads here. Instead the WS generally seek consolation in their friends and others leaving the BS with no where to turn but here.

Also being here isn't really the same as relying on a friend, as unless you decide to post incriminating evidence, everyone here os really faceless, just with a little different twist on the same story. Names and faces generally concealed to protect the guilty and innocent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Squeakr said:


> I disagree with this. The "friending" player will run it as long as they need and want to, there is no predetermined time, because they are a "friend" and getting a desired response of attention which they are using to their advantage,


I was referring to most guys who are what people would consider, "players" - they're not going to run it 9 mos. The type being referred to here, being friends and running 9 month best friend pseudo courtships are just really passive men imo. That's more effort than a player is going to bother with. I don't know if I can even call these types players. They're so passive because they can't get female attention without being "the best buddy" - and even this paltry female attention is a "high" for them.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Miss Taken

yeah_right said:


> This is a small segment of the population and also a niche because it's mostly people who have been affected some way by an affair and/or marital problems. It is better to confide to some nameless people here than the seemingly nice person sitting in the next cubicle at work.



Agreed.

There is a big difference between using a forum like this where some anonymity can be held or disclosing intimate details privately with a coworker or "friend of the marriage". 

When you share intimate details like that with a "friend" --- intimacy can develop. It's a no-brainer. When the intimacy develops, that makes one more vulnerable for an EA to develop as the lines get blurred and often crossed. 

I look at TAM and sites like it such as SI as being similar to a neutral 3rd party such as a counselor is also (supposed to be) a neutral third party. It's a different dynamic and safer for both the individual and the couple to turn to a neutral 3rd party if they're going to turn anywhere other than the spouse at all. Of course, there is the PM and friending feature on this site but again - BOUNDARIES are important and most people here respect them.


----------



## WhiteRaven

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was referring to most guys who are what people would consider, "players" - they're not going to run it 9 mos. The type being referred to here, being friends and running 9 month best friend pseudo courtships are just really passive men imo. That's more effort than a player is going to bother with. I don't know if I can even call these types players. They're so passive because they can't get female attention without being "the best buddy" - and even this paltry female attention is a "high" for them.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


:iagree:. There are some who run long term games with multiple women on the side. It gives them the power trip.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WhiteRaven said:


> :iagree:. There are some who run long term games with multiple women on the side. It gives them the power trip.


That's just weird. I don't know anyone who does that. If you can get laid after a night out, or even a week or so of talking, why would anyone put 9 months of effort into it?

I gotta think its because they can't get any otherwise. Calling them players is an insult to players. lol


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was referring to most guys who are what people would consider, "players" - they're not going to run it 9 mos. The type being referred to here, being friends and running 9 month best friend pseudo courtships are just really passive men imo. That's more effort than a player is going to bother with. I don't know if I can even call these types players. They're so passive because they can't get female attention without being "the best buddy" - and even this paltry female attention is a "high" for them.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


I beg to differ as oboe of the WW's OMs was exactly that, a "friending" player. I never saw it as he was so lay in his approach and only attempted when no one was around. He was someone the wife said was my friend (I don't know if I even considered him one), he was a neighbor, and he was married. He ran his game and had his cake at home, so need to be over the top, over-bearing, aggressive, and pushy. He just created his little nest, so to speak.


----------



## xakulax

To be honest after reading everyone post I haft to say this a player can only play if the wife allow it its that simple. If she wants to cheat she will cheat and it dose not matter if a player,coworker, best friend or the mailman if your spouse is incline to cheat then they will cheat. 

This thread reminds me of great quote that sume it up: who's more foolish the fool or the fool who follows him


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Why go after a married woman though? Seems like single women would be more fertile soil. Has he done this before? He could just be a hapless opportunist.


----------



## weightlifter

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think that women who are susceptible to these things are "easy" in a derogatory sense. Its a play on emotions. If you're signaling emotional neglect, lonely or needy - he'll be there for you. If you're the "hard" type, he'll focus on getting past the defenses and being "real", or not seeming to try to get you at all. I approached a whole table of girls once, rather innocuously, and still got called out ("shot down"). They were ribbing me pretty good. I rolled with it admitting what I was looking for and ended up spinning it into a conversation where they helped me pick someone else to go hit on - but it kept the conversation going and that meant the ball was still in play - more time to build rapport. I kept talking, cracking jokes about the women they pointed out and we all had fun. Ended up getting one of the girl's to give me her number when they left - so I could ask her on a proper date. She said she knew she'd regret it but still gave me the number.
> 
> Now, maybe they were just playing hard to get, I don't know... but its not just vulnerable women. Personality plays a big part in attraction, and if you're already attached, you don't give someone a chance to connect. They could have asked me to move on so they could girl talk. They never sent me away... they just tried to ridicule/pick at me and I rolled with it instead of being defensive; I joked and teased them back. Nobody objected when I pulled a chair up, they just picked at me saying I was a glutton for punishment.


And the monster arms in your pic didn't hurt much either did they?


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why go after a married woman though? Seems like single women would be more fertile soil. Has he done this before? He could just be a hapless opportunist.


If that is meant at me, then the answer is: he is a shrew!! He is the lowest of low, and has done this before. He is a wanna be player that has little skill, or desire by and with the single females. He is 50 going on 13 and thinks he is the sh!t. He is afraid to hang it all out there like the player he lets on to be (lest his wife takes what little they have), so he prays on those that have as much to lose as he does and capitalizes on it.


----------



## naiveonedave

there are alot of advantages of hooking up with married women:
* lower risk of stds
* no concern over pregnancy
* no need to spend a lot of $ on them.

probably more, but those stand out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

weightlifter said:


> And the monster arms in your pic didn't hurt much either did they?


lol you must be looking at someone else's pic... I'm not a big guy. My metabolism is most uncooperative.


----------



## Squeakr

naiveonedave said:


> there are alot of advantages of hooking up with married women:
> * lower risk of stds Cheaters have a better chance of STD as they are less likely to be concerned with them and think they are immune to them as they think being caught in the moment is a protection substitute
> * no concern over pregnancy Unless the APs are in menopause, they have the same concern as any other woman and man have of pregnancy
> * no need to spend a lot of $ on them.Unless not counting the dollars spent on secret hotel getaways, trips to be together, rendezvous that need to be hidden, etc, the costs can escalate whereas normal healthy relationships can do it without these costs that come with hiding things.
> 
> probably more, but those stand out.


Wow this is the most misdirected list I have ever seen. With possibly the exception of the last one (and that seems to be stretching it), I don't see how these are even valid. Se my responses above.


----------



## yeah_right

Here is my stereotype image of a guy who goes after married women.

- Age is 35-55
- Stuck in mid-level job but feels shut out of promotion due to others...never his fault
- Overall decent health/looks but has a low self esteem issue (beer belly, low testosterone, balding, moobs)
- Also married but zero interest in divorcing his wife
- Takes up an interest for its chick magnet abilities (flashy sports car, running/biking in tight or little clothing, skydiving, pilot lessons)

I am not targeting anyone in general. This is my personal idea from what I've witnessed over time. Just like not every woman is susceptible to a player, not all men who fit any of these traits is a player.

Ultimately, I feel the men who consistently target married women do it for the thrill of the chase. They have no long term designs on that particular woman. They are simply opportunists.

Edit - This is different from the young, single player who is hitting up single girls for "hook ups".


----------



## naiveonedave

Don't get your post a all Squeakr

If you are the player, married women are less likely to have STDs, just do the math. The likely have many fewer partners over time and if they contract one from an affair, the hubby would know.

If they are married, the woman is going to have to either divulge affair or its the husbands baby

If it plays out as i read here, there are no romantic getaways or any of those costs. Only need FB and a cell phone and a place to live, esp if the player is single.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Naïve, your list presumes the married person hasn't cheated before... not at all a sure thing given they are cheating now. All other things are likely the same - paying for hotels, gifts etc, pregnancy is still real. That's the point squeakr is making.


----------



## Squeakr

naiveonedave said:


> Don't get your post a all Squeakr
> 
> If you are the player, married women are less likely to have STDs, just do the math. The likely have many fewer partners over time and if they contract one from an affair, the hubby would know.
> If they will cheat with you, they will cheat with others. There is no honor among thieves. We think they are less susceptible, but lots of the cheaters are not on their first go around at the rodeo, so their chance of having an STD are the same as others have, and unless one spouse contracts something that requires Dr visits, most won't even know if they are a carrier of an STD.
> If they are married, the woman is going to have to either divulge affair or its the husbands baby So they have less of a chance of being saddled with a baby, which is different than less chance of getting pregnant. Ask lots of the WS's on here and lots will admit that they never used protection (I know my WW never did or thought about it) as they are in the moment, think the other person is so clean, great, whatever adjective fits here, so protection is not a thought which makes them more prone to issues and susceptibility than others.
> 
> If it plays out as i read here, there are no romantic getaways or any of those costs. Only need FB and a cell phone and a place to live, esp if the player is single.


And if not single then the costs of hotels to meet up and do the deed. A cost that singles don't have. You are looking at this as the players are all single men hitting on married women, but you are missing ⅔ of the picture, namely married men hitting on single women, and married men hitting on married women.


----------



## xakulax

naiveonedave said:


> Don't get your post a all Squeakr
> 
> If you are the player, *married women are less likely to have STD*s, just do the math. The likely have many fewer partners over time and if they contract one from an affair, the hubby would know.


That's based on the assumption the husband is not cheating if so the odds go up by a lot


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Here is my stereotype image of a guy who goes after married women.
> 
> - Age is 35-55
> - Stuck in mid-level job but feels shut out of promotion due to others...never his fault
> - Overall decent health/looks but has a low self esteem issue (beer belly, low testosterone, balding, moobs)
> - Also married but zero interest in divorcing his wife
> - Takes up an interest for its chick magnet abilities (flashy sports car, running/biking in tight or little clothing, skydiving, pilot lessons)
> 
> I am not targeting anyone in general. This is my personal idea from what I've witnessed over time. Just like not every woman is susceptible to a player, not all men who fit any of these traits is a player.


!!!

I object!! That's my age, I'm balding, have a flashy car, run in sleeveless workout shirts or no shirt at all, and I skydive. Plus, I want to take pilot lessons!!! 

Watch yourself missy! :cussing: I have zero interest in sleeping with married women. That's just asking for drama. :rofl:


----------



## Squeakr

xakulax said:


> That's based on the assumption the husband is not cheating if so the odds go up by a lot


So true. In fact I would bet that the chances of contracting an STD from a single person are less than they are with a married person, as the single person generally thinks about those things and prepares for them. Whereas lots of times the married person doesn't think about STDs as they haven;t had to worry about that concern in so long they forget to prepare, such as purchase condoms, spermacide, etc, and they also think how would they explain those things being found by their spouse, so they roll the dice and take their chances. Besides their AP is clean and STD free, right? I mean they discussed it and the AP would never lie to them as they are honest people, right?


----------



## yeah_right

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> !!!
> 
> I object!! That's my age, I'm balding, have a flashy car, run in sleeveless workout shirts or no shirt at all, and I skydive. Plus, I want to take pilot lessons!!!
> 
> Watch yourself missy! :cussing: I have zero interest in sleeping with married women. That's just asking for drama. :rofl:


Just as I am not going to fall into bed with some dumba$$ trying to be my friend...no matter how long or hard he tries.

OK, and I don't care if you work out naked in private. But so many men like to run in nuthugger shorts and nothing else in my neighborhood, then try to chat up the moms pushing kids in strollers. Icky! Also the bike guys who like to unzip their bike onesies past their navels. For the love of God men, please don't!!!!! :tool:


----------



## naiveonedave

agree to disagree. 

Married women are less likely to have STDs, maybe the risk doesn't matter to a player, but the odds of my statement being true seems much more likely.

But there would be no worries for a player to get a married woman pregnant. She either blows up her marriage or hides it.

To get a single girl you have to wine and dine much more, based on what I have read here.


----------



## Philat

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think that women who are susceptible to these things are "easy" in a derogatory sense. Its a play on emotions. If you're signaling emotional neglect, lonely or needy - he'll be there for you. If you're the "hard" type, he'll focus on getting past the defenses and being "real", or not seeming to try to get you at all. I approached a whole table of girls once, rather innocuously, and still got called out ("shot down"). They were ribbing me pretty good. I rolled with it admitting what I was looking for and ended up spinning it into a conversation where they helped me pick someone else to go hit on - but it kept the conversation going and that meant the ball was still in play - more time to build rapport. I kept talking, cracking jokes about the women they pointed out and we all had fun. Ended up getting one of the girl's to give me her number when they left - so I could ask her on a proper date. She said she knew she'd regret it but still gave me the number.
> 
> Now, maybe they were just playing hard to get, I don't know... but its not just vulnerable women. Personality plays a big part in attraction, and if you're already attached, you don't give someone a chance to connect. They could have asked me to move on so they could girl talk. They never sent me away... they just tried to ridicule/pick at me and I rolled with it instead of being defensive; I joked and teased them back. Nobody objected when I pulled a chair up, they just picked at me saying I was a glutton for punishment.
> 
> Its all about connection. If she keeps talking there's a good chance I'll find a way to connect. I like to talk and verbally spar. lol
> 
> I agree that men and women can't be friends... at least, unless there is zero spark of attraction. But women who really don't want attention, avoid it... and that's how you don't let players get a hook. All will power can be broken if the right person says the right things and makes a connection. That's just human nature I think. Once a connection is made, instead of reasoning why we can't/shouldn't, we rationalize why its not that bad.


TAM husbands should read this very carefully and often. Truth.


----------



## Squeakr

naiveonedave said:


> agree to disagree.
> 
> Married women are less likely to have STDs, maybe the risk doesn't matter to a player, but the odds of my statement being true seems much more likely.
> 
> But there would be no worries for a player to get a married woman pregnant. She either blows up her marriage or hides it.
> 
> To get a single girl you have to wine and dine much more, based on what I have read here.


Players are players and women are women. Marital status doesn't make one more or less susceptible. Show me the statistics you are basing this upon if you are so sure this the case, as there must be study done on this I would bet, right?

What really matters is the issue of monogamy that counts and how promiscuous one is, which doesn't make one group any more susceptible than the other, and not the marital status.

Once again, the worries of a player getting a woman pregnant are just as real whether she is married or not. So what if she blows up her marriage, or her H finds out that it is not his, this has nothing to do with whether the player *"can get her pregnant or not*" as you seem to think he has less worry of that. The worry is still there as long as they are having sex. Him having to raise the child is another different and totally unrelated issue and not the same as the risk of getting someone pregnant. Being a sperm donor is different than being a daddy (obviously you don't understand this fact by your statements), but any fertile male has the same chance of getting a woman pregnant whether she is married or not, so long as he is having intercourse with her during the time of her cycle (the cycle doesn't care if she is married or not).

You are categorizing all single girls as higher maintenance? I don;t think this is true. The player has just as much chance of bedding her without cash out of pocket as he does the married woman. Once again marital status has nothing to do here. You are comparing being a player to dating and those are two different things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Just as I am not going to fall into bed with some dumba$$ trying to be my friend...no matter how long or hard he tries.
> 
> OK, and I don't care if you work out naked in private. But so many men like to run in nuthugger shorts and nothing else in my neighborhood, then try to chat up the moms pushing kids in strollers. Icky! Also the bike guys who like to unzip their bike onesies past their navels. For the love of God men, please don't!!!!!
> :tool:


:rofl:

No... no nuthugger shorts for me. Just... no. My biking is limited to mountain biking and there's no way in hell I'm going to wear a onesie. LOL Well, okay... I wear a one-piece leather suit on my motorcycle at the race track and yes, I unzip that thing past my navel but I'm still wearing under armor.

If I may defend my car... after getting divorced, the desire to drive something that has an absolutely singular, uncompromising purpose is high - after driving do-it-all family vehicles and having to compromise everything. No one is there arguing for a back seat or fuel economy. I kept my 4 dr truck, but still... you come out wanting that sports car that wifey always vetoed. At least I sure did. lol Chicks don't figure into the equation... at least directly.

Some of it might be mid-life crisis stuff (but I've always raced motorcycles and been a skydiver), but no way these things are indicative of pursuing married women.


----------



## yeah_right

I'm talking bicycle guys who unzip to show off their sweaty chest hair. OMG! And I bet you know one or two guys who do what I'm talking about.

As for the car...my kids and I play a game of "guess who's driving". When we are approaching a flashy sports car they chime out "middle aged white man with younger woman passenger". Sadly, they are too often correct with that one. LOL!

Edit - To be fair, I drive a sports convertible that a lady of my station does not usually have (i.e. minivan, SUV). Ha!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> I'm talking bicycle guys who unzip to show off their sweaty chest hair. OMG! And I bet you know one or two guys who do what I'm talking about.


Unfortunately, yes... they're older than me though. I think its gross too. 



yeah_right said:


> As for the car...my kids and I play a game of "guess who's driving". When we are approaching a flashy sports car they chime out "middle aged white man with younger woman passenger". Sadly, they are too often correct with that one. LOL!


lol... guilty, although I'm at the lower bound of being considered "middle aged" and car isn't THAT "flashy", just a little convertible two-seater.

AND I am quite happy with my career progress!


----------



## Deejo

Midwest Guy said:


> So, with all of this said. Can it be assumed that the majority of all cases of infidelity involve a player?


Not at all.

Not every affair partner is a 'player'. It USUALLY, quite simply is someone that your partner could talk to, and connected with ... because they didn't feel they could talk to, or connect with you.

Most of the posts here in my eyes are ignoring the elephant in the room ... most people, most ... do NOT choose to commit infidelity out of the blue without already having a substantially damaged or dysfunctional marriage.

I'm not implying that makes cheating valid or acceptable. But if you think the PROBLEM is a smooth talking pickup artist or player ... then folks, you most certainly aren't paying attention.


----------



## yeah_right

I agree with Deejo. My H is not a player and his EA was just a slippery slope that began from a harmless chat at work. And while I despise the Skankarella, I don't believe she set out purposely to ensnare him. I have to think the majority of affairs start from something like that.


----------



## adriana

Jellybeans said:


> Nobody WANTS to be played. What is normally happening is that the supposed player talks a mean game (and doesn't back it up with actions); so the woman hangs on with the hopes that something will actually culminate/become a real thing. Most of it is just wishful thinking.



Actually, I often get an impression that "getting played" part doesn't really matter to many single women as long as they're getting their fun out of it. They're perfectly aware of what is going on but allow it as their part of playing the game. When they get bored or if a _playa_ fails to deliver they simply pull the plug and move on.


----------



## honcho

The player finds the weakness and exploits it to his benefit. Since that person is only concerned about their fun it makes no difference to them what line of garbage they tell them. Players appear to have a great deal of success and they do because it’s a numbers game, they try it on just about everyone that fits what they are looking for.

They don’t care if they get shot down or rejected 10 times sooner or later ones says yes. Can a spouse stop the game of a player? Its not the spouses job to stop it but the responsibility of the one straying. 3 people are generally playing this game and one usually has no idea whats going on. How can the clueless one, the BS stop it? 

They wayward has all the choices, they can get played, they can allow themselves to get played, they think they are the ones playing and in control. It comes right down to they had a choice each and every step of the way.

Players do prefer married women in general, not because of stds or pregnancy they are easier prey. Single women in general are getting hit on all the time, they have attention. The player also knows its easier to get rid of a married ones. Single are looking for relationships, married are looking for adventure or something they are missing at least in the beginning. 

While every marriage has some dysfunction in it, none are perfect its also hard to pinpoint those issues because by the time affairs start, the history rewriting has already started.


----------



## adriana

weightlifter said:


> We are ~4 weeks from me going to print with the RDMU diaries. He is currently in a massive work project but has my first draft and wants a few changes.
> 
> I have in hideous gruesome detail just how long and how Mrs. RDMU was played and yes, 11 years in it was her first affair. At this point of all the hate and angry PMs I've received I don't care if that is not believed that it was her first affair.
> 
> For those mentioning boundaries... It is a big PART of it.
> 
> SHE WAS WORKED BY A FRIENDING PLAYER FOR 9 MONTHS before she gave in.



I'm not familiar with RDMU story but I'm absolutely convinced that a _friending playa_ wouldn't have been pursuing his wife for 9 months if she didn't send any encouraging vibes in one form or another. If she weren't interested in him, she would have just told him to get lost.


----------



## davecarter

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was referring to most guys who are what people would consider, "players" - they're not going to run it 9 mos. The type being referred to here, being friends and running 9 month best friend pseudo courtships are just really passive men imo. That's more effort than a player is going to bother with. I don't know if I can even call these types players. They're so passive because they can't get female attention without being "the best buddy" - and even this paltry female attention is a "high" for them.
> 
> Just my thoughts.


Good point.
The guy who tagged my wife? 6 days.
I've read the emails they exchanged from Day #1.
I was the damn chump who even got suckered into them meeting face-to-face.


----------



## davecarter

adriana said:


> I'm not familiar with RDMU story but I'm absolutely convinced that a _friending playa_ wouldn't have been pursuing his wife for 9 months if she didn't send any encouraging vibes in one form or another. If she weren't interested in him, she would have just told him to get lost.


This is what Weightlifter knows...and the rest of us don't!
Correct me if I'm wrong WL, but didn't it all start via an innocent but probing comment on the beach while she was reading '50 Shades Of Grey'?


----------



## adriana

yeah_right said:


> I guess I'm seeing it from my perspective and it seems easy to me. I've been shutting guys down for 30 years. Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.
> 
> If it's not generic talk about work, sports, tv shows, then I really don't chit chat with men. Because I'm in the camp of thought that men and women can't be friends. I also don't need a lot of ego-stroking from guys. But I realize that there are women with low self-esteem or even divas who crave attention that can open themselves up to players.
> 
> I just want you guys to know that there are some women who maintain boundaries. We're not all easy.



:iagree: Exactly! It's just a matter of common sense.


----------



## BWBill

_. . . . but I'm absolutely convinced that a friending playa wouldn't have been pursuing his wife for 9 months if she didn't send any encouraging vibes in one form or another. If she weren't interested in him, she would have just told him to get lost. 
_

Depends upon the force of the "get lost". I've known guys who take "no" as greater challenge. It can take a third party, such as a spouse or an HR to department, to put the pursuit to a halt. Many women who think they can handle these guys on their own eventually succumb. Most of those regret it.


----------



## yeah_right

I have perfected a death stare that has never failed me. With a simple look of disdain I can convey the message "Fvck off! Your futile attempts make me vomit and you probably have a small penis anyway."

Many, many women CAN handle these guys without assistance! We are not all simpering fools!


----------



## hospitality

The wildcard is that a woman's hypergamy causes her to rewrite history or the current status of her relationship. Take a happily married man and woman that are paired together on a very important project. Take the classic Monday morning conversation piece "so what did you do this weekend?" Happily married guy, "I coach my sons baseball team and we had a tournament in Las Vegas all weekend. My son hit the game winning home run!"


Happily married woman thinks, "my husband isn't athletic, isn't a leader and man I wish my son wasn't the embarrassment of his baseball team unlike HMM's son!" 

The fog of an emotional affair moves in very very very slowly. Most of the women I know who have had a PA were the ones I thought had zero chance of having one.


The best defense is to be the best man you possibly can in every aspect of your life and pay ATTENTION!


----------



## vellocet

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


Why would you want to honestly? When you know that your wife wants another man, just because you stop her doesn't stop her desire to be with some bad boy player. 

If a woman wants a bad boy over you, let her have him. Then she'll be crying about how he did her wrong later and why she can't find a good man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Women can handle any guy... it only depends upon what the woman really wants. Again, women who really aren't interested, give the guy zero room to play. They avoid/ignore him entirely. In the long-term friend guy scenario, this takes some awareness on her part to not mix messages at all.

There is no reason to be telling another man your marital problems.


----------



## BWBill

Didn't mean to imply you or many, many women couldn't (or that they don't, because they do). 


But many women try to stop it without making waves or hurting feelings when what is required is the death stare, the threat of physical harm or the threat of termination of employment.


----------



## yeah_right

hospitality said:


> Happily married woman thinks, "my husband isn't athletic, isn't a leader and man I wish my son wasn't the embarrassment of his baseball team unlike HMM's son!"


No, happily married woman does NOT think that. Unhappily married woman...maybe. But happily married woman is probably listening with half an ear while mentally planning her to-do list for the week.


----------



## yeah_right

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is no reason to be telling another man your marital problems.



Never, ever, ever...unless the man is your divorce attorney!

No man needs to know about the state of your marriage. Most women don't need to know either. Work it out at home!


----------



## hospitality

yeah_right said:


> Never, ever, ever...unless the man is your divorce attorney!
> 
> No man needs to know about the state of your marriage. Most women don't need to know either. Work it out at home!


Your life tells a player all he needs to know about your marriage. No need to bother verbalizing it.


A player notices:
--when your child clearly shows he/she has very little male influence that indicates an absentee father
--how you act at parties together
--how you dress
--how you react to your wealth compared to others
--level of excitement/travel/activity in your relationship
--how you spend money (lots of pmts show poor financial management and stress in a relationship) shows whether you are happy or living beyond your means
--what you do for a living compared to what your husband does
--what is the job status of husband's career? 
--do you appear to be overwhelmed getting the kids to school (I think this is the biggest one)
--do you constantly talk about your spouse positively 
--how your spouse acts
--is your spouse a leader at work, church, social events or sports
--is your spouse in shape
--is your spouse always getting promoted


----------



## MattMatt

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


Well, I f**king couldn't.

But we did reconcile.


----------



## Philat

yeah_right said:


> I have perfected a death stare that has never failed me. With a simple look of disdain I can convey the message "Fvck off! Your futile attempts make me vomit and you probably have a small penis anyway."
> 
> Many, many women CAN handle these guys without assistance! We are not all simpering fools!


It would do me a world of good to actually SEE my wife do this.


----------



## Racer

My wife’s LTPA was a player. I unfortunately had no idea at all until DD. Had I known she was being pursued, I could have done something.

I used that to wreck her. This is a woman who normally believes herself to be smart and not gullible. She can’t stand the idea of being used or manipulated. That is exactly what he did. I could see it sink in when, using my own copy of “The Game” showed her the boilerplate moves she experienced. I found him online, bragging it (his seduction of her) up to the rest of the players and getting advice; her own memories can haul up when he did that or said that to haunt her. It was all right there like directions on how to play her (and did). And she gets to live with the humiliating haunting memories of just how easy she was played. Stupid and gullible: Sad facts finding out you are exactly your own worst fear and insecurity (as well as your own worst enemy).

If you catch it early enough, she can see that pattern and keep it in mind and shut it down. For some dumb reason, women choose to believe that in general, men can be friends; even when intentions start showing they try to prove this theory ‘right’ by downplaying it. “Oh he was just joking around that he’d love to bend me over and f’ me! He’s always using sexual induendo with everyone...” (and on and on with redflags as he puts out feelers to see who bites and who isn’t) 

Then you need to discuss why she attracts such lowlifes. Part of it with my wife was her public bashing of me and her dissatisfaction with our marriage. Might seem ‘ok’ at the time to whine about your relationship, but to a player sort, they see that as opportunity. A woman deeply in love with someone and showing it isn’t a easy mark... one unhappy in a relationship is though. She needs to be mindful of whom she projects out there on her own; happily married, or ‘fed up’ with her spouse? Even if she says ‘happily’, they watch for signs and may try anyway. 

As someone else stated... even dress says something about you. There’s a difference between looking great and looking for attention. Other things like flirtation. How much you are drinking. Eye contact or wandering and so forth put off that ‘window shopping’ vibe. My wife was shopping.... and of coarse guys noticed and moved in. So I don’t blame them... I still blame my wife entirely for how she found herself a wayward.


----------



## weightlifter

>there are alot of advantages of hooking up with married women:
* lower risk of stds*Cheaters have a better chance of STD as they are less likely to be concerned with them and think they are immune to them as they think being caught in the moment is a protection substitute*<
I submit the number is lower. NOT zero. Overall fewer partners.
>* no concern over pregnancy*Unless the APs are in menopause, they have the same concern as any other woman and man have of pregnancy <
No concern if she gets preggers unless hubby is snipped. Clueless hubby will be the unknowing dutiful cuckhold of his wifes [email protected]

DV8 you are an entirely different critter than the friending player. You may share some techniques but we are referring to RDMUs Bob or Philly's Kurt or Daves Darren.

>If you catch it early enough, she can see that pattern and keep it in mind and shut it down. For some dumb reason, women choose to believe that in general, men can be friends; even when intentions start showing they try to prove this theory ‘right’ by downplaying it. “Oh he was just joking around that he’d love to bend me over and f’ me! He’s always using sexual induendo with everyone...” (and on and on with redflags as he puts out feelers to see who bites and who isn’t)*

Then you need to discuss why she attracts such lowlifes. Part of it with my wife was her public bashing of me and her dissatisfaction with our marriage. Might seem ‘ok’ at the time to whine about your relationship, but to a player sort, they see that as opportunity. A woman deeply in love with someone and showing it isn’t a easy mark... one unhappy in a relationship is though. She needs to be mindful of whom she projects out there on her own; happily married, or ‘fed up’ with her spouse? Even if she says ‘happily’, they watch for signs and may try anyway.<

QUOTE OF THE DAY!
See above
Philly got it in time
RDMU did not

I use the terrorist example. Players only need to be right a small fraction of the time and they usually get multiple attempts at the same target.

The husband is the CIA and has to be right EVERY TIME WITHOUT FAIL or he loses.

Players play the rush women get from attention. The women like the attention and tell themselves its OK since its just a bit inappropriate. We post "the list" a bunch of times on how women get pushed slowly up the inappropriateness hill.

Left handed compliments like. "Your husband must work very hard to pay so little attention to you." 

I never said the women are not guilty. I am 99% convinced the RDMU situation would not have happened had the RIGHT player not been around AND given dozens of chances AND been willing to stick it out. If you want to disagree, feel free.

The numbers games theories are correct. The REASON they will stick it out to work it for 9 months. Most of them are already banging two other mens wives. He is merely working on their replacements.


----------



## WyshIknew

So no one thinks that it is quite conceivable that a spouse who wouldn't ordinarily stray might be played by an expert PUA?

I've seen at least one thread on here where the WS has said.



> I initially thought that he was going after my friend who is single.


Which is apparently PUA stuff.



> That is so standard... Hit on the friend, to assert your desirability to the target (the real target). Then change focus to target who will then be much easier to get...
> 
> Yeah, this guy had the basic moves in place. But you only went there because you wanted it.


Not trying to make excuses for waywards but there must be some scenarios where a wayward gets totally bamboozled by a playa.


ETA, just seen the above two posts.


----------



## Philat

Racer said:


> “Oh he was just joking around that he’d love to bend me over and f’ me! He’s always using sexual induendo with everyone...”


I effin' HATE this, and have heard it from my W many times. "Oh, he always does that." "He calls everyone 'Dear'." "He jokes about @[email protected] sex with everyone."

Just because someone is inappropriate with everyone doesn't make it excusable.


----------



## sidney2718

adriana said:


> I'm not a man but I can tell you that if a woman doesn't want to get played there is absolutely nothing a _playa_ can do about it. It's really that simple.


But is there a guarantee that she knows she's being played?


----------



## sidney2718

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


Because they offer affection, caresses, attention, complements, exciting sex, etc. to a woman who isn't getting enough of those things at home. And that mainly stems from the fact that in a marriage you have to worry about the laundry, washing dishes, cleaning under the living room couch, and so on, while in an affair you have none of those little things to worry about.


----------



## sidney2718

weightlifter said:


> We are ~4 weeks from me going to print with the RDMU diaries. He is currently in a massive work project but has my first draft and wants a few changes.
> 
> I have in hideous gruesome detail just how long and how Mrs. RDMU was played and yes, 11 years in it was her first affair. At this point of all the hate and angry PMs I've received I don't care if that is not believed that it was her first affair.
> 
> For those mentioning boundaries... It is a big PART of it.
> 
> SHE WAS WORKED BY A FRIENDING PLAYER FOR 9 MONTHS before she gave in.


Glad to hear that the diaries are progressing. I think that this has a chance to be one of those things that many betrayed men (and possibly women) should read. And thanks to you, it may be possible.


----------



## sidney2718

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's dedication! TBH, most aren't going to run it for 9 months... but some just keep "being available" if they sniff something "off" about her relationship. I think this is a sleazy, weak tactic - being the guy who she can complain about hubby to. "Why doesn't he 'get me' like you do?" Bleh.


You may say bleh, but "playing" can work both ways. I've seen married women attempt to get a male's attention by getting him alone and telling him about her marriage problems.

Some of these encounters, believe it or not, are sincere. But it doesn't matter, at that point if the male is a player, the woman is practically certain to get nailed.


----------



## sidney2718

Jellybeans said:


> I think your post spot on, Miss Taken. No player can edge their way in unless it's welcomed.


I wish it were that simple. The problem is that a long term player first sets up a relationship that crosses NO boundaries. As time goes on and the friendship develops, the relationship creeps up close to the boundaries and then one day sneaks slightly across them.

You know the drill. The woman thinks: "If that came from anybody else besides Joe Player, I'd take it as inappropriate. But good old Joe is a good friend and doesn't mean anything by it."

So slowly slowly the friendship grows and the boundaries fade. And soon enough more and more boundaries are crossed. Should the woman be on the lookout for this. Sure. But I'm just pointing out that in "real life" it often isn't that simple.


----------



## clipclop2

Kneecaping. Holding. Clipping.


----------



## sidney2718

Midwest Guy said:


> So, with all of this said. Can it be assumed that the majority of all cases of infidelity involve a player?


No.


----------



## honcho

Even if you catch it early enough or think you have caught it early enough its too late. Even in the case of women when they know he is the player type, the women have convinced themselves that all the compliments, the smooth talk is really true. I am the special one to him and he will change his ways for me. 

You can tell the WS all you want how they are being played, step by step how it will progress and eventually fall apart. All the BS generally gets to do is “I told you so” at the end and the WS will never believe it till its happened. Happy or unhappy married people can fall to the player. The happy one just takes more time and the player has plenty of time, worst a woman can do to him is say no and that doesn’t bother him, that just means not today. Its not like he only focusing on one person at a time.

Do WS get bamboozled? Of course they do because they allow themselves to. People get bamboozled everyday because generally if its too good to be true, its just that.


----------



## sidney2718

adriana said:


> Actually, I often get an impression that "getting played" part doesn't really matter to many single women as long as they're getting their fun out of it. They're perfectly aware of what is going on but allow it as their part of playing the game. When they get bored or if a _playa_ fails to deliver they simply pull the plug and move on.


Not being female puts me at a disadvantage here, but in my experience quite a few women like a bit of attention from men. It validates their femininity and older women are more susceptable to it than younger ones.
That doesn't mean that any boundaries are crossed, but still...


----------



## manticore

yeah_right said:


> I guess I'm seeing it from my perspective and it seems easy to me. I've been shutting guys down for 30 years. Basically, I don't trust any guy who wants to discuss my H, kids or anything that goes on inside my home. Because why on earth would he care...unless he wants something. I also don't trust guys who compliment too much.
> 
> If it's not generic talk about work, sports, tv shows, then I really don't chit chat with men. Because I'm in the camp of thought that men and women can't be friends. I also don't need a lot of ego-stroking from guys. But I realize that there are women with low self-esteem or even divas who crave attention that can open themselves up to players.
> 
> *I just want you guys to know that there are some women who maintain boundaries. We're not all easy.*


Agree, while I accept that players can become experts in emotionally engaging and manipulating married women (some of them have decades of experince doing it), is true that WW have to let themselves open to these players for them to succeed, in a way is like hypnotism, it does not happen unless you let yourself be hypnotized, whatever happens after being hypnotized is up to you for letting yourself in that position.

*lets not give these scumb bags more power of what they really have*, what I mean by this?, is true that they know exactly what to say and how to act, but lets be honest, they are not doing nothing extroidinary, they are just faking emotions and bahaviours to acchive their goal (in this case banging the married woman), the difference between them and OMs who really want a relationship with the WW, is that players dissapear once that they are caught as their emotions were fake and their objetive was acchived, while OMs who are "in love" (or in fantazy land whatever you want to call it) are willing to lose as much as the WW (leave their wives, hurt their family and kids, being openly branded as scum bags, etc).

*so the true here is that any WW that cheated with a player would have also cheated with any man who would have been sincerily interested in her while ignoring her marital status, so its not the power of the player the factor that make him succeed but the weakness in the WW*.

I once opened a thread talking of how once that WWs are emotionally engaged they pretty much will give their loyalty to the OM, but the question here is why they let themselves be emotionally engaged to other men other than their husbands?, true, most of these men used the friendling statregy to approach the WW for months before anything happened, but the women were the ones that allowed it.

for example, the user "herhusband", his OM also worked the WW for months, the affair began as friendly posts in a forum and evolved to phone and chat conversations, the more important difference here is that the OM was not a player, even if at first look he seemed like one (he was 10 years younger than the WW, the kids described him as cool and good looking, he emotionally engaged the WW by social media for months) he wanted to marry "herhusband"'s wife and even tried to get her pregnant for her to not return to "herhusband", even after she returned and was trying reconcilation, the OM still tried to win her back many times, he fought the critizism of his family.

Does the fact that he was not a player make it easier for the BS? *hell no*, sometimes is maybe even worst, the OM really interested will stick around, wanting to take decissions concerning the ww bahaviour, involving himself in the life of the kids and other relatives, I think that in the long run a OM that is sincerily interested in the WW will cause more harm to the BS that the OM player that cowardly dissapears.

married people have the resposability of keeping healthy boundaries , players don't have magic powers that destroy these boundaries, we are talking of a serie of decissions that were taken month after month which in the end resulted in an affair.


----------



## over20

sidney2718 said:


> But is there a guarantee that she knows she's being played?


I think that's a tough one....I know that sometimes I think the man is just being "Nice"..especially if it's from one of DH close friends..:scratchhead:


----------



## adriana

sidney2718 said:


> But is there a guarantee that she knows she's being played?


Actually, it doesn't really matter because a woman, with a healthy dose of self-respect, will have a set of strong personal boundaries in place and react the same way regardless if she's being played or not.




sidney2718 said:


> I wish it were that simple. The problem is that a long term player first sets up a relationship that crosses NO boundaries. As time goes on and the friendship develops, the relationship creeps up close to the boundaries and then one day sneaks slightly across them.
> 
> You know the drill. The woman thinks: "If that came from anybody else besides Joe Player, I'd take it as inappropriate. But good old Joe is a good friend and doesn't mean anything by it."
> 
> So slowly slowly the friendship grows and the boundaries fade. And soon enough more and more boundaries are crossed. Should the woman be on the lookout for this. Sure. But I'm just pointing out that in "real life" it often isn't that simple.


You're right but, once again, it's a matter of lack of strong personal boundaries. For instance, I don't allow any touching. Absolutely NONE. My body is completely off limits and my "personal space" is NO FLY ZONE. So, does it really matter if any of my male friend has any hidden agenda? Nope! I always keep my distance and the same goes for other aspects of our interacting. We're friends.... not lovers!




sidney2718 said:


> Not being female puts me at a disadvantage here, but in my experience quite a few women like a bit of attention from men. It validates their femininity and older women are more susceptable to it than younger ones.


I agree with you but it wasn't my point.


----------



## RClawson

happy as a clam said:


> My experience with players trying to play (especially in the workplace) are the following signs:
> 
> > Flashes a lot of smiles at you
> > Will wink at you as though the two of you are sharing an "inside joke"
> > Very physical -- touches your arm, touches your leg, will "steer" you by your elbow if you're walking in somewhere
> > Will create a crisis or "problem" that only YOU can help with. "Boss wants this report by Thursday. Since you worked on this account last year, can you help me get this done ASAP?" Never mind that there are 5 other people on his team that are better suited to help.
> > Will say things like "With a beautiful smile like yours, why aren't you smiling more?!" All in an attempt to get you to open up about your problems.
> > When you DO help him with his report, he will suggest the two of you "wrap things up" over a quick drink after work. He knows that one drink leads to two (then three, then four). Then you're half-lit and he can really start dropping his smooth lines and go for the kill.
> > No to him never means no. He'll just try again tomorrow. You have to be very assertive with these guys.
> > If you do say no, he will announce in front of everyone, "Well, Carol NEVER comes out with us after work!" All in an attempt to get the coworkers to side with him in a friendly ganged-up way to coax you out.
> > He gets too close, invades your "personal space." If you're at the copier or coffee station he will come up right behind you. At your desk, he will lean over your work, much closer than a normal person would. If someone walks by, he may even whisper a wisecrack in your ear, of course he's once again "letting you in" on a little "innocent" office humor. The real reason is to lean in and whisper in your ear to throw you off guard and send a tingle down your spine.
> 
> Those are just a few examples that come to mind from the resident office jerk I once worked with. Truly nauseating...


Yuck! I need to go throw up and then take a shower.


----------



## RClawson

An interesting thread but I will stick to what I have seen unfold many times after 5 decades. Anyone and everyone has an achilles. Anyone and everyone if they find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time with the right person will likely fall.

I have seen the "mighty fall" so many times I have lost count. Men and women. Those of you that say you never would likely never will but I will not rule you out for falling. I know better.


----------



## Miss Taken

sidney2718 said:


> You know the drill. The woman thinks: "If that came from anybody else besides Joe Player, I'd take it as inappropriate. But good old Joe is a good friend and doesn't mean anything by it."


I see what you're saying but again, I think it all comes down to boundaries. This is the example of what the "friending player" does. He builds the trust first on the premise that the relationship is innocent and platonic and ever-so-slowly pushes the boundary a little at a time until they've been completely blurred.

Even still, I don't think the woman is off the hook for falling for it (nor should a man be that is slowly groomed into an affair by his "just a friend" lady friend).

There is still going to be that first instance where he crosses what should be a boundary. She knows it's a violation of boundaries but willingly makes an exception. If you ever find yourself making exceptions for one person's unacceptable behaviour that you wouldn't tolerate from anyone else, you've also crossed the line. It's not only a matter of boundaries but integrity. You have to know what you stand for and if you aren't standing all of the time, you might as well not do it at all.

As for my friending male - he was a childhood friend of WS, still is a best-friend of my BIL. I called him my BIL (and considered him to be), my oldest kid called (and still does since he's still welcome among extended family) him Uncle. He was there the day my son was born. So we were also buddies for a few years right up until he told me just once, "you better run up those stairs quick or I'll spank that nice ass." Just once. There were no exceptions, no Full House special heart-to-hearts on how he shouldn't say that to me because I'm in a relationship with WS. He was done. 

It may sound harsh or rash to some but I felt he crossed the line, violated my boundary by talking to me like that and disrespected me and (at the time faithful) WS. I felt gross, icky and had no use for him anymore. One sentence is all it took to quash our friendship.

So I respectfully disagree when I say, it really is that simple.


----------



## yeah_right

Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just too fragile and weak to see what's happening to us. 

Well, shoot. Put me in a burka and take away my rights, because as a dumb female I can't be trusted to make decisions on my own.

I'm very sorry that many of you have had bad experiences with your wives, but I promise you that some of us can say no. Just like there are many husbands who aren't whipping out their manhood every time a pretty girl walks by!


----------



## manticore

yeah_right said:


> Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just to fragile and weak to see what's happening to us.
> 
> Well, shoot. Put me in a burka and take away my rights, because as a dumb female I can't be trusted to make decisions on my own.
> 
> I'm very sorry that many of you have had bad experiences with your wives, but I promise you that some of us can say no. Just like there are many husbands who aren't whipping out their manhood every time a pretty girl walks by!


Again, I could not agree more, affairs don't just happen, it have to be a series of bad choices one after the other that normally requires for the WW to lie by omision or actively many times before something really happens.

putting the majority of blame on the player is ilogical, is like if we turn the table and a woman come saying "wife VS young hot man-eater", and everybody begin to say "hoo no she is a man eating woman and she knows men are weak to sexual advances from available hot women, so she is the devil and the husband is the victim".

players know that married women normally fall if they are emotionally engaged just like men-eating women know that men normally fall if women makes themselves clearly (and in some cases constantly) sexually available and interested in them.


----------



## weightlifter

yeah_right said:


> Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just to fragile and weak to see what's happening to us.
> 
> Well, shoot. Put me in a burka and take away my rights, because as a dumb female I can't be trusted to make decisions on my own.
> 
> I'm very sorry that many of you have had bad experiences with your wives, but I promise you that some of us can say no. Just like there are many husbands who aren't whipping out their manhood every time a pretty girl walks by!


No.
respectfully of course.
Here is the problem with the above.

There is a very large portion that are not immune. I keep alluding to "vulnerables"
Some women are immune I would say roughly 30%. Superhunk celebrity could walk in make a proposition and they would simply reject out of sheer loyalty. You are that group YR and I will simply take your word on it.
Some women are "easy" I would say 20%. Just cheaters. Many damaged emotionally or depression, BPD etc.
Roughly half are playable. Note this does not mean they will all cheat. Some would literally take a superhunk celebrity which is statistically tiny. Call them grays. Some women know the friending player. The majority don't. This is one reason why I DONT believe in opposite sex friends. It is damn near impossible to tell Johnny Friend from a patient Johnny Friending Player.

Some in the vulnerable group will cheat outside of a player situation. Soooo many variables.


----------



## survivorwife

yeah_right said:


> Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just too fragile and weak to see what's happening to us.
> 
> Well, shoot. Put me in a burka and take away my rights, because as a dumb female I can't be trusted to make decisions on my own.
> 
> I'm very sorry that many of you have had bad experiences with your wives, but I promise you that some of us can say no. Just like there are many husbands who aren't whipping out their manhood every time a pretty girl walks by!


:iagree:

In a marriage of almost 30 years, I never cheated. Now that I am divorced and officially single, I can date. That being said, there have been several married men, upon finding out my marital status have conveyed their interest in me. After being cheated upon by my own WS, I find their behavior repulsive and disgusting. The thought of them having a wife at home and wanting to "date" me is insulting to me. 

The point is, even though I am now single, I still will not cheat and no "player" will ever get me to do that which I will not do.

Some people, men and women, actually do have a moral compass.


----------



## yeah_right

weightlifter - are you talking about ALL women or just the married ones? I'm really talking about the married ones, so I hope you aren't implying that only 30% are true. I have been married over twenty years and have never cheated. I will never cheat. I am not an anomaly. 70% of my married friends have not fallen for a player.


----------



## weightlifter

yeah_right said:


> weightlifter - are you talking about ALL women or just the married ones? I'm really talking about the married ones, so I hope you aren't implying that only 30% are true. I have been married over twenty years and have never cheated. I will never cheat. I am not an anomaly. 70% of my married friends have not fallen for a player.


Yes married.

Ugh.

I believe net net roughly 1/3 of married women cheat physically. Some say half I think that is a bit high.

As I said I believe you.

Half are VULNERABLE to some degree. It is a statistical gradient from close to easy to "would take Brad Pitt (or whoever is hot now)"

So.
Roughly 20% simply pretty much will.
That middle half has to have the right situation to cheat. MANY of these situations will never happen. I keep alluding to the RDMU situation. This was the RIGHT cheater player with the right kink, AND nearly unfettered access due to friendship AND who was willing to push NINE MONTHS AND hit the right date AND was willing to probe and probe and probe after being denied many times. No I would never put her in the top nearly impossible to cheat end of this spectrum but I would not put her in the bottom part either.

If the grays rate from zero (easiest) to 100 (would take Brad Pitt) I would put her around 40. It took all those conditions to make that affair. It was a relatively emotionally (as opposed to physically) happy marriage. This is one of the few men who never stopped dating his wife. Despite his job it is very clear they spent a ton of time together yes even compared to men with 8 to 5 jobs. IE he was pretty damn close to that 15 hours a week paying attention to your wife rule.

Note I do not say she is not guilty and has no culpability. I would love for a time machine TV to be able to watch all their interactions that final tragic week (No not including the hookup. I am talking ending at the point she drove him into the garage and let him into their home...) I would love to see "What broke" after all those times she said NO... FOR NINE MONTHS.

Understand I cant go into stuff that is not in his two threads already. he has NOT approved my story yet. Valuable lessons. Also tells how it all went down. Some logistics. Note VERY little sex details so those looking for Shades of RDMU will be disappointed.

I allude to Philly13 a lot as an opposite outcome. He got it early enough... and shut it the fvck DOWN! At least we hope. I think he has a good shot anyway.

Roughly 30% simply wont.


----------



## weightlifter

Also realize players are a minority of affairs. A decent sized minority but a minority.

Bob is an anomaly.

Unfortunately with AOA lawsuits being so difficult to do and prove and paramour laws being extinct combined with the nicifiication of men these days. The Bob's, Kurts, Darrens, Reddit guys, and Findingmyways of this world are free to reign their destruction.


----------



## Squeakr

yeah_right said:


> weightlifter - are you talking about ALL women or just the married ones? I'm really talking about the married ones, so I hope you aren't implying that only 30% are true. I have been married over twenty years and have never cheated. I will never cheat. I am not an anomaly. 70% of my married friends have not fallen for a player.


I don't doubt your percentages, but would wonder if certain areas are more prone to cheating, and if the whole idea of "we are the friends we keep" holds true, as I don't know any married people at this time that the wife has not cheated. 

Now I say wife (not to villianize women), it is just I have very few people I would call actual "friends" and two of them are married (and I know the wife cheated, as they were friends of my WW) and the other had never been married, lifelong single. To be fair, the wives are/were all friends of my WW as well, so they used to share their exploits ( have found this out through conversations with the WW and through emails between them). 

All were from the West coast (CA in particular) or the east coast (mainly, NC and SC, with a little VA, NC, N, and TN in the mix). It seems that these areas are a hotbed for promiscuity and all find it more acceptable than other areas. Not sure if it is the associated group, geographical areas, or just the acceptability of infidelity these days due to the media and loosening of morals within society. Like I stated earlier I wonder what might make this more so in my case (is it the truth or just that I am in the know now and seeing it everywhere, like when you buy a new car and see your same model coming and going everywhere, whereas you never noticed it before)?


----------



## arbitrator

*With extremely rare exception, the "player," simply by their overt actions and overtures, is the one who comes to extend the ultimate invitation to cheat! 

It is totally up to the "playee" as to whether they want to accept that lurid invitation, as well as all of its accompanying consequences and baggage! 

And largely keeping in mind that both the "player" or the "playee" can be of either gender; and keeping in mind that after having sifted through all of the evidence, it's no great secret that my skanky XW was, indeed, the "player" in both of her illicit relationships!*


----------



## theroad

yeah_right said:


> I have perfected a death stare that has never failed me. With a simple look of disdain I can convey the message "Fvck off! Your futile attempts make me vomit and you probably have a small penis anyway."
> 
> Many, many women CAN handle these guys without assistance! We are not all simpering fools!


Many does not mean most. The whole point of the player is to "act" as he is your friend. He is working multiple women at once. So he will bide his time. He is using the friend angle to form a relationship. Meeting her needs enough to the point that she gives up sex to keep getting those needs met.

Woman as their number approaches the coveted 10 rating. Will glare down men easily. Because most guys believe they did not have a real shot any way. Those are not the dedicated friendship player.


----------



## weightlifter

Squeakr said:


> All were from the West coast (CA in particular) or the east coast (mainly, NC and SC, with a little VA, NC, N, and TN in the mix). It seems that these areas are a hotbed for promiscuity and all find it more acceptable than other areas.


What I find interesting is CA is the ultimate in alimony for life for the cheating wh0re capital of the world.
the other group includes states that actually punish adultery as far as alimony is concerned.


----------



## yeah_right

Obviously there are a lot of people cheating. No one is arguing that. I guess I'm really focused on how many married woman fall for player BS. I think the number is not as high as folks on this thread believe. Hooking up with lost loves? Sure. A close male friend? Yes. Is the male friend always a player? No way. I guess I'm trying to say that most women can smell a player. Some may go with it anyway because of whatever lame reason (I can change him, I deserve a fling, yada yada) but they know what they're getting into. They made the choice. The guy didn't use vampire hypnosis on her. I don't want men trying to rationalize what their woman may have done. If you're married to an intelligent, confident woman then she is quite capable of saying no. Please don't blame a player for her indiscretion.


----------



## Allen_A

Why are we calling these guys "players?"

Is what they are doing playing.. really?

I think there are other more suitable words for it.

Sorry, I am just big on using the right words to characterize behavior. You choose the wrong word you are tacitly condoning the behavior.

It ain't playing as far as I know.

I imagine the term "player" is something those people came up with the rugsweep what they are actually doing.


----------



## yeah_right

Personally, I define player as that guy who actively seeks out NSA sexual flings with women. It's a game to him and he's looking for quantity over quality. There is the single version who is your typical, young and horny dude who is trying to have fun with as many hot young women as he can before he decides to settle down (if he decides to). The other player can be married or single but is targeting married women. Same goal. Enjoys the chase and ego boost from the conquest of bedding a woman who is already spoken for. He has no interest in a long-term relationship. He just needs that ego boost to feel like a man.


----------



## davecarter

weightlifter said:


> Yes married.
> Ugh.
> I believe net roughly 1/3 of married women cheat physically. Some say half I think that is a bit high.
> As I said I believe you.
> Half are VULNERABLE to some degree. It is a statistical gradient from close to easy to "would take Brad Pitt (or whoever is hot now)".
> 
> So. Roughly 20% simply pretty much will.
> That middle half has to have the right situation to cheat. MANY of these situations will never happen. I keep alluding to the RDMU situation. This was the RIGHT cheater player with the right kink, AND nearly unfettered access due to friendship AND who was willing to push NINE MONTHS AND hit the right date AND was willing to probe and probe and probe after being denied many times. No I would never put her in the top nearly impossible to cheat end of this spectrum but I would not put her in the bottom part either.
> If the grays rate from zero (easiest) to 100 (would take Brad Pitt) I would put her around 40. It took all those conditions to make that affair. It was a relatively emotionally (as opposed to physically) happy marriage. This is one of the few men who never stopped dating his wife. Despite his job it is very clear they spent a ton of time together yes even compared to men with 8 to 5 jobs. IE he was pretty damn close to that 15 hours a week paying attention to your wife rule.
> Note I do not say she is not guilty and has no culpability. I would love for a time machine TV to be able to watch all their interactions that final tragic week (No not including the hookup. I am talking ending at the point she drove him into the garage and let him into their home...) I would love to see "What broke" after all those times she said NO... FOR NINE MONTHS.
> Understand I cant go into stuff that is not in his two threads already. he has NOT approved my story yet. Valuable lessons. Also tells how it all went down. Some logistics. Note VERY little sex details so those looking for Shades of RDMU will be disappointed.
> 
> I allude to Philly13 a lot as an opposite outcome. He got it early enough... and shut it the fvck DOWN! At least we hope. I think he has a good shot anyway.
> Roughly 30% simply wont.


1/3 seems about the number I hear and read about. And I bet the age-group plays a significant factor too...and lifestyle: 35-45 and quite a few are part-time employment or even stay-at-home-Moms? (my wife was the latter).

I think it's fair to say the RDMU situation was almost 'Perfect Storm'...but then I feel a lot of affairs are.
His marriage sounds almost idyllic compared to mine, so I can't really see that my wife put up much resistance when she met OM#1 (she says to this day from first meeting to first physical 'date', i.e. sex, was about 4 weeks) and they got talking each day at school, her conversation turns to complaining, he probably ran the whole "_well, I'm here if you want to talk...he must be crazy to treat you like that, blah-blah-blah_".

The fact that, me and the OM were poles apart: he is ex-army, physically built, plays rugby, works in construction and was into fast bikes. That's quite a lot of Alpha-stuff right off the bat.
It also didn't help that he had a nickname which alluded to his reputation of being well-hung (_which she knew about prior to their first 'date'_)
Offset all of that against the situation we were in at the time: I'm not like him, we were having zero sex, lots of arguing, fair bit of fighting, me being a selfish twat, etc.

So, all things considered, I know for a fact that OM#1 was not a 'Player' at all - an opportunist who saw a chance of sex and possible relationship....that is until OM#2 appeared....oh boy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

adriana said:


> Actually, it doesn't really matter because a woman, with a healthy dose of self-respect, will have a set of strong personal boundaries in place and react the same way regardless if she's being played or not.


I doubt its this clear cut. You likely never realize a boundary is being crossed. By the time it gets intimate, boundaries have been sufficiently eroded - all that's left is the mental gymnastics to ward off guilt.

What likely happens is the guy starts out as any innocent friend, and over time, slithers into a position of trust/confidence. It probably starts with her relatively minor complaints when she's having a bad day. Perhaps he is just always eager to see how she's doing - just as a friend would. Over time, trust grows. She begins to lean on him ever so slightly for emotional support. He is on her side. He pays attention. He is a "good friend". As she begins this leaning process, she is also unwittingly detaching from hubby. Its ever easier to complain about him. She begins to feel more and more negatives at home, and more and more positives away - and this makes it easier and easier for the OM to escalate and boundaries to slide.

Honestly, I'd bet some don't even recognize how this "friendship", played into the destabilization of the marriage. She probably begins to rationalize that hubby is the reason she's dissatisfied. Whatever the case, as the bond with the friend guy grows, the bond with the husband recedes.

The next thing you know, she's crossed her own lines... and thinks nothing of it... its "still innocent"; the definition of innocent begins to take on larger scope... and at some point, she breaks and thinks it was her "unhappiness" at home driving it. Not her friend guy.

Everyone is vulnerable to this sort of mal-attachment. That's a big reason why I don't think men and women can be friends. These kinds of things can happen even when no one had such intentions.

In this regard, its not terribly different than a regular pickup scenario. People typically allow others to push a boundary just a tiny bit and each push - if unnoticeably small - creates a new, lower boundary. Imagine levels 1-10... 1 being the boundaries one has with a stranger and 10 being sex. People will usually allow someone at level 1 to push to level 2 - its innocuous. If they push to level 3, you recognize the violation of your level 1 boundary. If he only pushes to 2, then all goes smoothly and a new boundary is established at 3 as if that was always the boundary. Over time, this incremental approach slowly erodes boundaries without a person even realizing that a boundary has been violated. By the time intimacy comes into play, only the slightest hint of a boundary even remains - guilt/moral incongruity. Part of her now wants to do something, in spite of the boundary.

You might never feel your boundaries were violated... because as he got closer, the boundaries nudge just so slightly. Few people are completely immune from having an affair, even if they really don't want to. What happens, is that they can be incrementally led to want to at some level of their psyche.

You're friends... until you're not. For some men, friendship is a way to sneak in the back door. He's safe, and getting emotionally close while eroding boundaries and destabilizing her satisfaction with the marriage.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

:iagree:


----------



## Philat

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I doubt its this clear cut.
> 
> What likely happens is the guy starts out as any innocent friend, and over time, slithers into a position of trust/confidence. It probably starts with some relatively minor complaints when she's having a bad day. Perhaps he is just always eager to see how she's doing - just as a friend would.
> 
> Over time, trust grows. She begins to lean on him ever so slightly for emotional support. He is on her side. He pays attention. He is a "good friend". As she begins this leaning process, she is also unwittingly detaching from hubby. Its ever easier to complain about him. She begins to feel more and more negatives at home, and more and more positives away - and this makes it easier and easier to escalate.
> 
> Honestly, I'd bet some don't even recognize how this "friendship", played into the destabilization of the marriage. She probably begins to rationalize that hubby is the reason she's dissatisfied. Whatever the case, as the bond with the friend guy grows, the bond with the husband recedes.
> 
> The next thing you know, she's crossed her own lines... and thinks nothing of it... its "still innocent"; the definition of innocent begins to take on larger scope... and at some point, she breaks and thinks it was her "unhappiness" at home driving it. Not her friend guy.
> 
> Everyone is vulnerable to this sort of mal-attachment. That's a big reason why I don't think men and women can be friends. These kinds of things can happen even when no one had such intentions.
> 
> In this regard, its not terribly different than a regular pickup scenario. People typically allow others to push a boundary just a tiny bit and each push creates a new, lower boundary. Imagine levels 1-10... 1 being the boundaries one has with a stranger and 10 being sex. People will usually allow someone at level 1 to push to level 2 - its innocuous. If they push to level 3, you recognize the violation of your level 1 boundary. If he only pushes to 2, then all goes smoothly and a new boundary is established at 3. Over time, this incremental approach slowly erodes boundaries without a person even realizing that a boundary has been violated. By the time intimacy comes into play, only the slightest hint of a boundary even remains. Part of her now wants to do something, in spite of the boundary.
> 
> You might never feel your boundaries were violated... because as he got closer, the boundaries nudge just so slightly. Few people are completely immune from having an affair, even if they really don't want to. What happens, is that they can be incrementally led to want to at some level of their psyche.
> 
> You're friends... until you're not. For some men, friendship is a way to sneak in the back door. He's safe, and getting emotionally close while eroding boundaries and destabilizing her satisfaction with the marriage.


Exactly, exactly, exactly what happened with my wife. Turned into deep EA, likely (IMO) more. Oh, and around age 40 also.

ETA: _over time, slithers into a position of trust/confidence._ Perfect verb.


----------



## treyvion

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


The player is going to play into her desires and fantasies, things she may be on the edge about.


----------



## Allen_A

yeah_right said:


> Personally, I define player as that guy who actively seeks out NSA sexual flings with women. It's a game to him and he's looking for quantity over quality. There is the single version who is your typical, young and horny dude who is trying to have fun with as many hot young women as he can before he decides to settle down (if he decides to). The other player can be married or single but is targeting married women. Same goal. Enjoys the chase and ego boost from the conquest of bedding a woman who is already spoken for. He has no interest in a long-term relationship. He just needs that ego boost to feel like a man.


I think the term you are looking for is _womanizer_.

The term "player" is far too dismissive to what these creeps are actually doing.

It's like referring to infidelity as a "playing around" or "a dalliance".


----------



## Racer

yeah_right said:


> If you're married to an intelligent, confident woman then she is quite capable of saying no. Please don't blame a player for her indiscretion.


Exactly. I don’t. I blame her entirely.

And like I said. That is how I crushed my WW. Because she saw PUA stuff as bull, she used her intelligence to support denial of the obvious. And used her confidence in herself to convince herself she was somehow stronger. She was so f’n strong and smart that she could ‘never’ fall for a pua and his bs... He played her wonderfully using those traits against her. _“Your husband would be mad about coffee!? How insecure and controlling... You don’t see anything wrong with this do you? So why are you letting him tell you what to do? You aren’t weak or his puppet! Screw him and his insecurity.. He should be the one taking you out to coffee instead of me.”_

She was her own downfall by being the exact opposite of how she saw herself in the mirror and sticking with it to prove just how smart and strong she was (and seeing that as doing the opposite of anything I might want her to be doing). She would be controlled by no man... lol. Six months later a simple ‘you want to come over?’ text had her running to his place and dropping her knickers.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just too fragile and weak to see what's happening to us.


Its not just women. Any two people getting close, can erode boundaries with ease. Its not some weakness of women. Its human nature.


----------



## yeah_right

Allen_A said:


> I think the term you are looking for is _womanizer_.
> 
> The term "player" is far too dismissive to what these creeps are actually doing.
> 
> It's like referring to infidelity as a "playing around" or "a dalliance".


You can call them Small Peen Jerks, Sh!thead Freaks or any other negative term. Those that SEEK sex from married women are scumbags. Women past the age of 30 that still fall for lame lines and cheap compliments know better.

And I agree with the slippery slope of male-female friendship. I just lived through it. I've decided to let him live...for now. But that is different from the pursuits of a player/womanizer.


----------



## yeah_right

Racer said:


> _“Your husband would be mad about coffee!? How insecure and controlling... You don’t see anything wrong with this do you? So why are you letting him tell you what to do? You aren’t weak or his puppet! Screw him and his insecurity.. He should be the one taking you out to coffee instead of me.”_



Someone verbalizing assumptions about my marriage, my H, my kids, my goals, etc? Red flag! Because I don't share that stuff, if someone starts trying to analyze me, they're gonna get the Heisman!


----------



## Philat

Racer said:


> You don’t see anything wrong with this do you? So why are you letting him tell you what to do? You aren’t weak or his puppet! Screw him and his insecurity.. He should be the one taking you out to coffee instead of me.”


"It's Just Lunch."


----------



## yeah_right

Philat said:


> "It's Just Lunch."


"I brought a Lean Cuisine because I have to have my herpes treatment during my lunch break. Thanks anyway."


----------



## weightlifter

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I doubt its this clear cut. You likely never realize a boundary is being crossed. By the time it gets intimate, boundaries have been sufficiently eroded - all that's left is the mental gymnastics to ward off guilt.
> 
> What likely happens is the guy starts out as any innocent friend, and over time, slithers into a position of trust/confidence. It probably starts with her relatively minor complaints when she's having a bad day. Perhaps he is just always eager to see how she's doing - just as a friend would. Over time, trust grows. She begins to lean on him ever so slightly for emotional support. He is on her side. He pays attention. He is a "good friend". As she begins this leaning process, she is also unwittingly detaching from hubby. Its ever easier to complain about him. She begins to feel more and more negatives at home, and more and more positives away - and this makes it easier and easier for the OM to escalate and boundaries to slide.
> 
> Honestly, I'd bet some don't even recognize how this "friendship", played into the destabilization of the marriage. She probably begins to rationalize that hubby is the reason she's dissatisfied. Whatever the case, as the bond with the friend guy grows, the bond with the husband recedes.
> 
> The next thing you know, she's crossed her own lines... and thinks nothing of it... its "still innocent"; the definition of innocent begins to take on larger scope... and at some point, she breaks and thinks it was her "unhappiness" at home driving it. Not her friend guy.
> 
> Everyone is vulnerable to this sort of mal-attachment. That's a big reason why I don't think men and women can be friends. These kinds of things can happen even when no one had such intentions.
> 
> In this regard, its not terribly different than a regular pickup scenario. People typically allow others to push a boundary just a tiny bit and each push - if unnoticeably small - creates a new, lower boundary. Imagine levels 1-10... 1 being the boundaries one has with a stranger and 10 being sex. People will usually allow someone at level 1 to push to level 2 - its innocuous. If they push to level 3, you recognize the violation of your level 1 boundary. If he only pushes to 2, then all goes smoothly and a new boundary is established at 3 as if that was always the boundary. Over time, this incremental approach slowly erodes boundaries without a person even realizing that a boundary has been violated. By the time intimacy comes into play, only the slightest hint of a boundary even remains - guilt/moral incongruity. Part of her now wants to do something, in spite of the boundary.
> 
> You might never feel your boundaries were violated... because as he got closer, the boundaries nudge just so slightly. Few people are completely immune from having an affair, even if they really don't want to. What happens, is that they can be incrementally led to want to at some level of their psyche.
> 
> You're friends... until you're not. For some men, friendship is a way to sneak in the back door. He's safe, and getting emotionally close while eroding boundaries and destabilizing her satisfaction with the marriage.


Post of the day by a man who does the techniques even if he does not deliberately target attached women.

Add in: Wedging techniques against the husband.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> You can call them Small Peen Jerks, Sh!thead Freaks or any other negative term. Those that SEEK sex from married women are scumbags. Women past the age of 30 that still fall for lame lines and cheap compliments know better.


Would it blow your mind to tell you that being somewhat antagonistic works infinitely better than lines and compliments? Yeah, crazy.

Nobody actually uses lines. At best you have some canned subject matter or story to go into under certain circumstances. And I rarely compliment when I'm approaching someone - its too superficial and just like every other guy. I compliment sparingly and only after I've made some other connection. There's exceptions, say, when I perceive she's out fishing for compliments and actively seeking a self-esteem boost (which is usually obvious). That's the only time I think superficial compliments actually have any traction. Some random dude with clear intentions to pick someone up saying they're wearing a great dress and something lame about how it looks even better on them... c'mon... she's internally rolling her eyes so much she's probably dizzy while she gives a polite "thanks" and goes about her business.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Midwest Guy said:


> "You're friends... until you're not. For some men, friendship is a way to sneak in the back door. He's safe, and getting emotionally close while eroding boundaries and destabilizing her satisfaction with the marriage."
> 
> Okay, very well written. However, when does it turn physical??:scratchhead: And, does that generate a "oh no, this is wrong" reaction??


Caveat - I really have no idea what's really going on with married women, I don't go there. I'm just giving a perspective based on intuition and what I think goes on in relationship dynamics.

To the question, its hard to say when it turns physical. You may as well as the same question of a regular dating scenario - when do you know its time to make a move? Eventually it just feels right. I'd bet there is a recognition of wrong-doing... but by the time they get that far, they're probably torn between what they want and their values, risk, all sorts of things. But want is a pretty strong thing... especially when the mind can do some backflips to make the "wrong" of it someone else's fault ("I was lonely!! You didn't meet my needs!" ~we're all inclined to do this I think), and they are convinced of the low probability of being caught.


----------



## adriana

yeah_right said:


> Obviously there are a lot of people cheating. No one is arguing that. I guess I'm really focused on how many married woman fall for player BS. I think the number is not as high as folks on this thread believe. Hooking up with lost loves? Sure. A close male friend? Yes. Is the male friend always a player? No way. I guess I'm trying to say that most women can smell a player. Some may go with it anyway because of whatever lame reason (I can change him, I deserve a fling, yada yada) but they know what they're getting into. They made the choice. The guy didn't use vampire hypnosis on her. I don't want men trying to rationalize what their woman may have done. If you're married to an intelligent, confident woman then she is quite capable of saying no. Please don't blame a player for her indiscretion.



:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: Absolutely true but you're still wasting your time. Dudes on this forum simply know better.


----------



## xakulax

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everyone is vulnerable to this sort of mal-attachment.* That's a big reason why I don't think men and women can be friends. *These kinds of things can happen even when no one had such intentions.



Sorry but I have to disagree with you there I have friends female and male and one of my closest friends is a woman and she is marred we are good friends but we never play that game I have too much respect for her, are friendship and the sanctity of marriage as corny as that might sound to jeopardize that and she feels the same way.


boy and girls cant be friends

mature men and women can be friends


----------



## Philat

xakulax said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with you there I have friends female and male and one of my closest friend is a woman and she is marred we are good friends but we never play that game I have too much respect for her, are friendship and the sanctity of marriage as corny as that might sound to jeopardize that and she feels the same way.
> 
> 
> boy and girls cant be friends
> 
> mature men and women can be friends


I think that over time in many cases (probably the majority) like yours the friendship morphs. I've bolded a different part of your quote from Dvl:

_Everyone is vulnerable to this sort of mal-attachment. That's a big reason why I don't think men and women can be friends. *These kinds of things can happen even when no one had such intentions.*_

yep.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Adriana/Yeah_right, 

I wouldn't call these guys players either. I said that earlier. Its really, really passive play that a guy is probably running just because he can't get laid by being more direct - he's a coward.

The "close friend" is what I'm pointing out. The confusion lies in the fact that the guys recognize that many/most/a lot(?) of these "friends" DO have ill intent and ARE playing a game.

What I've been saying isn't about blame, but how I think these things happen and no, I don't buy the "I'm immune because I have boundaries" argument. Everyone has SOME boundaries. What happens is those boundaries erode. It doesn't change fault... but I think it argues for being mindful of opposite sex ties and keeping them at more than arm's length.

Some guys here are confusing a regular dude's bad intentions with being a player. I highly doubt most of these EA/PA scenarios with the "male best friend" involve actual players who regularly do this. Its just some wimpy schmuck.


----------



## vellocet

sidney2718 said:


> But is there a guarantee that she knows she's being played?


If she is married, it shouldn't even be a question "if she knows she's being played". She f'in stays away from his ass, PERIOD.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

xakulax said:


> mature men and women can be friends


Yeah, I know a lot of people on this forum share that opinion. I don't. I've seen it happen over and over again and everyone says "it just happened!"

I usually add a caveat - if any attraction exists. I can have ugly female friends at will knowing there is zero risk of anything happening regardless of circumstances. 

If there's any attraction at all, its just a bad recipe. After all, what is a relationship if not a friendship with physical attraction? To my thinking, its playing with fire. It can keep you warm, and it can also burn your house down.


----------



## vellocet

sidney2718 said:


> Because they offer affection, caresses, attention, complements, exciting sex, etc. to a woman who isn't getting enough of those things at home. And that mainly stems from the fact that in a marriage you have to worry about the laundry, washing dishes, cleaning under the living room couch, and so on, while in an affair you have none of those little things to worry about.


Well if that's the case, she can divorce her H, become single where she doesn't have to worry about the daily life trials with a spouse, then see just how long it takes before the player gets tired of the same old meat.


----------



## yeah_right

I have guy friends. I talk to them when the H and I go out with them...and their wives.

I have female friends outside of my husband because they like shopping, my hobby and it's fun to complain about women's issues like how gross periods are or how much we are addicted to carbs. Why do I need one-on-one time with guy "friends"? I have a dude at home that is perfectly capable of fulfilling the need to talk sports, finances or teach me to fart like a champ. 

Again, I am talking about being clueless to the predatory advances of a man seeking married-woman nookie. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, and I'm going to go tell my H he should bow down to me hourly for being the only woman on Earth who can resist player-mojo.


----------



## xakulax

Midwest Guy said:


> "One of my closest friends is a woman and she is marred we are good friends but we never play that game "I have too much respect for her, are friendship and the sanctity of marriage as corny as that might sound to jeopardize that and she feels the same way."
> 
> True. But if either one of you *weren't married, would you be interested in having a relationship with her?* Have you ever thought about that?





NO lol good friends yes dating no I cant see it she is not my type


----------



## vellocet

yeah_right said:


> Wow, according to the bulk of posters, all women are doomed to succumb to the advances of a player at some point in our lives. We are just too fragile and weak to see what's happening to us.
> 
> Well, shoot. Put me in a burka and take away my rights, because as a dumb female I can't be trusted to make decisions on my own.
> 
> I'm very sorry that many of you have had bad experiences with your wives, but I promise you that some of us can say no. Just like there are many husbands who aren't whipping out their manhood every time a pretty girl walks by!


Well then what is this all about?



> I've been married over 20 years and we swing on occasion at the local club. Or at least we go to the club and sometimes something will happen, but most times not because it's hard to find an attraction.


Perhaps its easier for you to say no in general because you get your sex on the side satisfied this way?


----------



## yeah_right

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I usually add a caveat - if any attraction exists. I can have ugly female friends at will knowing there is zero risk of anything happening regardless of circumstances.


I've seen plenty of men cheat with hags uglier than their wives. LOL.

But, let's look at the reverse with male/female friendships. You may be friendly with a she-beast and have no sexual attraction, but what if she's secretly in love with you. That's not healthy either. I'm in the camp that once you're married, male-female one on one friendships must end.


----------



## yeah_right

vellocet said:


> Well then what is this all about?


Yep, I'm open enough to talk about that. We tried it together. We did not make friends with people or build relationships. We were never alone with anyone. We fantasized, tried it, and realized it wasn't all that and a bag of chips. We do sometimes go to watch still. To me this is different than a man or woman building a significant friendship, sharing deep, personal feelings, outside of their marriage without their spouse knowing.

But I certainly understand that this is a huge no-no for many people!!!


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I usually add a caveat - if any attraction exists. I can have ugly female friends at will knowing there is zero risk of anything happening regardless of circumstances.


That statement is a misnomer as in order to have a friendship exist, there by definition has to be some sort of attraction that exists between the two parties. That is how we develop friendships and pick our friends, by attractions between us. In every friendship, there exists an attraction between the parties, be it physical, emotional, or a shared bond, such as a hobby or shared interest. I would beg anyone to prove to me that they have a friend that they share no attraction with, because for this to happen they would have to hate/ despise that person and how could one then be friends under these circumstances??


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> I have guy friends. I talk to them when the H and I go out with them...and their wives.


That's not a guy friend. That's a couple friend or an acquaintance. To my thinking, or perhaps how I'm defining it, an actual friend is someone you can spend one on one time with.



yeah_right said:


> Why do I need one-on-one time with guy "friends"? I have a dude at home that is perfectly capable of fulfilling the need to talk sports, finances or teach me to fart like a champ.


Exactly my point. And having a close one on one opposite sex friend is HIGHLY likely to poach some of that connection to your husband.



yeah_right said:


> Again, I am talking about being clueless to the predatory advances of a man seeking married-woman nookie. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, and I'm going to go tell my H he should bow down to me hourly for being the only woman on Earth who can resist player-mojo.


I'm not sure we're disagreeing about anything. You don't keep one on one male friends, likely for exactly the concern I'm pointing out. What I've been saying is that the only way to say you're immune from this friend guy play, is to completely avoid exposure - which, according to your post, is what you do.


----------



## Philat

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't buy the "I'm immune because I have boundaries" argument. Everyone has SOME boundaries. *What happens is those boundaries erode.* It doesn't change fault... but I think it argues for being mindful of opposite sex ties and keeping them at more than arm's length.


Under the right circumstances. This is another way of saying "anyone can cheat," a position that I agree with.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Squeakr said:


> That statement is a misnomer as in order to have a friendship exist, there by definition has to be some sort of attraction that exists between the two parties. That is how we develop friendships and pick our friends, by attractions between us. In every friendship, there exists an attraction between the parties, be it physical, emotional, or a shared bond, such as a hobby or shared interest. I would beg anyone to prove to me that they have a friend that they share no attraction with, because for this to happen they would have to hate/ despise that person and how could one then be friends under these circumstances??


I was talking about physical attraction of course. If there's no physical attraction - as in, its repugnant - then there's my caveat. I don't have any attraction for my male friends. The notion is utterly repugnant.


----------



## vellocet

yeah_right said:


> Yep, I'm open enough to talk about that. We tried it together. We did not make friends with people or build relationships. We were never alone with anyone. We fantasized, tried it, and realized it wasn't all that and a bag of chips. We do sometimes go to watch still. To me this is different than a man or woman building a significant friendship, sharing deep, personal feelings, outside of their marriage without their spouse knowing.
> 
> But I certainly understand that this is a huge no-no for many people!!!


Point was, it doesn't make much sense to say you can say "no" to someone else if you are already having sex with other people.


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's not a guy friend. That's a couple friend or an acquaintance. To my thinking, or perhaps how I'm defining it, an actual friend is someone you can spend one on one time with.


I think this is a major problem with lots of people, their definition of what a friend is exactly. I consider myself to have at best 3 friends (and it has been this way most of my life), to me everyone else is a mere acquaintance. MY ww on the other hand has an entirely different idea of what a friend is, and at one point she would have said she has lots of friends, now I would bet after her stunts, she doesn't really even have 1 real friend (and sad to say I think that number includes me as well).


----------



## yeah_right

I agree with the guys about male-female one one one friendships. I think they are trouble. Period. I've been talking about married women who fall for players. I think there's a difference. I don't have male friends because it is trouble...for anyone! But I can also recognize a player and shoo him away. And if you're not making personal friendships with guys, you won't fall for the super-stealth player either.


----------



## Allen_A

yeah_right said:


> You can call them Small Peen Jerks, Sh!thead Freaks or any other negative term. Those that SEEK sex from married women are scumbags. Women past the age of 30 that still fall for lame lines and cheap compliments know better.


They ought to, but many women over the age of 40 haven't even figured out the difference between what a "man" says and what a man does...

Lecher may be a good word too. There are words for this... I just don't advocate using "player" or any other word that legitimizes what they are doing.



yeah_right said:


> I just lived through it. I've decided to let him live...for now. But that is different from the pursuits of a player/womanizer.


Legally you ca'nt touch them. As long as a female is over the age of 18 (in some states 16) they are "fair game".. even if married.


----------



## yeah_right

vellocet said:


> Point was, it doesn't make much sense to say you can say "no" to someone else if you are already having sex with other people.


Going to a sex club to get kinky WITH my H is different than cultivating a personal relationship with a man while my H remains clueless at home. I totally understand that this activity is completely repulsive to many, but it does not apply to the discussion of being lured in by a player. If you want to feel disgust about what the H and I have done, that's fine. However, it doesn't really apply to this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> I've seen plenty of men cheat with hags uglier than their wives. LOL.
> 
> But, let's look at the reverse with male/female friendships. You may be friendly with a she-beast and have no sexual attraction, but what if she's secretly in love with you. That's not healthy either. I'm in the camp that once you're married, male-female one on one friendships must end.


Uglier than their wives sure, but the guy still had to have some physical attraction to them.

I agree with you. I'm really just trying to throw a bone to the opposite sex friends crowd. It wouldn't be a problem *for me* to have unattractive female friends - regardless of how close. If that friend is attracted to me, I KNOW my gf would have a problem. Unfortunately, attraction is pretty vague. A woman can say, "Oh, I'm not attracted to him" -then get close to him and become attracted... and its hard to say whether your "friend" is attracted to you or not. My standard would be, "if sex with this person isn't as completely gross as I find sex with a man to be, then I have no business being anywhere with them one-on-one."

So I tend to lean toward "no one-on-one opposite sex friendships" too... but then, I know myself. I'm inadvertently charming.  jk :rofl:


----------



## yeah_right

dvlsadvc8 said:


> ... But then, i know myself. I'm inadvertently charming. :d jk :rofl:


player.


----------



## Allen_A

yeah_right said:


> I agree with the guys about male-female one one one friendships. I think they are trouble. Period. I've been talking about married women who fall for players. I think there's a difference. I don't have male friends because it is trouble...for anyone! But I can also recognize a player and shoo him away. And if you're not making personal friendships with guys, you won't fall for the super-stealth player either.


Or an even stronger point is even IF you aren't attracted to a female, your WIFE may not care for the arrangement anyways.

So.. if BOTH the husband AND the wife are OK with opposite sex friends... THEN is it safe?

The likelihood that both spouses support the idea, AND that the arrangement will never pass any boundaries is RARE.

You want to risk your marriage on the 1 in 100 chance that the Opposite sex friendship does not transgress?


----------



## Miss Taken

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I doubt its this clear cut. You likely never realize a boundary is being crossed. By the time it gets intimate, boundaries have been sufficiently eroded - all that's left is the mental gymnastics to ward off guilt...


:iagree: with everything you've written in this post. It highlights EXACTLY, how most EAs/PAs begin for both men and women.

But even in this perfect narrative you've provided, it's still the boundaries and one's commitment to upholding them that matter more than any male player, or female man-eater does. Geez, I sound like a broken record. Some people have some boundaries, some have none. Some have strong ones that just aren't strong enough or they're just not as committed to keeping. 

There is still too much emphasis placed on this highly dangerous, mysterious and elusive boogeyman/woman as the cause of the affair. There is also too much cynicism about the possibility of monogamous marriages. Affairs are made inevitable by this premise. Alas we fear the darkness and not the monsters it hides. This is highly troublesome to me because: 

While I appreciate the efforts of many to be gender-neutral on this thread; let's face it, this thread has mostly inferred that most married women are vulnerable to affairs if they come across these players. Despite her personal commitment to her boundaries, she just won't be able to resist the highly skilled PUA or player because she's a woman. I think that's erroneous, sexist and dare I say dangerous.

1) It's "dangerous" because This allows the betrayed husband to feel normalcy in his mistrust of all woman because of the misdeeds of one. While it may feel emotionally safer to feel like all or even most women, no matter how well-intended are vulnerable to an affair, due to these predatory players, it is also simply not true. It's also insulting to those of us that have integrity and solid boundaries. 

2) It frees his wife of much of the responsibility for having an affair by putting a lot of the onus on the player. Sometimes we do this to protect our love for the WS. The anger and the hate has to go somewhere... why not the AP?

3) It frees the betrayed husband the burden of processing any anger he may have towards himself for being duped by and cuckolded by his wife. It's humiliating to realize you're being played the fool. If we focus on how the affair was "inevitable" and that all women are potential cheaters and that all women are vulnerable to these players, we don't have to focus on how we ignored red flags, allowed ourselves to be walked on and get to avoid that painful introspection. 

A lot of women do the above things too once cheated on, they start blaming all men and become misandrists in their own right, (they say things like all men are horn-dogs, only think with the head in their jeans etc. they all cheat etc.). Both are the same, sexist and wrong, both have the same consequences of limited personal and romantic growth and divide the sexes.


----------



## Allen_A

Midwest Guy said:


> "So I tend to lean toward "no one-on-one opposite sex friendships" too"
> 
> Does that apply to Facebook? In other words, would you be ok with having friends of the opposite sex in social media?


I had read recently that FACEBOOK is THE NUMBER ONE TOOL of CHOICE for CHEATING today.

More affairs start on facebook than any other website/software/tool these days.


----------



## vellocet

yeah_right said:


> Going to a sex club to get kinky WITH my H is different than cultivating a personal relationship with a man while my H remains clueless at home.


Again, that's because its easier for you to say no to another man away from the swinging because you are already able to have sex with other men. 




> I totally understand that this activity is completely repulsive to many, but it does not apply to the discussion of being lured in by a player. If you want to feel disgust about what the H and I have done, that's fine. However, it doesn't really apply to this thread.


Sure it does. You say you can say "no" to another man, but that's because you are already allowed to have sex with other men.

I'm not disgusted by what you and your H do. That is your choice. Just find it odd someone says they can say no to someone else when they already get their sex with other people fix satisfied.


----------



## Squeakr

Midwest Guy said:


> Does that apply to Facebook? In other words, would you be ok with having friends of the opposite sex in social media?


You need to clarify what your definition of a friend is, as FB has a completely different definition of "friend" than I do.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Squeakr said:


> I think this is a major problem with lots of people, their definition of what a friend is exactly. I consider myself to have at best 3 friends (and it has been this way most of my life), to me everyone else is a mere acquaintance. MY ww on the other hand has an entirely different idea of what a friend is, and at one point she would have said she has lots of friends, now I would bet after her stunts, she doesn't really even have 1 real friend (and sad to say I think that number includes me as well).


I have a lot of one-on-one friends, but they're almost all guys. I have a second tier of friends who I wouldn't call to invite to something one-on-one, but I hang out with in groups, and most of the women I know are one of these.

When I'm single, all the females I know are in the one-on-one group. So somewhere in my thick skull I recognize one-on-one's as a potential problem for my relationships. That one-on-one time with the opposite sex is reserved for my gf. I've had a pretty chaotic path to getting here... but this seems to work best for me.


----------



## yeah_right

Allen_A said:


> Or an even stronger point is even IF you aren't attracted to a female, your WIFE may not care for the arrangement anyways.


Right, because even if he's not attracted to her, what if she's attracted to him? They should be hanging out alone because he's immune? No. Why would I want that skulking around? Possible bunny boiler! Possible slippery slope. Just no.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Or an even stronger point is even IF you aren't attracted to a female, your WIFE may not care for the arrangement anyways.
> 
> So.. if BOTH the husband AND the wife are OK with opposite sex friends... THEN is it safe?


Definitely no. It is only safe when the couple share everything regarding this "friendship" and interaction. This is how so many A's start, the WS friends someone and hides the real meat of the friendship, so what started out as innocent interaction crosses boundaries and ends in an A (be it EA or PA). 

In this scenario unfettering trust can be one of the worst things that can happen to the couple (that is what happened in my M, I trusted too openly).


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> You need to clarify what your definition of a friend is, as FB has a completely different definition of "friend" than I do.


From _BIG BANG THEORY_ : 

Leonard: We need to widen our circle.
Sheldon: I have a very wide circle. I have 212 friends on myspace.
Leonard: Yes, and you’ve never met one of them.
Sheldon: That’s the beauty of it.

LOL


----------



## Racer

yeah_right said:


> Someone verbalizing assumptions about my marriage, my H, my kids, my goals, etc? Red flag! Because I don't share that stuff, if someone starts trying to analyze me, they're gonna get the Heisman!


I've got a sneaky suspicion you wouldn't be at lunch or coffee with him in the first place...

So, you do the Heisman when he first ask if you want to get a bite to eat. Then he attacks; "Man, it's just lunch! I'm hungry, you are hungry, I don't want to eat alone and you seemed like you'd be good company. But whatever... hadn’t realized I was so creepy.” Then he asks someone else, and the next day someone else, and so on. He makes fun of you for assuming ‘the worst’ about him to those others. 

So it gets back to you that you aren’t a friendly sort and seem to have some sort of beef with going to lunch with co-workers. (That’s a “dis”). You probably want to prove those rumors wrong. Your “strength” kicks in where you need to defend yourself and prove you aren’t some cold hearted dull drone. 

Or you live with the knowledge that people think you aren’t friendly and not social. It comes down to the comfort you have in your own skin. If you need external validation, you simply tend to do what best serves that image you want others to see in you. A PUA manipulates it so you do stuff to ‘fix your image’ on how others perceive you. Someone who’s confident with themselves doesn’t really care how others see her...

Oh, and I’m not picking on you or insinuating anything. Just using your examples to illustrate how someone might think that, but if they aren’t all together on the inside, it can also be their downfall. So “no lunches with the opposite sex” boundary is broken just to prove you are who you want to be. A PUA will continue to try and get you to domino with your boundaries and make exceptions by using something else you value more (like your image).


----------



## yeah_right

Vellocet - Women who fall into affairs typically do so via the emotional route. Not all, but I'd bet most. This thread is not about just sex. It began about how players approach woman and build trust through friendship/emotional means. It has expanded into how dangerous male-female friendships are because of the emotional bonds that can form. It has nothing to do with whether or not my H and I got busy at a sex club with people we have never seen again. I'm not going to discuss that further in this thread. I'm happy to discuss it in a thread that makes more sense, but not here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Midwest Guy said:


> "So I tend to lean toward "no one-on-one opposite sex friendships" too"
> 
> Does that apply to Facebook? In other words, would you be ok with having friends of the opposite sex in social media?


Yeah. Extensive private messaging? No. The facebook news feed is little different than seeing someone in the store and catching up on what they've been up to in a short conversation.

If he's interested, he's going to nudge that boundary and see if he can get her to sit and have coffee while they catch up... so innocuous... what could be wrong with that? That's the long private message conversation equivalent. My gf and I aren't cool with that. When we're not together, we've agreed that the opposite sex are passerbys... not events.


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Definitely no. It is only safe when the couple share everything regarding this "friendship" and interaction.


OK, so back to the honor system again... 

It always seems to go back to that question.

Can you safely put your spouse on the honor system?

Y or N?

If NO, then no opposite sex friends.


----------



## yeah_right

Racer said:


> I've got a sneaky suspicion you wouldn't be at lunch or coffee with him in the first place...
> 
> So, you do the Heisman when he first ask if you want to get a bite to eat. Then he attacks; "Man, it's just lunch! I'm hungry, you are hungry, I don't want to eat alone and you seemed like you'd be good company. But whatever... hadn’t realized I was so creepy.” Then he asks someone else, and the next day someone else, and so on. He makes fun of you for assuming ‘the worst’ about him to those others.
> 
> So it gets back to you that you aren’t a friendly sort and seem to have some sort of beef with going to lunch with co-workers. (That’s a “dis”). You probably want to prove those rumors wrong. Your “strength” kicks in where you need to defend yourself and prove you aren’t some cold hearted dull drone.
> 
> Or you live with the knowledge that people think you aren’t friendly and not social. It comes down to the comfort you have in your own skin. If you need external validation, you simply tend to do what best serves that image you want others to see in you. A PUA manipulates it so you do stuff to ‘fix your image’ on how others perceive you. Someone who’s confident with themselves doesn’t really care how others see her...
> 
> Oh, and I’m not picking on you or insinuating anything. Just using your examples to illustrate how someone might think that, but if they aren’t all together on the inside, it can also be their downfall. So “no lunches with the opposite sex” boundary is broken just to prove you are who you want to be. A PUA will continue to try and get you to domino with your boundaries and make exceptions by using something else you value more (like your image).


Honestly, I don't go to lunch with anyone, unless it's a mandatory work meeting. I use my lunch time to run errands, get shopping done, etc. I pack a lunch most days to save money and calories. Since everyone is used to me NOT going out with people, a guy whining that I'm antisocial is not going to have any impact in the office.

But yes, I guess I can see how some people might be affected by peer pressure.


----------



## xakulax

Everyone's post thus far is forcing me reevaluate my friendship with a new perspective I still don't see any potential problems but I think I will start taking steps to inshore nothing happens.


----------



## yeah_right

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah. Extensive private messaging? No. The facebook news feed is little different than seeing someone in the store and catching up on what they've been up to in a short conversation.
> 
> If he's interested, he's going to nudge that boundary and see if he can get her to sit and have coffee while they catch up... so innocuous... what could be wrong with that? That's the long private message conversation equivalent. My gf and I aren't cool with that. When we're not together, we've agreed that the opposite sex are passerbys... not events.


Also, if you see that a person of the opposite sex starts "liking" all of your SO's posts and pics, including those from two years ago...that person probably needs to be blocked ASAP.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Miss Taken said:


> While I appreciate the efforts of many to be gender-neutral on this thread; let's face it, this thread has mostly inferred that most married women are vulnerable to affairs if they come across these players. Despite her personal commitment to her boundaries, she just won't be able to resist the highly skilled PUA or player because she's a woman. I think that's erroneous, sexist and dare I say dangerous.


Actually, I'm not being sexist at ALL. I'd say the friend game is the same for each sex. Its the same if a female gets close to a married male and becomes his emotional outlet. It similarly becomes easier and easier to complain about the wife. Attachment increases to the OW, while it erodes from the wife. Boundaries are pushed unnoticeably, until this switching process completes and the man feels justified in cheating. No difference.

That's another reason I just can't see this "friending" thing being a player strategy. A player interested in married women is going to look for the woman sending out signals that she's unhappy at home and seeking attention. That fails the original premise - that the woman isn't inviting it. If she's sending these signals, of course he's going to eventually get what he wants!! 

I think the "friend guys" are truly just hapless. The friend attention is still female attention. He's not getting any anyway, so he'll just keep hanging out and "being there for her"  in hopes of something developing.

On the "friend" front, I think anyone is vulnerable to close relationships with opposite sex friends undermining their marriage regardless of how good they think their boundaries are. Its not just something done BY the other person, its that the closeness actually changes the cheaters frame of mind. Boundaries fail because as you get closer, you get more lax and eventually your primary attachment shifts from spouse to the friend.

I don't think it frees anyone of responsibility. I'd say it encourages pro-active behavior - not allowing oneself to be in that situation in the first place, by not having one-on-one opposite sex friends.


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah. Extensive private messaging? No. The facebook news feed is little different than seeing someone in the store and catching up on what they've been up to in a short conversation.
> 
> If he's interested, he's going to nudge that boundary and see if he can get her to sit and have coffee while they catch up... so innocuous... what could be wrong with that? That's the long private message conversation equivalent. My gf and I aren't cool with that. When we're not together, we've agreed that the opposite sex are passerbys... not events.


Summarized in this song (Brad Paisley - Facebook Friends): Brad Paisley-FaceBook Friends - YouTube


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Everyone's post thus far is forcing me reevaluate my friendship with a new perspective I still don't see any potential problems but I think I will start taking steps to inshore nothing happens.


Don't you think your spouse ought to be re-evaluating that with you?

Even if I was OK with a friendship with a MOS if my wife wasn't, I would end it.

To my mind if BOTH members of the couple are not on board with a friend, the friend has to go.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Don't you think your spouse ought to be re-evaluating that with you?
> 
> Even if I was OK with a friendship with a MOS if my wife wasn't, I would end it.
> 
> To my mind if BOTH members of the couple are not on board with a friend, the friend has to go.


And they need to constantly keep evaluating this "friendship" all the time as well. I thought the ones the WW had were innocent, and they were at first, but these friend players came out over time (and a short time at that) and I knew nothing about this change in the "relationship" demographic. This is why I now stick by the rule of no opposite sex friends.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

yeah_right said:


> Also, if you see that a person of the opposite sex starts "liking" all of your SO's posts and pics, including those from two years ago...that person probably needs to be blocked ASAP.


ha... I actually don't worry about those guys. My gf has plenty of those. Myself, I'm rarely on facebook regardless. She actually brought it up to me how pathetic she thinks it is and asked me why guys do that. "Look at the pics, fine... don't go "liking" through all my albums creep!" (roughly her words)

We both think its lame and smells of desperation. If guys want to demonstrate just how lame they are to my gf, no complaints from me. 

She also picks up on the guys that have to like or comment on EVERYTHING she posts. Again, she finds it pathetic that a guy is hanging on every word. A desperate guy is no threat to me. lol They bother her, but they don't matter to me. I've asked why she doesn't just delete the two major offenders and she says "because he's a high school friend" or even more creepy, the other one is her cousin's husband. Like, wtf dude? SMH.


----------



## weightlifter

Squeakr said:


> Summarized in this song (Brad Paisley - Facebook Friends): Brad Paisley-FaceBook Friends - YouTube


Wow. Seen that one.

HTD can identify with the coffee shop thing.


----------



## Squeakr

So wait, she is afraid of hurting the feelings of a high school friend, or the cousin's husband? Something odd there. All of my WW's high school friends were the ones that she hooked up with and started her As with. Pathetic. Which is why when I want to get even with her I play the Facebook song, as it shows just how pathetic the group of them were (and they all thought hey were so sly).


----------



## Deejo

xakulax said:


> Everyone's post thus far is forcing me reevaluate my friendship with a new perspective I still don't see any potential problems but I think I will start taking steps to inshore nothing happens.


The simple litmus is this:

Would you be comfortable if your spouse were conducting the same kind of relationship you are?

And ...

Is there ANYTHING that takes place during these interactions or exchanges with the opposite sex friend that you wouldn't be comfortable telling your spouse?

If the answer to this question is 'yes, we discuss some items that I wouldn't be comfortable telling my spouse about'
That being the case, you have overstepped the line, crossed the boundary and opened the door to possibilities that you likely hadn't considered or thought you were capable of outside the scope of those circumstances.


----------



## Squeakr

weightlifter said:


> Wow. Seen that one.
> 
> HTD can identify with the coffee shop thing.


It is the story of exactly how my WW's A's proceeded. It is funny because she used to judge everyone for their actions then she did it herself (just like in the song). I played it for her one day when we were going somewhere in our Honda Oddysssey (mini-van to those that don't know). It was the first time I saw her crack and be affected by her whole charade! (Oh and her OMs FB accounts disappeared the day after D-Day, coincidence? I think not!)


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> *Don't you think your spouse ought to be re-evaluating that with you?*
> 
> Even if I was OK with a friendship with a MOS if my wife wasn't, I would end it.
> 
> To my mind if BOTH members of the couple are not on board with a friend, the friend has to go.




Not married


----------



## WyshIknew

Midwest Guy said:


> Okay, I'm going to throw this one out there. No friends of the opposite sex? What about your neighbors? Our neighbors are much older than us. Yet, the husband talks much more to my wife than he does to me, to the point where it's almost blatantly obvious. As a result, it has lead me to believe he may be a "player". Or, just a big sniff.....:rofl:


Well I must be a complete saddo.

I've just been trying to think of any female friends I have. I can't think of any.

The department where I work is all male.

Sure I have mutual friends, married couples and the like but no individual female friends. I do have a couple of single ladies who I might speak to once in a blue moon, 

I have a number of ladies on TAM that I regard as online friends and some on Facebook.

I just don't have the need to make a point of having female friends.

Is that a natural boundary kicking in? An "I'm married" aura?


----------



## yeah_right

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ha... I actually don't worry about those guys. My gf has plenty of those. Myself, I'm rarely on facebook regardless. She actually brought it up to me how pathetic she thinks it is and asked me why guys do that. "Look at the pics, fine... don't go "liking" through all my albums creep!" (roughly her words)
> 
> We both think its lame and smells of desperation. If guys want to demonstrate just how lame they are to my gf, no complaints from me.
> 
> She also picks up on the guys that have to like or comment on EVERYTHING she posts. Again, she finds it pathetic that a guy is hanging on every word. A desperate guy is no threat to me. lol They bother her, but they don't matter to me. I've asked why she doesn't just delete the two major offenders and she says "because he's a high school friend" or even more creepy, the other one is her cousin's husband. Like, wtf dude? SMH.


She sounds smart, confident and fun. Marry her yesterday.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

WyshIknew said:


> Well I must be a complete saddo.
> 
> I've just been trying to think of any female friends I have. I can't think of any.
> 
> The department where I work is all male.
> 
> Sure I have mutual friends, married couples and the like but no individual female friends. I do have a couple of single ladies who I might speak to once in a blue moon,
> 
> I have a number of ladies on TAM that I regard as online friends and some on Facebook.
> 
> I just don't have the need to make a point of having female friends.
> 
> Is that a natural boundary kicking in? An "I'm married" aura?


Don't feel bad,Wysh. I don't have any male friends IRL on my own.All the men I know are friends w/my husband.I don't speak to them or see them unless he's around too. 
My boundaries slipped online for a hot second so I don't have any online male friends either,my choice. It's better for me that way being a BPDer and all.


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Summarized in this song (Brad Paisley - Facebook Friends): Brad Paisley-FaceBook Friends - YouTube


BLEH

What a HORRIBLE SONG! Now I want to vomit.


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Not married


Who isn't married? You or the friend?


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We both think its lame and smells of desperation. If guys want to demonstrate just how lame they are to my gf, no complaints from me.


Good luck with that!



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They bother her, but they don't matter to me. I've asked why she doesn't just delete the two major offenders and she says "because he's a high school friend" or even more creepy, the other one is her cousin's husband. Like, wtf dude? SMH.


Again.. good luck with that.

You are just putting your spouse on the honor system doing that... and there are a lot of people here who have learned better...


----------



## Miss Taken

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Actually, I'm not being sexist at ALL. I'd say the friend game is the same for each sex.


I know, I wasn't making an accusation towards you. I actually thought your post was a very accurate depiction of how an "unintended" EA/PA begins and agree with it. So I hope you didn't take any offense. My last post was a summary of my thoughts on this thread in it's entirety with a core focus on the premise of the predatory player. 

---

I've worked and gone to college and worked again in the nine years I had committed to WS before DDay. So, I've had male "friends", colleagues, acquaintances, study partners and have had to collaborate solo on work projects with men - even after hours doing overtime in an empty office. However, the friendships that I've had with friends of the opposite sex have never been close. Those "relationships" have all been friendly but not familiar because of boundaries like:

1) I don't discuss intimate, personal details about my life or his. If he tries to talk to me about things I wouldn't want my spouse talking to another girl about I am more than willing to change the subject, end the conversation, walk away etc. Talking about sex, exchanging compliments about appearance, talking about my or his emotional needs, our feelings, marital issues etc. are off limits to male friends. I also don't lend an ear or give him a shoulder to cry on if he tries to discuss those things to me.

2) I don't do or say things to other men, including friends that I wouldn't want to do or say in front of my spouse. I also don't allow men to get away with (see the friend story I wrote earlier on in the thread) things that they wouldn't dare attempt do in front of my spouse. This cuts out 99.9% of the bullsh!t right there.

3) I give my spouse all of the news - everyone else gets the "olds". When I have a gripe with my spouse or anything significant happens, in my life my spouse above all others (even family, my kids or female friends) is always the first to hear about it. If it's appropriate conversation fodder, then other people get to hear about it but only AFTER I've discussed it or celebrated about it with my spouse. This goes for good news and bad. The only exceptions are "good secrets" such as what I'm getting him for his birthday. 

4) Anything I can't or simply don't want to discuss with my spouse is reserved for a neutral third party. Journals, anonymous forums such as TAM, the doctor, a counselor etc. are all great examples of neutral third parties. It goes without saying that stuff like that is also off the table for discussion with any male friend.

5) I am willing to walk away from a friend (hell, I've walked away from some of my own family members) if they cross the line. I know where my lines are and I'm not afraid to assert myself when they're tested. If that's not respected, I'm gone. If my spouse is uncomfortable with someone, I'm gone. If I suspect my friend is attracted to me, I'm gone. 

6) Outside of a hand-shake, I don't touch other men. I don't hug other men, hold their hands, sit on their laps, play-fight with or kiss men on the cheek and on those dreaded GNO's, I also don't dance with men. The only males besides my spouse that I touch are my own flesh and blood such as my children or my great Uncle Pete (he's like a grandpa to me).

Women with good boundaries that avoid the fire even when being friends with men do exist. Many have chimed in on this thread over the last couple of days.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> BLEH
> 
> What a HORRIBLE SONG! Now I want to vomit.


Sorry you didn't like it, but it is no worse than "When a Man Loves a Woman" or Escape (The Pina Colada song).


----------



## Deejo

To my mind, like Dvls points out I am selective on what I will tolerate and what I won't. 
If someone I've become serious with has guy friends that she has been seeing long before me, I'm not concerned. Those guys are orbiters. They may be hoping for more ... but its never going to happen. 

As for a guy that is consistently trying to isolate my partner, be it through messaging, or get togethers, I'm just going to, and have asked the question;
"Have you slept with this guy before?"
"Are you aware he wants to be more than friends and do you want the same, because I think you make a cute couple." 

And of course she usually cracks up at the notion.

I tend to approach these things with confidence and humor rather than indignation and demands.

Whereas, if it is apparent my partner doesn't respect me and is engaging in these behaviors?

Then its time to throw the grenade. Destabilize. Or exit.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

WhiteRaven said:


> Can a husband stop his wife from straying when a player goes hard for her? I'd like to hear from men who have been on both sides of the fence.


This is a two part answer.

The husband can have a SMALL amount of sway by having open conversations about it with his wife.

The more important part is, can your WIFE stop herself from straying?

You make it sound like the woman has no choice in the matter.

The easiest way to affair proof your marriage is to work hard when times are good to KEEP THEM GOOD!! Don't take your spouse for granted, pay attention to them, give them compliments.... basically...date them like you did when you were still trying to win their love.


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> Who isn't married? You or the friend?


Me i'm not married.


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Sorry you didn't like it, but it is no worse than "When a Man Loves a Woman" or Escape (The Pina Colada song).


It's not that it's sappy, it's just the way internet affairs happen.

Facebook is the number one cheater tool on the internet right now.

And this dude is writing songs about this nonsense?

Never mind sappy, it's offensive.

I thought that was your point in bringing the song up.

I know he doens't mention cheating in the SONG, but there is a very high number of those "facebook friendships" that are actually online affairs...

I would LOVE to know what %.. I am guessing around half of them are affairs.


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Me i'm not married.


and your friend? She's married?


----------



## treyvion

Racer said:


> Exactly. I don’t. I blame her entirely.
> 
> And like I said. That is how I crushed my WW. Because she saw PUA stuff as bull, she used her intelligence to support denial of the obvious. And used her confidence in herself to convince herself she was somehow stronger. She was so f’n strong and smart that she could ‘never’ fall for a pua and his bs... He played her wonderfully using those traits against her. _“Your husband would be mad about coffee!? How insecure and controlling... You don’t see anything wrong with this do you? So why are you letting him tell you what to do? You aren’t weak or his puppet! Screw him and his insecurity.. He should be the one taking you out to coffee instead of me.”_
> 
> She was her own downfall by being the exact opposite of how she saw herself in the mirror and sticking with it to prove just how smart and strong she was (and seeing that as doing the opposite of anything I might want her to be doing). She would be controlled by no man... lol. Six months later a simple ‘you want to come over?’ text had her running to his place and dropping her knickers.


Looks like her strong and smart a$$ got taken control of by the other guy. Playing into her devilish side about not letting hubby control her, what an easy game. Wow.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Squeakr said:


> So wait, she is afraid of hurting the feelings of a high school friend, or the cousin's husband? Something odd there. All of my WW's high school friends were the ones that she hooked up with and started her As with. Pathetic. Which is why when I want to get even with her I play the Facebook song, as it shows just how pathetic the group of them were (and they all thought hey were so sly).


I don't think she's concerned with their feelings. She was on facebook early, when facebook was limited to who you were in school with. This particular guy was just someone she knew in some of her classes - a friend in the loosest sense of the word. She doesn't live in her home town anymore, and even though the person is pretty meaningless, I don't expect her to go unfriending everyone who "likes" too many pics or status updates anymore than I'm going to follow her around to make sure nobody checks her out in public. Her annoyance is similar to how I'm annoyed by old fb friends I never talk to who post partisan political garbage. It's never quite offensive enough to just get rid of them. "I don't want to know you anymore because you like my stuff" or "I don't want to know you anymore because I don't like your politics" just doesn't seem... I don't know, polite? lol 

I'm well aware of the potential for "old HS crushes". He isn't one. If she ever showed interest in the guy, I'd honestly laugh my @ss off as I'm headed out the door. I don't feel threatened in the slightest.

I have a variety of "friends" like this too. Women who for whatever reason comment on my pics or status unusually often given I barely knew them in HS and never interact with them today.

The cousin's husband is a family thing. The cousin is about the same age, and they're pretty close. I imagine you don't want to have the conversation about why you unfriended her husband. And again, we're talking too many "likes"... so if someone asks what do you say? "Yeah I unfriended you, you liked all my bikini pics... perv!"


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> and your friend? She's married?


Yes. we have been friends scenes college same major and we have been only friends.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



Allen_A said:


> and your friend? She's married?


As an odd crollary to this, I can tell you that whenever I get together with my core group of married friends and their wives, the wives go out of there way to chat me up and want details about whats going on in my love life. ALL of them have commented on my appearance and how different I seem since my married days. I dont believe any of it is nefarious ... but I know that it could be.

Awareness is a big deal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Good luck with that!
> 
> 
> 
> Again.. good luck with that.
> 
> You are just putting your spouse on the honor system doing that... and there are a lot of people here who have learned better...


She's not my spouse, she's my gf. And yeah, I'm not sweating it at all. There's more that goes into my thinking a guy is a threat than excessive "likes". In his dreams. lol

I do and will always put my women on "the honor system". Its called trust, and it absolutely does expose you to risk. If I don't think I can trust her, I wouldn't be with her. We've both had moments where we crossed each others lines momentarily - recognized it and came clean. I don't expect people to be perfect. Lord knows I'm not. I do expect a degree of mindfulness and prevention that keeps "nothing" from becoming "something".

Eliminate all risk via some paranoid desire to oppress and see how that works out. I'm not aware of any man who has ever gotten into a woman's pants via excessive facebook "likes". I am however aware of many who have no shot whatsoever for having done so. Like I said, guys can come at my gf all day long with the crap that I know turns women off.

We also have each others fb passwords... so its really moot, but I honestly have felt no desire to check up on her regardless. If she hurts me she hurts me. Its the same risk she takes with me.


----------



## davecarter

Allen_A said:


> It's not that it's sappy, it's just the way internet affairs happen.
> 
> Facebook is the number one cheater tool on the internet right now.
> 
> And this dude is writing songs about this nonsense?
> 
> Never mind sappy, it's offensive.
> 
> I thought that was your point in bringing the song up.
> 
> I know he doens't mention cheating in the SONG, but there is a very high number of those "facebook friendships" that are actually online affairs...
> 
> I would LOVE to know what %.. I am guessing around half of them are affairs.


Agreed. I think he should be shot.
And anyone who uses Facebook in an 'inappropriate' manner* should be jailed.


_
* see certain users about levels of 'inappropriateness'_


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Yes. we have been friends scenes college same major and we have been only friends.


And you have discussed the precautions you are taking at length with her husband to set his mind at ease?

Or is he just naive and you are not educating him?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Oh, and to add to the facebook song... here's the internet friends song. Knife Party - Internet Friends - YouTube


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> I would LOVE to know what %.. I am guessing around half of them are affairs.


Half? Methinks you're a bit paranoid. Facebook is old news in the affairs dept anyway. Everyone knows to check fb.

Affairs are now conducted over services like snapchat, tinder, whatsapp and kik.


----------



## xakulax

Deejo said:


> As an odd crollary to this, I can tell you that whenever I get together with my core group of married friends and their wives, the wives go out of there way to chat me up and want details about whats going on in my love life. ALL of them have commented on my appearance and how different I seem since my married days. I dont believe any of it is nefarious ... but I know that it could be.
> 
> *Awareness is a big deal*.



Vary true. A principal I live by is the OODA loop (or observe, orient, decide, and act) if it became apparent to me the friendship is starting to change in to something else I will put an end to it. A friendship is one thing but a marriage is a lot more important in my opinion.


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Half? Methinks you're a bit paranoid. Facebook is old news in the affairs dept anyway. Everyone knows to check fb.
> 
> Affairs are now conducted over services like snapchat, tinder, whatsapp and kik.


I think not.

There is even a domain name registered : 

facebookcheating.com

lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> I think not.
> 
> There is even a domain name registered :
> 
> facebookcheating.com
> 
> lol


There are domains registered for EVERYTHING, its not evidence of anything. Half of people on facebook friendships being affairs is an exaggeration no matter how you slice it. I don't buy that for a second.

You know what gets used for affairs? Any communication medium. lol


----------



## Deejo

Allen_A said:


> And you have discussed the precautions you are taking at length with her husband to set his mind at ease?
> 
> Or is he just naive and you are not educating him?


Not his job.

His job is conduct HIMSELF in a manner that aligns with his personal value system.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

xakulax said:


> Vary true. A principal I live by is the OODA loop (or observe, orient, decide, and act) if it became apparent to me the friendship is starting to change in to something else I will put an end to it. A friendship is one thing but a marriage is a lot more important in my opinion.


For me its not just observation... it could be as simple as over-exposure. Too much time spent with some particular person, or even just away from me. That balance is probably going to differ from couple to couple as far as how much they tolerate a given person's pull on their SOs time, and how much time apart they want/need themselves. Its good to have your own things and bring fresh experience into the relationship - in fact I don't want someone who doesn't have any life of their own, but its bad if you're apart so much that the connection isn't being sufficiently maintained and some other guy is having lunch with her every day.

In my relationship, we don't tolerate any one-on-one time with members of the opposite sex, and even group time that includes specific people without our presence is purposefully limited.


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> And you have discussed the precautions you are taking at length with her husband to set his mind at ease?
> 
> Or is he just naive and you are not educating him?



Well seeing how I made this decision today I don't know maybe I should but that might be a strange conversation don't you think. "Hay man even though I have no interest in your wife and as far as I know she has no interest in me I'm going to take steps to make shore nothing happens" if he isn't concerned he sure as hell would be then.This could turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Allen_A

Deejo said:


> Not his job.
> 
> His job is conduct HIMSELF in a manner that aligns with his personal value system.


That's ridiculous.


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Well seeing how I made this decision today I don't know maybe I should but that might be a strange conversation don't you think. "Hay man even though I have no interest in your wife and as far as I know she has no interest in me I'm going to take steps to make shore nothing happens" if he isn't concerned he sure as hell would be then.This could turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.


if it could turn into an affair, then you have to take precautions.

And yes, it would be a strange conversation. That does not mean you avoid it.

You could just ASK him if he's ever felt uncomfortable and sort out from there... Find out where HE is at first and then work it out casually over a beer or whatever.


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know what gets used for affairs? Any communication medium. lol


Facebook is the most common one at the moment.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Facebook is the most common one at the moment.


No. Its just that there are more people ON facebook. On a per capita basis, trust me, kik has way more cheaters than facebook... and tinder is widely regarded as a dating service FOR cheaters.


----------



## davecarter

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Half? Methinks you're a bit paranoid. Facebook is old news in the affairs dept anyway. Everyone knows to check fb.
> 
> Affairs are now conducted over services like snapchat, tinder, whatsapp and kik.


Penny dropping _again_.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> That's ridiculous.


And very attractive. Checking up on everything a woman does... extremely unattractive. Ladies?


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No. Its just that there are more people ON facebook. On a per capita basis, trust me, kik has way more cheaters than facebook... and tinder is widely regarded as a dating service FOR cheaters.


More people ON facebook makes facebook the most common source for cheating.

Everyone on married and looking sites is looking, but they aren't as common.

Facebook creates more trouble than probably most of those other sites combined.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Facebook is the most common one at the moment.


I would bet money it is Text/ SMS/MMS/IM as the most common. The thing is that Facebook is such a noted issue that it is getting the most attention. FB is falling out of the graces with lots, in fact it is now starting to be called MomBook.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> if it could turn into an affair, then you have to take precautions.
> 
> And yes, it would be a strange conversation. That does not mean you avoid it.
> 
> You could just ASK him if he's ever felt uncomfortable and sort out from there... Find out where HE is at first and then work it out casually over a beer or whatever.


I agree with xakulux as that would be a weird thing. I know that if one of my friends approached me like that, no matter how casual, I would be like "what have you heard and what do you know?"


----------



## theroad

davecarter said:


> 1/3 , so I can't really see that my wife put up much resistance when she met OM#1 (she says to this day from first meeting to first physical 'date', i.e. sex, was about 4 weeks) and they got talking each day at school, her conversation turns to complaining, he probably ran the whole "_well, I'm here if you want to talk...he must be crazy to treat you like that, blah-blah-blah_".
> 
> The fact that, me and the OM were poles apart: he is ex-army, physically built, plays rugby, works in construction and was into fast bikes. That's quite a lot of Alpha-stuff right off the bat.
> It also didn't help that he had a nickname which alluded to his reputation of being well-hung (_which she knew about prior to their first 'date'_).


He was a player. A hot alpha player. Just because it took him 4 weeks means nothing. Except that he was very good at playing and your marriage made it easy for him.


----------



## Miss Taken

Squeakr said:


> I agree with xakulux as that would be a weird thing. I know that if one of my friends approached me like that, no matter how casual, I would be like "what have you heard and what do you know?"


I also agree. If a friend came up to me and out of the blue told me that she doesn't want to sleep with my Husband but here are some handy tips on infidelity it probably wouldn't end well. LOL


----------



## treyvion

theroad said:


> He was a player. A hot alpha player. Just because it took him 4 weeks means nothing. Except that he was very good at playing and your marriage made it easy for him.


I just bang some poor fools wife...


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> I also agree. If a friend came up to me and out of the blue told me that she doesn't want to sleep with my Husband but here are some handy tips on infidelity it probably wouldn't end well. LOL


Right, much better to just ignore the elephant in the room.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> Right, much better to just ignore the elephant in the room.


Well, personally, my WS doesn't have friends like this and I don't have any opposite-sex "besties" either. But what if it's not an elephant in the room for this group of people? We don't know them. 

I can see the discussion certainly creating an elephant, no matter how well intended. If the husband has an issue with their friendship; he should say something. He is not without a voice is he? If Xakulax isn't doing anything wrong, and the husband is okay with the friendship just let it be. I don't see why he should have to stir the pot unnecessarily if nothing is going on. 

Honestly Allen, if your marriage was going great and you had a friend and he approached you out of the ever-loving blue that he doesn't want to screw your wife, would that not raise your hackles a bit? Really? If I wasn't thinking about an affair before I certainly would then. 

It's like when my kid does something bad, and I come in the room and before I even know anything is wrong he says, "I didn't do it!" It makes me look for whatever it is he says he didn't do.


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> But what if it's not an elephant in the room for this group of people?


There are several people on this thread who have already concluded that men and women are best not to have these kinds of relationships... so for some of the posters on this thread, it IS already an elephant/problem... 

I am still divided on the subject, but I am leaning in the err on the side of caution direction...



Miss Taken said:


> I can see the discussion certainly creating an elephant, no matter how well intended.


If it does, then it's likely there is something there to be addressed anyhow.

Honestly, I think it's best spoken and resolved than two people just sitting there assuming the other person shares the same understanding... that's how marriages get into trouble isn't it?



Miss Taken said:


> If the husband has an issue with their friendship; he should say something.


OR as I mentioned, he could just be one of those nice enough guys that is naive enough to think his wife would never cheat.

How many guys on this forum WERE that guy and will never play that fool again?



Miss Taken said:


> He is not without a voice is he?


He may very well be without our hard earned education on this topic. Which in effect would make him without a voice yes.



Miss Taken said:


> If Xakulax isn't doing anything wrong, and the husband is okay with the friendship just let it be.


I dunno, a matter of courtesy maybe? I would not be so presumptuous as to befriend a married female without a discussion at some point with her husband simply as a matter of respect.

Again, this is how affairs start. NOT talking to the husband.



Miss Taken said:


> I don't see why he should have to stir the pot unnecessarily if nothing is going on.


What you call stirring the pot, I call good manners.



Miss Taken said:


> Honestly Allen, if your marriage was going great and you had a friend and he approached you out of the ever-loving blue that he doesn't want to screw your wife, would that not raise your hackles a bit? Really? If I wasn't thinking about an affair before I certainly would then.


First off, its not HIS friend, the guy in question is friends with the guys WIFE.

And yes, if some guy was "friends" with my wife my hackles would already be up.

And if a guys aren't he's uneducated and naive (I certainly was at one time... never again).

You seem to think getting this guys hackles up is a BAD thing.

I don't.

I don't think it would hurt him to educate himself on this topic and be a bit more active in protecting his marriage. At the moment the guy sounds rather naive.

Heck, the guys wife has guys hitting on her outright and he does nothing about it according to OP.



Miss Taken said:


> It's like when my kid does something bad, and I come in the room and before I even know anything is wrong he says, "I didn't do it!" It makes me look for whatever it is he says he didn't do.


Uh no... I am not suggesting he play the "I didn't do it" line at all no.

Saying "I didn't do it" implies someone DID SOMETHING.

That's where your example falls apart. I am not suggesting the guy in our example accuse the wife of DOING anything.

You think its' best to keep quiet on the matter. I don't. That's all.

I think there are a LOT of conversations that OUGHT to happen that don't.. simply because of the reasons you are posting here.. too awkward, probably not an issue, could make someone nervous.. yada yada yada.

I don't know how many marriages MIGHT have been saved if SOMEONE SAID something SOONER.

Heck, how many people KNOW an actual affair is going on and don't warn the betrayed spouse because it might be an awkwad conversation???

Two of my wife's friends did just that. They were more concerned with how awkward with how THEY would feel than how horrible I felt finding out MUCH LATER how serious the problem was.

Sorry, between awkward and silence, I vote for awkward every time.


----------



## vellocet

yeah_right said:


> Vellocet - Women who fall into affairs typically do so via the emotional route. Not all, but I'd bet most. This thread is not about just sex. It began about how players approach woman and build trust through friendship/emotional means. It has expanded into how dangerous male-female friendships are because of the emotional bonds that can form.


So what? They are MARRIED. They shouldn't be building up emotions and friendships like that in the first place.





> It has nothing to do with whether or not my H and I got busy at a sex club with people we have never seen again.



Didn't say it did. I was commenting on your ability to tell another man "no".

Its like me turning down someone buying me a drink because I already had too much from someone elses tab. Pretty easy for me to say no when I've already had my fill.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> So what? They are MARRIED. They shouldn't be building up emotions and friendships like that in the first place.


That's the point. Specifically that "friendships like that" aren't friendships like that, until they are. Its always something innocent until the friendship becomes a conduit to emotional connection and POOF... not so innocent anymore. It makes having opposite sex friends a risk many people aren't comfortable with, and with good reason.


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's the point. Specifically that "friendships like that" aren't friendships like that, until they are. Its always something innocent until the friendship becomes a conduit to emotional connection and POOF... not so innocent anymore. It makes having opposite sex friends a risk many people aren't comfortable with, and with good reason.


Exactly! So put the fire out before it darn well starts!

Fire prevention rather than fire extinguishing... something like that...


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> There are several people on this thread who have already concluded that men and women are best not to have these kinds of relationships... so for some of the posters on this thread, it IS already an elephant/problem...
> 
> I am still divided on the subject, but I am leaning in the err on the side of caution direction...
> 
> 
> 
> If it does, then it's likely there is something there to be addressed anyhow.
> 
> Honestly, I think it's best spoken and resolved than two people just sitting there assuming the other person shares the same understanding... that's how marriages get into trouble isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> OR as I mentioned, he could just be one of those nice enough guys that is naive enough to think his wife would never cheat.
> 
> How many guys on this forum WERE that guy and will never play that fool again?
> 
> 
> 
> He may very well be without our hard earned education on this topic. Which in effect would make him without a voice yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, a matter of courtesy maybe? I would not be so presumptuous as to befriend a married female without a discussion at some point with her husband simply as a matter of respect.
> 
> Again, this is how affairs start. NOT talking to the husband.
> 
> 
> 
> What you call stirring the pot, I call good manners.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, its not HIS friend, the guy in question is friends with the guys WIFE.
> 
> And yes, if some guy was "friends" with my wife my hackles would already be up.
> 
> And if a guys aren't he's uneducated and naive (I certainly was at one time... never again).
> 
> You seem to think getting this guys hackles up is a BAD thing.
> 
> I don't.
> 
> I don't think it would hurt him to educate himself on this topic and be a bit more active in protecting his marriage. At the moment the guy sounds rather naive.
> 
> Heck, the guys wife has guys hitting on her outright and he does nothing about it according to OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh no... I am not suggesting he play the "I didn't do it" line at all no.
> 
> Saying "I didn't do it" implies someone DID SOMETHING.
> 
> That's where your example falls apart. I am not suggesting the guy in our example accuse the wife of DOING anything.
> 
> You think its' best to keep quiet on the matter. I don't. That's all.
> 
> I think there are a LOT of conversations that OUGHT to happen that don't.. simply because of the reasons you are posting here.. too awkward, probably not an issue, could make someone nervous.. yada yada yada.
> 
> I don't know how many marriages MIGHT have been saved if SOMEONE SAID something SOONER.
> 
> Heck, how many people KNOW an actual affair is going on and don't warn the betrayed spouse because it might be an awkwad conversation???
> 
> Two of my wife's friends did just that. They were more concerned with how awkward with how THEY would feel than how horrible I felt finding out MUCH LATER how serious the problem was.
> 
> Sorry, between awkward and silence, I vote for awkward every time.


To be sure, I agree that people should speak up *when something is going on*. That is the honourable and right thing to do. Those are times an awkward conversation beats silence hands down. I'm sorry to hear that your friends didn't have the integrity to have those conversations with you when it mattered. They sound like sh!tty friends and I hate that for you.

However, if nothing is going on I have to disagree with having an "awkward conversation". In that case, silence to me trumps the awkwardness and undue conflict it would create. IF NOTHING is going on. 

If he is being honest, I have to consider that his situation and what happened with your friends when your wife was cheating are completely different situations. He claims (and I have no proof so have to take it as the truth until proven otherwise) that this isn't an emotional affair, that they are respecting boundaries and the sanctity of marriage.

As far as we know, the husband is not objecting to the friendship. As far as we know they are both being respectful of the marriage and the husband. As far as we know, this isn't an issue or an elephant to him. How many hoops should an innocent man jump through in order to prove his innocence? 

Just another example:

Lets say I'm a police officer investigating the disappearance of a missing wife. Let us also say I am interviewing the husband.

Me: "When did you last see your wife?"

Husband: (Wanting to be honourable and assert his innocence of course) says, "I didn't kill her."

What happens next? My case goes from a missing person's file to a suspected murder all because I got an answer to a question I never asked. Mr. Husband is also my primary suspect. 

I think it's important, although we've obtained this hard-earned education (that nobody wants), not to view everything from the subjective lenses of betrayal. Lest we project our own baggage onto other people and encourage them into situations that are bound to backfire.


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> Heck, *the guys wife has guys hitting on her outright and he does nothing about it according to OP.*



Sorry but I never said that or allude to that in any of my post. Sound like someone is projecting a little bit; if guys are hitting on her then it not happening in my field of vision and for the record her husband strikes me as the kind of guy who isn't afraid to ask me if anything up.


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> Lets say I'm a police officer investigating the disappearance of a missing wife. Let us also say I am interviewing the husband.
> 
> Me: "When did you last see your wife?"
> 
> Husband: (Wanting to be honourable and assert his innocence of course) says, "I didn't kill her."
> 
> What happens next? My case goes from a missing person's file to a suspected murder all because I got an answer to a question I never asked. Mr. Husband is also my primary suspect.


No. Again you use an example where someone suggests something is going on.

I am not suggesting this dude here go up to the husband and say

"Your wife is cheating, but I didn't do it..."

NOTHING is going on as far as well know. So your examples don't fit.

I see cops all the time on my way to work. I don't HIDE from them or stay silent... I actually walk up to them and ask them how their day is going... they appreciate the forthrightness.

That's all I am advocating here is some forthrightness rather than awkward silence on the topic of infidelity.



Miss Taken said:


> I think it's important, although we've obtained this hard-earned education (that nobody wants), not to view everything from the subjective lenses of betrayal. Lest we project our own baggage onto other people and encourage them into situations that are bound to backfire.


I honestly think there are a LOT of naive men out there that are headed for trouble.. or ARE in trouble and don't even know it yet.

I hardly think the education we have is going to ruin their marriage.

You are suggesting because they can't handle the education, they are better off ignorant?

I doubt it.. look at where it got most of the other men who were uneducated and naive? It got a lot of them cheated on.

There are ways that this conversation can go badly yes, but there are also ways the conversation can go well.

I am inclined to think its a conversation better off taking place than not taking place at all. It just needs to be handled with good manners and maturity.

Maybe it's just me, but as a man, I would much more appreciate a man that approached me to talk about this stuff than one who just kept hanging out with my wife and not saying a word to me. That is just rude to my mind.

I do agree the conversation could go south. But that does not mean I don't think it ought to happen.

There are quite a few here on this thread who appear to not even think the friendship ought to be happening in the first place.

I am simply walking the middle ground right now and advocating some mannerly respect and conversation.

Thats a fair compromise i think.

Again I am NOT advocating an "I didn't do it" conversation.

I am talking about a guy to guy discussion about infidelity, respect, and boundaries.

That's a healthy conversation a lot of people ought to have but don't.


----------



## Deejo

Allen_A said:


> Exactly! So put the fire out before it darn well starts!
> 
> Fire prevention rather than fire extinguishing... something like that...


Or ... be a firefighter. Chicks think firefighters are sexy.
I agree with the prevention piece, but it shouldn't be about clear-cutting everything to the ground in order to keep things from burning down.

This is why I say, be aware.

Recognize what can fuel a fire. Know what your partners accelerants are. I'm a big believer that you should really KNOW the state of your marriage at any given moment. Keep your marriage healthy and your spouse happy and engaged and you don't need to worry about sparks turning into a fire.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> Keep your marriage healthy and your spouse happy and engaged and you don't need to worry about sparks turning into a fire.


That isn't always true. There are some of us who tried to keep the home fires stoked, but the thrill of f'ing someone that isn't your spouse is too much for some of our WS's to deal with.

Some are just plain fickle and need a new face to F once in a while.


----------



## Allen_A

xakulax said:


> Sorry but I never said that or allude to that in any of my post. Sound like someone is projecting a little bit; if guys are hitting on her then it not happening in my field of vision and for the record her husband strikes me as the kind of guy who isn't afraid to ask me if anything up.


Not projecting, I mistook your post for DvlsAdvc8's. That's the post I was thinking of.

My bad. Sincere apologies.


----------



## Allen_A

vellocet said:


> That isn't always true. There are some of us who tried to keep the home fires stoked, but the thrill of f'ing someone that isn't your spouse is too much for some of our WS's to deal with.
> 
> Some are just plain fickle and need a new face to F once in a while.


Yes, there is no such thing as an affair-proof marriage.

That I believe.

There are just gradations of risk you accept with the territory. But you can manage the risk well, not so well, or ignore the risk completely.

Three possible outcomes.


----------



## Philat

vellocet said:


> That isn't always true. There are some of us who tried to keep the home fires stoked, but the thrill of f'ing someone that isn't your spouse is too much for some of our WS's to deal with.
> 
> Some are just plain fickle and need a new face to F once in a while.


:iagree: Deejo's advice is sound and is probably the best anybody can do, but it's still no guarantee. The one need you can never meet is being somebody else.


----------



## xakulax

Allen_A said:


> Not projecting, I mistook your post for DvlsAdvc8's. That's the post I was thinking off.
> 
> My bad. Sincere apologies.


----------



## hospitality

Players need to be broken into two groups; players you don't know and players you do know but not know they are players.

I don't think anyone really stresses out about the GNO or wife bumping into a player at the grocery store. If wife is hooking up on GNO there are serious problems or she was just looking to cheat.

What stresses men out are the guys they know their wife is in contact with. Guys from work, the pastor, the youth leader, men from Bible study/church, the coach, father of your kids friend, guy at the gym, your bff, your wife's bff's husband, the neighbor, troop leader and etc. 

All these relationships start out with a purpose and over the course of months or years the guard is dropped because they are professional and completely platonic. However, small hits of dopamine from the OM start to replace those hits from your spouse. Next thing you know your wife thinks you are some looser because you don't dance the polka because OM does.


----------



## Deejo

Let me be clear, I don't think there is such thing as affair proof marriage.

I do however believe, that in any, and I do mean ANY interaction or exchange that you have with your partner, you are offered the opportunity to build on your connection and attraction, or to detract from it.





Philat said:


> :iagree: Deejo's advice is sound and is probably the best anybody can do, but it's still no guarantee. The one need you can never meet is being somebody else.


----------



## sidney2718

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not just women. Any two people getting close, can erode boundaries with ease. Its not some weakness of women. Its human nature.


I was just going to post something to the same effect.

What I think is going on in this thread is that some reality is being placed into the mix that previously had oversimplified everything. Sure, if all boundaries are clearly in place and never violated, nothing happens. But we can't keep women locked up. The modern world throws them into situations invoving men (sometimes in positions of power) and all sorts of morally dubious situations. The same applies to men.

I guess the point of the whole thing is that life is tough and more than ever, husbands and wives have got to talk to each other. Subjects like infidelity should not be off the table, or worse, simply result in "If you cheat that's the end of the marriage" and the end of the conversation. Why do I say that? There is NO agreement on what "infidelity" is. Sure, a physical affair is infidelity, but what about emotional affairs? And what is an emotional affair anyway? How do we define it?

I daresay that reading this thread might be good for both husbands and wives.


----------



## sidney2718

xakulax said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with you there I have friends female and male and one of my closest friends is a woman and she is marred we are good friends but we never play that game I have too much respect for her, are friendship and the sanctity of marriage as corny as that might sound to jeopardize that and she feels the same way.
> 
> 
> boy and girls cant be friends
> 
> mature men and women can be friends


Sure, YOU don't play that game and she knows that you don't. Which leaves her wide open to you if you decide that you really do like her.


----------



## sidney2718

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, I know a lot of people on this forum share that opinion. I don't. I've seen it happen over and over again and everyone says "it just happened!"
> 
> I usually add a caveat - if any attraction exists. I can have ugly female friends at will knowing there is zero risk of anything happening regardless of circumstances.
> 
> If there's any attraction at all, its just a bad recipe. After all, what is a relationship if not a friendship with physical attraction? To my thinking, its playing with fire. It can keep you warm, and it can also burn your house down.


I don't agree with this. I agree with weightlifter that the percentage of women who have at least one affair is about 30% (I hope I have that correct). Considering that women in the workplace can get hit upon weekly if not daily, the odds that any one male will be successful on any particular occasion are very very low.

It should also be pointed out that as far as anyone can tell (survey results from 50 years ago are both scarce and untrustworthy) seduction attempts, male on female, female on male, have been going on since the early stone age. Most of the time it results in a short term scratching of an itch and then ends. The number of actual long term affairs is totally unknown since they are often very carefully hidden.


----------



## sidney2718

I had originally written:


> Because they offer affection, caresses, attention, complements, exciting sex, etc. to a woman who isn't getting enough of those things at home. And that mainly stems from the fact that in a marriage you have to worry about the laundry, washing dishes, cleaning under the living room couch, and so on, while in an affair you have none of those little things to worry about.


One reply was:


vellocet said:


> Well if that's the case, she can divorce her H, become single where she doesn't have to worry about the daily life trials with a spouse, then see just how long it takes before the player gets tired of the same old meat.


She can. But believe it or not, she may well not want to. She has a long term marriage, children, a nice life, a husband she gets along with, and so on. They even have a sex life of sorts consisting of no foreplay, quick action, and rolling over into the snoring position right afterwards.

She and the right guy seduce each other, the foreplay is good, the sex is great, and there is no guilt whatsoever. Who is going to find out about this twice a month affair, conducted quietly and safely away from the usual communication media.

Such affairs can go on for years and not be detected.


----------



## sidney2718

Miss Taken said:


> :iagree: with everything you've written in this post. It highlights EXACTLY, how most EAs/PAs begin for both men and women.
> 
> But even in this perfect narrative you've provided, it's still the boundaries and one's commitment to upholding them that matter more than any male player, or female man-eater does. Geez, I sound like a broken record. Some people have some boundaries, some have none. Some have strong ones that just aren't strong enough or they're just not as committed to keeping.
> 
> *(Omitted material)*
> 
> While I appreciate the efforts of many to be gender-neutral on this thread; let's face it, this thread has mostly inferred that most married women are vulnerable to affairs if they come across these players. Despite her personal commitment to her boundaries, she just won't be able to resist the highly skilled PUA or player because she's a woman. I think that's erroneous, sexist and dare I say dangerous.


I agree with you. And yet in today's society in the US it is still the man who is expected to make the first move. Having a woman walk up to a man she doesn't know and start a conversation with him does happen, but the opposite is more common.

But I have seen women cultivate friendships with men with an ulterior motive.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> That's all I am advocating here is some forthrightness rather than awkward silence on the topic of infidelity.


And I don’t disagree with you about this. Again, when there’s infidelity related behaviour going on. In his case, there isn’t. What I disagree with you on is this.



Allen_A said:


> And you have discussed the precautions you are taking at length with her husband to set his mind at ease?


If nothing is going on, why do you think it’s his job to outline the precautions he’s taking to the husband to set the husband’s mind at ease? We don’t know the husband. Who are we to say that the husband’s mind isn’t at ease already? If anyone should be having the conversation about precautions and boundaries, it should be the husband and wife. If she’s sticking to the boundaries that they’ve agreed upon, the husband shouldn’t even have to have this precaution talk with X.

And this:



Allen_A said:


> Or is he just naive and you are not educating him?


I think it’s invasive, not awkwardness that would prevent me from trying to “educate” anyone on the subject of infidelity. It’s not my job. I don’t think it’s his either. Being “educated” as we are, I don’t think we’re morally obligated to prosthelytize about infidelity to our friends, loved ones and acquaintances like born again Christian evangelists that just found Jesus, if they don’t ask us about it. 

A big problem with infidelity is that people think they are safe from it until it happens. Civil, courteous, mannerly conversations won’t help the masses. We were all invincible until we were betrayed. Hindsight is 20/20 even for the blind.

If someone asks me in person or posts on TAM or something similar, by all means, I’ll share my tricks and tips about and dealing with and catching a cheater. I think given your own betrayal, this is something you would want someone to have done to you but most people wouldn’t welcome unsolicited advice on the subject.

I also disagree with this.



Allen_A said:


> You could just ASK him if he's ever felt uncomfortable and sort out from there... Find out where HE is at first and then work it out casually over a beer or whatever.


If nothing is going on, (and the consensus as of now is that nothing is); then this is unnecessary stirring of the pot. He’s not obligated to ask the husband these questions. While the husband may not have our education, he like us has his own gut instincts and can do with them as he wishes. Asking those kind of questions to the husband unsolicited, will no doubt make the husband suspicious and he may as well say, “Don’t worry bro. I don’t want to pound your wife.” to the husband as it will have the same effect?

Again, I do completely agree with THIS:



Allen_A said:


> Two of my wife's friends did just that. They were more concerned with how awkward with how THEY would feel than how horrible I felt finding out MUCH LATER how serious the problem was.
> 
> Sorry, between awkward and silence, I vote for awkward every time.


Like I said before, when something IS GOING ON, people should vote for the awkward conversation. However, your situation with your wife’s sh!tty friends involved them knowing something where they should have spoken up. His situation is different. 



Allen_A said:


> No. Again you use an example where someone suggests something is going on.
> 
> I am not suggesting this dude here go up to the husband and say
> 
> "Your wife is cheating, but I didn't do it..."
> 
> NOTHING is going on as far as well know. So your examples don't fit.


Apples to oranges my friend. In this case, asking the husband probing questions about the level of one’s comfort, precautions et al. about cheating when not solicited or invited to do so by the husband will have the same effect.



Allen_A said:


> That's all I am advocating here is some forthrightness rather than awkward silence on the topic of infidelity.


Again, I don’t disagree with this.



Allen_A said:


> I hardly think the education we have is going to ruin their marriage.


Perhaps not but that’s not what I was inferring. It could definitely ruin the friendship though and if it’s as innocent as he claims, for what? 



Allen_A said:


> You are suggesting because they can't handle the education, they are better off ignorant?


No. Either you’re putting words in my mouth or we’ve had a communication breakdown somewhere along the way.



Allen_A said:


> There are quite a few here on this thread who appear to not even think the friendship ought to be happening in the first place.


Yes, in this thread, on an infidelity board where most of us have been cheated on. Best not forget to consider the source. Our opinions are from the worldview of those that have been betrayed and our boundaries are also a lot stronger for it.



Allen_A said:


> I am talking about a guy to guy discussion about infidelity, respect, and boundaries.
> 
> That's a healthy conversation a lot of people ought to have but don't.


I see wisdom in that but I think it’s a healthy conversation that couples ought to have (and revisit from time to time), not necessarily one that X (sorry for shortening your name) is obligated to have with the husband unless the husband initiates it.


----------



## sidney2718

Midwest Guy said:


> Okay, I'm going to throw this one out there. No friends of the opposite sex? What about your neighbors? Our neighbors are much older than us. Yet, the husband talks much more to my wife than he does to me, to the point where it's almost blatantly obvious. As a result, it has lead me to believe he may be a "player". Or, just a big sniff.....:rofl:


As an older guy my guess is that talking to your wife makes him feel ten years younger. No harm meant.

Some guys find it easier to talk to women than to men, and some women find it easier to talk to men than women. That may be going on too.


----------



## xakulax

sidney2718 said:


> Sure, YOU don't play that game and she knows that you don't. Which leaves her wide open to you if you decide that you really do like her.



Thank you for your assumption seeing how you know so much about me please tell me more.For the record again she is not my type and I have too much respect for marriage to go down that road if you don't believe me that's your choices.I am a child of divorce and I have a zero tolerance for cheating and only now am I learning how to forgive so pleas *do NOT insinuate *I have same kind of ulterior motive.


----------



## over20

hospitality said:


> Players need to be broken into two groups; players you don't know and players you do know but not know they are players.
> 
> I don't think anyone really stresses out about the GNO or wife bumping into a player at the grocery store. If wife is hooking up on GNO there are serious problems or she was just looking to cheat.
> 
> What stresses men out are the guys they know their wife is in contact with. Guys from work, the pastor, the youth leader, men from Bible study/church, the coach, father of your kids friend, guy at the gym, your bff, your wife's bff's husband, the neighbor, troop leader and etc.
> 
> All these relationships start out with a purpose and over the course of months or years the guard is dropped because they are professional and completely platonic. However, small hits of dopamine from the OM start to replace those hits from your spouse. Next thing you know your wife thinks you are some looser because you don't dance the polka because OM does.



:iagree::iagree::iagree:

That's how we women can start an EA....this is porn to women


Great Post!


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> If nothing is going on, why do you think it’s his job to outline the precautions he’s taking to the husband to set the husband’s mind at ease?


Straw man. I never said it was HIS job. I actually said the guy is rather naive to just sit there and not say anything while these two just pal around unspoken to.

It's all THREE of them that ought to be more responsible. NONE of them has brought the subject up while all THREE of them ought to do so.



Miss Taken said:


> We don’t know the husband. Who are we to say that the husband’s mind isn’t at ease already?


I already covered this. Just because his mind is at ease does not mean that his wife ought to be frolicking about with other men she's friends with without a chat.

LOTS of men here were at ease with their spouse's male involvements and learned how FOOLISH that was.



Miss Taken said:


> If anyone should be having the conversation about precautions and boundaries, it should be the husband and wife.


I already mentioned earlier.. all THREE of them ought to be more responsible about this. I don't hold any of the three more accountable than the other. All THREE need to change their strategy of "silence is golden" in my opinion.



Miss Taken said:


> If she’s sticking to the boundaries that they’ve agreed upon, the husband shouldn’t even have to have this precaution talk with X.


I think it's a healthy chat to have BEFORE boundaries DO get crossed.

Is the word prevention stricken from your vocabulary? I have that word underlined in mine.

You think they should wait til boundaries DO get run over by a truck first?

That hardly sounds like a good idea now does it?



Miss Taken said:


> I think it’s invasive, not awkwardness that would prevent me from trying to “educate” anyone on the subject of infidelity.


Good grief. Education is not a four letter word. I am not advocating a lecture like the guy is a four year old. I am advocating a healthy discussion. I have said that many times now.

And yes, a healthy discussion ought to have both parties more educated by the end of it, with respect in tact.

I DO think adults can accomplish this without blood being shed.



Miss Taken said:


> It’s not my job. I don’t think it’s his either.


What is it with the "job" business?

No one is hiring out labor here. I am advocating a discussion rather than silence. That's ALL I said.

I did not say lecture, I did not say to accuse anyone of cheating, and I did not say this was anyone's job.

I said I consider it to be a mature and healthy thing to do, as opposed to saying nothing until AFTER a problem arises... which seems to be the strategy you are advocating.

If not, then WHEN should the discussion take place?



Miss Taken said:


> Being “educated” as we are, I don’t think we’re morally obligated to prosthelytize about infidelity to our friends, loved ones and acquaintances like born again Christian evangelists that just found Jesus, if they don’t ask us about it.


Not like religious zealots no. I NEVER said we SHOULD.

I said a healthy discussion. You REALLY need to stop with the straw man tactics here and just reply to what I am typing.

It IS possible to have a discussion about infidelity with another man : 

a. without blood being shed
b. without lecturing each other like children
c. without coming across as some religious freak

You just keep pulling up straw men and extremes here.

SOMETHING should be said BEFORE things get into dangerous territory... by SOMEONE.

In my opinion if NO ONE says anything they are all accountable when an accident happens.



Miss Taken said:


> A big problem with infidelity is that people think they are safe from it until it happens. Civil, courteous, mannerly conversations won’t help the masses. We were all invincible until we were betrayed. Hindsight is 20/20 even for the blind.


THAT is a cop out, sorry. To suggest that silence is best since he won't take it seriously anyways is just a contradiction.

First you say he will OVER react and blood could be spilt, NOW you say he will just UNDER react?

Which IS IT?



Miss Taken said:


> I think given your own betrayal, this is something you would want someone to have done to you but most people wouldn’t welcome unsolicited advice on the subject.


That does not mean they don't need to HEAR it. Heck I may have ignored it if the warnings came my way, but they didn't. That does not exonerate people who DO know but say nothing.



Miss Taken said:


> If nothing is going on, (and the consensus as of now is that nothing is); then this is unnecessary stirring of the pot.


Its only stirring a pot if the husband over-reacts. And according to your most recent testimony he most likely will ignore the warning anyways... so what pot gets stirred if he is just going to ignore the warnings anyhow? Well?



Miss Taken said:


> He’s not obligated to ask the husband these questions.


Good lord, do you really think infidelity is a four letter word for conversation content until AFTER it starts happening????

So many affairs COULD in my opinion have been avoided if couples AND third parties TALKED more and were MORE forthright... YOUR advice just ENCOURAGES the silence and privacy that FOSTERS cheating to begin with.

Yes, it could happen anyhow. But I bet my left nut if more conversations happened about infidleity, sooner, between all three people involved, LESS cheating would take place.

If that means some people get a bit stirred up, and some others ignore the warnings of the conversation anyhow I say so be it.

SILENCE is what starts this nonsense.. NOT talking is how this happens...

NOT talking until it's TOO LATE.



Miss Taken said:


> While the husband may not have our education, he like us has his own gut instincts and can do with them as he wishes.


That won't help him much if he's out of the loop. Again no one said anything about him NOT doing what he wishes with his own instincts. More straw men.



Miss Taken said:


> Asking those kind of questions to the husband unsolicited, will no doubt make the husband suspicious and he may as well say, “Don’t worry bro. I don’t want to pound your wife.” to the husband as it will have the same effect?


It does not have to be a game of twenty one questions. I am advocating a conversation. You keep turning it into either 

a. a lecture
b. an interrogation
c. a fistfight

No one here is advocating any of that.



Miss Taken said:


> Like I said before, when something IS GOING ON, people should vote for the awkward conversation. In this case, asking the husband probing questions about the level of one’s comfort, precautions et al. about cheating when not solicited or invited to do so by the husband will have the same effect.


Who said anything about probing now??? Straw man number.. what? I lost count.

YOU have NO IDEA what effect a constructive and mature conversation will have.



Miss Taken said:


> Perhaps not but that’s not what I was inferring. It could definitely ruin the friendship though and if it’s as innocent as he claims, for what?


If a mature conversation ruins a relationship then we have exposed some more serious problems in the underlying marriage to begin with. Three mature adults ought to be able to have a healthy and constructive discussion about infidelity without blood being shed or relationships being terminated in conflict.

You keep jumping back and forth... now in the same post even. First bloodshed will happen, then he will ignore the warnings anyhow, and now a friendship will end.

Maybe just maybe, it will turn out to be a healthy talk that all three ought to have had a long time ago? Ever consider THAT possible outcome?



Miss Taken said:


> No. Either you’re putting words in my mouth or we’ve had a communication breakdown somewhere along the way.


Just read what I type and don't type out straw men.



Miss Taken said:


> Yes, in this thread, on an infidelity board where most of us have been cheated on. Best not forget to consider the source. Our opinions are from the worldview of those that have been betrayed and our boundaries are also a lot stronger for it.


And those boundaries are good to have relative to the zero concern for boundaries this husband appears to be advocating. Assuming that he has not had a chat yet about this friendship. And since nothing to that effect was mentioned, I have to assume that's the case.



Miss Taken said:


> I see wisdom in that but I think it’s a healthy conversation that couples ought to have (and revisit from time to time), not necessarily one that X (sorry for shortening your name) is obligated to have with the husband unless the husband initiates it.


ought to = obligated

Now its just a matter of syntax here...

BUT.. I think all THREE ought to have some words here, not just husband and wife. This guy is not a child, the husband and wife CAN have a chat in private first and then discuss with him their position if he doesn't' bother to initiate the conversation first.

I don't think there's any reason why a mature adult third party ought to be excluded from a healthy conversation about good boundaries with his female friends. It reads as if you think the guy ought to be babied or something which I don't think is what you are advocating here.

Yes, the couple ought to talk at some point in private to get their position on the same page.

But if those two aren't talking amongst themselves and I am the third person in the mix then yes I would initiate a conversation around the subject : 

a. not a lecture
b. not a religious sermon
c. not an interrogation

A conversation. That's the word I am using.

If the couple is mature enough to talk together first, I don't think that means you exclude the third party from the conversation afterwards either.

Heck, I DO believe three grown adults can have a mature chat about this stuff without damage occurring. I don't think you are giving adults enough credit here.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> Straw man...


Allen A, 

While I can respectfully disagree with you, I feel like my words are being twisted around big time and I really don't appreciate it. 

Like I said in my previous reply, I'm not sure if this is intentional or just a miscommunication issue? 

Regardless, my attempts to express myself as clear as possible to you about exactly where I agree and disagree with you and the reasons why have obviously missed the mark. 

So I'm going to have to bow out of further discussion about "X's" particular circumstances with you, not because I don't enjoy a good debate but because I just don't see this going anywhere.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Have not read the entire thread but would like to agree with posters that point out that either the woman is open to something happening with someone other than husband, or she is not. In the latter case the "playa" stands little chance with her.

And that is why a betrayed husband can both preserve his self-respect and find a better woman if he gets rid of his SLVT wife. He'll be free to find one of the non- SLVT females out there. I think they are plentiful BTW.......


----------



## Allen_A

nuclearnightmare said:


> Have not read the entire thread but would like to agree with posters that point out that either the woman is open to something happening with someone other than husband, or she is not. In the latter case the "playa" stands little chance with her.
> 
> And that is why a betrayed husband can both preserve his self-respect and find a better woman if he gets rid of his SLVT wife. He'll be free to find one of the non- SLVT females out there. I think they are plentiful BTW.......


Woah.. .so women are either

a. faithful

OR

b. slvts

?

That seems to be what's being said here.. isn't that rather draconian?


----------



## sidney2718

xakulax said:


> Thank you for your assumption seeing how you know so much about me please tell me more.For the record again she is not my type and I have too much respect for marriage to go down that road if you don't believe me that's your choices.I am a child of divorce and I have a zero tolerance for cheating and only now am I learning how to forgive so pleas *do NOT insinuate *I have same kind of ulterior motive.


I did not mean YOU. What I meant was that there are lots of folks who are like you in that they have perfectly fine normal relationships with women, and are trusted by those women. Folks (both men and women) in that situation have been known to change their minds and find the other person attractive in many ways.


----------



## Pandakiss

hospitality said:


> Your life tells a player all he needs to know about your marriage. No need to bother verbalizing it.
> 
> 
> A player notices:
> --when your child clearly shows he/she has very little male influence that indicates an absentee father
> --how you act at parties together
> --how you dress
> --how you react to your wealth compared to others
> --level of excitement/travel/activity in your relationship
> --how you spend money (lots of pmts show poor financial management and stress in a relationship) shows whether you are happy or living beyond your means
> --what you do for a living compared to what your husband does
> --what is the job status of husband's career?
> --do you appear to be overwhelmed getting the kids to school (I think this is the biggest one)
> --do you constantly talk about your spouse positively
> --how your spouse acts
> --is your spouse a leader at work, church, social events or sports
> --is your spouse in shape
> --is your spouse always getting promoted




Technically this the way a predator thinks. A predator is in for the long con. Predators will sit and lie in wait. A player is a flash in the pan. He only wants the conquest. A player simply dines and dashes. 

A predator is very different than a player. They are not the same thing at all. A predator focuses on the one person. They don't need to game anything. They are quiet and plant seeds. 

Predators watch body language and listen for verbal queues. The conversations are empty and boring. They don't suggest jumping into bed, they love for you to up talk your person. 

The player is showing up at places where people are at and are doing the same things. And can talk his way into going along. Like you at a bar. Hey we all came here to drink so let's drink. Hey it's a club we all came here to dance, so let's dance. They work you over with his charm. It dosent work but it will work on someone. 

Predators are scary. You really don't see the wolf in sheep's clothing. They size you up instantly. They don't have to feed into they weak ****** in armor. While players well the play on weakness. They use your words against you and they bolster their ego. They use dread game and compare you against others and he/she is the measuring stick for your spouse. 

Predators don't have to have game. You are counted weighed and measured and you didn't even see it. This is kinda sexist, but guys that are players use dread game, guys that are predators don't use it, women who are predators will use dread game, honestly because guys fall for it. 

Predators are the ones who talk about tv or books. They notice you lost weight, even if you didn't, you said one small detail about dieting or working out. They notice your new dress or glasses and say nothing more than you look nice or it's so you. They might ask if you mate noticed but don't throw them under the bus of how could they not see what I see. Usually just casually say oh that's a shame. They notice your hair color or hair cut. Again the same response it suits you. 

As I said predators are in it for the long con. They date other people, always the worst kind, they have a back story just for you and what ever thing they scooped out about you. Predators fly under the radar. You are busy watching the illusion and the assistants you miss the trick. You fall for the smoke and mirrors. It's easy. Because you believe. They come off believable. 

If a player comes up to a group they just go down the line and throw out bullsh!t lines. They may get one or two bites. A predator may in fact befriend the group as a whole just to get at one. 

Predators are "Teflon men". They can fit whatever mode you are in. Predators come in all walks of life. They all don't have money or good breeding or go to good schools or even have high paying jobs and can be either men or women. A woman predator is very dangerous. Speaking from my point of view.


----------



## Squeakr

sidney2718 said:


> I did not mean YOU. What I meant was that there are lots of folks who are like you in that they have perfectly fine normal relationships with women, and are trusted by those women. Folks (both men and women) in that situation have been known to change their minds and find the other person attractive in many ways.


Sidney, that is exactly how I read your message (no disrespect to x) but that we don't always have an ulterior motive when we friend someone but more that the dynamics of the friendship can change over time. Someone that may not be our type or would never had caught our eye can become more kindred as the friendship evolves and we find that we have more in common and share viewpoints that we may not have ever realized in the beginning and this alone can change our attraction or infatuation with the person and cause the dynamics of the relationship to change whether intended or not as this new comfort level becomes apparent.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WhiteRaven

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/170857-husband-vs-player-2.html#post7309009
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7310113-post37.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7316201-post108.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7317793-post117.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7320281-post130.html 
I don't know about herhusband, but the scenario is freaky.
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7323497-post141.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7325057-post151.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7327449-post192.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7336905-post275.html
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7340369-post290.html

I found these posts very insightful. The object of this thread was not to be sexist, misogynist, or portraying women in a bad light. After my D, I have been a playa for the last 3 months. So I would agree with DvlsAdvc8 and weightlifter, it's shockingly easy. Sorry to pull most of the ladies from their high horses but if someone made you marry them, there does exist someone who can make to step outside your marriage. Pray they don't chance upon you. Time and tide leaves none unscathed.

DaveCarter was the only man who admitted his marriage wasn't perfect. Neither was mine. We all put 100% of the blame on the OM and WW, but we forget to take 50% of our share of blame for the unhappiness in our own marriages.

Dear Mrs. John Adams, I truly appreciate your honesty. I beseech you to stop being so hard on yourself. We TAM guys and even Mr Adams(I believe my assumption is true) feel bad about it.

Still the question remains- can a BS do anything? I certainly don't believe the WS and OM are twin tornadoes and you have only two options- seek shelter and pray to the God or run.


----------



## Horizon

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


They've got it sussed out. They know what to say. The POSOM who seduced my seduceable WS (though I do wonder who seduced who) had done it before - he had the looks and the status as well. He went in hard though - sent a lot of messages; texts, secret hotmail communication. Oh yeah, she set up a hotmail account - so innocent, it was all him, BS!!!!


----------



## Horizon

WhiteRaven said:


> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/170857-husband-vs-player-2.html#post7309009
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7310113-post37.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7316201-post108.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7317793-post117.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7320281-post130.html
> I don't know about herhusband, but the scenario is freaky.
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7323497-post141.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7325057-post151.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7327449-post192.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7336905-post275.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7340369-post290.html
> 
> I found these posts very insightful. The object of this thread was not to be sexist, misogynist, or portraying women in a bad light. After my D, I have been a playa for the last 3 months. So I would agree with DvlsAdvc8 and weightlifter, it's shockingly easy. Sorry to pull most of the ladies from their high horses but if someone made you marry them, there does exist someone who can make to step outside your marriage. Pray they don't chance upon you. Time and tide leaves none unscathed.
> 
> DaveCarter was the only man who admitted his marriage wasn't perfect. Neither was mine. We all put 100% of the blame on the OM and WW, but we forget to take 50% of our share of blame for the unhappiness in our own marriages.
> 
> Dear Mrs. John Adams, I truly appreciate your honesty. I beseech you to stop being so hard on yourself. We TAM guys and even Mr Adams(I believe my assumption is true) feel bad about it.
> 
> Still the question remains- can a BS do anything? I certainly don't believe the WS and OM are twin tornadoes and you have only two options- seek shelter and pray to the God or run.


Depends where you are in the cycle - mine was all after the event. I blew it up to prevent it starting up again because there was that pattern of "come chase me". Either way the BS must go in hard. I went in hard, nailed the mother, but I still do not feel that that POS got his comeuppance.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Horizon said:


> I went in hard, nailed the mother.


You.... nailed the POSOM's mom? Sheesh, why didn't I think about it?


----------



## davecarter

Pandakiss said:


> Technically this the way a predator thinks. A predator is in for the long con. Predators will sit and lie in wait. A player is a flash in the pan. He only wants the conquest. A player simply dines and dashes.
> 
> A predator is very different than a player. They are not the same thing at all. A predator focuses on the one person. They don't need to game anything. They are quiet and plant seeds.
> 
> Predators watch body language and listen for verbal queues. The conversations are empty and boring. They don't suggest jumping into bed, they love for you to up talk your person.
> 
> The player is showing up at places where people are at and are doing the same things. And can talk his way into going along. Like you at a bar. Hey we all came here to drink so let's drink. Hey it's a club we all came here to dance, so let's dance. They work you over with his charm. It dosent work but it will work on someone.
> 
> Predators are scary. You really don't see the wolf in sheep's clothing. They size you up instantly. They don't have to feed into they weak ****** in armor. While players well the play on weakness. They use your words against you and they bolster their ego. They use dread game and compare you against others and he/she is the measuring stick for your spouse.
> 
> Predators don't have to have game. You are counted weighed and measured and you didn't even see it. This is kinda sexist, but guys that are players use dread game, guys that are predators don't use it, women who are predators will use dread game, honestly because guys fall for it.
> 
> Predators are the ones who talk about tv or books. They notice you lost weight, even if you didn't, you said one small detail about dieting or working out. They notice your new dress or glasses and say nothing more than you look nice or it's so you. They might ask if you mate noticed but don't throw them under the bus of how could they not see what I see. Usually just casually say oh that's a shame. They notice your hair color or hair cut. Again the same response it suits you.
> 
> As I said predators are in it for the long con. They date other people, always the worst kind, they have a back story just for you and what ever thing they scooped out about you. Predators fly under the radar. You are busy watching the illusion and the assistants you miss the trick. You fall for the smoke and mirrors. It's easy. Because you believe. They come off believable.
> 
> If a player comes up to a group they just go down the line and throw out bullsh!t lines. They may get one or two bites. A predator may in fact befriend the group as a whole just to get at one.
> 
> Predators are "Teflon men". They can fit whatever mode you are in. Predators come in all walks of life. They all don't have money or good breeding or go to good schools or even have high paying jobs and can be either men or women. A woman predator is very dangerous. Speaking from my point of view.


Furthermore to add...remember I said my wife separated from me so she could start a 'relationship' with OM#1?

Well, the OM#2 (a 'friend' of mine) who then turned her head while she was still in this relationship was _exactly_ how Pandakiss has just described above. Scarily so.

And the method he used to get to her was effective _and _disturbing to say the least.


----------



## adriana

After reading through this thread I can hardly resist a feeling that some posters seem to be more interested in creating and/or perpetuating myths than sticking to reality. :scratchhead:


----------



## WhiteRaven

adriana said:


> After reading through this thread I can hardly resist a feeling that some posters seem to be more interested in creating and/or perpetuating myths than sticking to reality. :scratchhead:


Point out the statements which are vexing you.


----------



## lyndyb

Women can be just the same, The story I got she said she was renowned for giving the best B**w Jobs as if the clue wasn't in I'm RENOWNED. What the other OW failed to say was that this is why her husband left her. He also heard that phrase but it was slightly different version She was renowned for giving B**w jobs. Now that is classless.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Not projecting, I mistook your post for DvlsAdvc8's. That's the post I was thinking of.
> 
> My bad. Sincere apologies.


Not sure why you'd mistake it for a post of mine. Nobody is hitting on my gf.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Yes, there is no such thing as an affair-proof marriage.


There are affair-proof marriages imo, but its not so much a set thing as it is a way of behaving and maintaining the marriage.

ie - if she keeps no close male friends, its highly unlikely anyone would be able to run the friend game on her, even if she were vulnerable to such an advance.

imo, its all about both people being mindful as to what detracts from their connection and mitigating or eliminating those things together. Most cheating happens because of complacency, neglect or willing exposure to temptations. Few people had intention to cheat all along.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

adriana said:


> After reading through this thread I can hardly resist a feeling that some posters seem to be more interested in creating and/or perpetuating myths than sticking to reality. :scratchhead:


Well don't beg the question... spit it out. What do you see as a disconnect with reality, and why would anyone want to perpetuate myth?


----------



## Miss Taken

sidney2718 said:


> I agree with you. And yet in today's society in the US it is still the man who is expected to make the first move. Having a woman walk up to a man she doesn't know and start a conversation with him does happen, but the opposite is more common.
> 
> But I have seen women cultivate friendships with men with an ulterior motive.


The man makes the most overt moves but women definitely do things to get him to approach her. When a woman wants a man, there are a lot of things we do to get his attention a simplified version of it:

*The foundation*

We dress nice, we smell good, our hair is styled, make up is on point, shoes are cute. That's not an accident. Do you think these shoes are comfortable? LOL

*The chase*

_Where we send out all of these signals that say, "Hello, get over here big boy and talk to me."_

- We toss our hair, subtley bite or lick our lips, toss our heads back so you can see our beautiful necks and collar bones, exaggerate the sway in our hips when walking, fiddle with our straws at the bar, cross and uncross our legs, smile a lot, laugh a lot and look like we're having a really good time.

Then he comes over and talks to us or we become "friends" or whatever.

*Going in for the Kill:*

Find an inconspicuous reason to touch him: and gently stroke his arm, remove lint from his jacket, or playfully punch him on the arm. 

Boost his ego: laugh at his jokes, compliment his wit or intelligence.

Knock him down a peg: playfully insults him (which makes him want to be more impressive). Selectively answer his calls because you have a life (even if you're only sitting around in your sweat pants eating ice cream and watching Bridgette Jones' Diary).

Seem "cool": tell him how beautiful that other girl is (because it makes you look confident unlike his ex), tell him you love video games, sports, Star Wars, _insert interest here___, motorcycles (because that's what he's into). Show him a talent or hobby of your own. Can you sing or cook, did you go river rafting (one time) but have a picture of it that makes you look like you belong there? Better display that b!tch or fit it into conversation somehow.

Then bam he asks for the date.

So come on, who is chasing who?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

^ all good points.

Guy perspective. We tend to think nothing is happening unless its overt and unambiguous. Yeah, we're often that dumb. Others lack the confidence to believe that these actions are signs of interest. So while telling him she likes sports, games, motorcycles etc are things may make him like HER more, he may still think there's no indication that she likes HIM.

Some guys ARE really this clueless... but some of it is also encouraged by culture and a polite man's understanding that women don't want him to think everything she says to him is an invitation to hit on her. Men receive weirdly mixed messages in this regard and let's be honest... most of us suck at subtlety.

I even think most men's approach anxiety isn't so much fear of rejection, but rather being "too nice". Thinking she doesn't *want* to be hit on, fear of offending HER - because we regularly hear complaints from women about the random guys that hit on them. Again, weirdly mixed messages.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thinking she doesn't *want* to be hit on, fear of offending HER - because we regularly hear complaints from women about the random guys that hit on them. Again, weirdly mixed messages.


I think many women say they don't like it bc they feel they aren't supposed to enjoy it.As though it says something negative about them if they like being hit on by a man. 
I could be wrong though.


----------



## adriana

WhiteRaven said:


> Point out the statements which are vexing you.


WhiteRaven, I don't have time to through the whole thread again but take a quick look at the one I quoted below.... it's a pure fantasy. Even Mossad's secret agents aren't trained that well.




hospitality said:


> Your life tells a player all he needs to know about your marriage. No need to bother verbalizing it.
> 
> 
> A player notices:
> --when your child clearly shows he/she has very little male influence that indicates an absentee father
> --how you act at parties together
> --how you dress
> --how you react to your wealth compared to others
> --level of excitement/travel/activity in your relationship
> --how you spend money (lots of pmts show poor financial management and stress in a relationship) shows whether you are happy or living beyond your means
> --what you do for a living compared to what your husband does
> --what is the job status of husband's career?
> --do you appear to be overwhelmed getting the kids to school (I think this is the biggest one)
> --do you constantly talk about your spouse positively
> --how your spouse acts
> --is your spouse a leader at work, church, social events or sports
> --is your spouse in shape
> --is your spouse always getting promoted


----------



## WhiteRaven

adriana said:


> Even Mossad's secret agents aren't trained that well.


CIA guys are.


----------



## adriana

Miss Taken said:


> The man makes the most overt moves but women definitely do things to get him to approach her. When a woman wants a man, there are a lot of things we do to get his attention a simplified version of it:
> 
> *The foundation*
> 
> We dress nice, we smell good, our hair is styled, make up is on point, shoes are cute. That's not an accident. Do you think these shoes are comfortable? LOL
> 
> *The chase*
> 
> _Where we send out all of these signals that say, "Hello, get over here big boy and talk to me."_
> 
> - We toss our hair, subtley bite or lick our lips, toss our heads back so you can see our beautiful necks and collar bones, exaggerate the sway in our hips when walking, fiddle with our straws at the bar, cross and uncross our legs, smile a lot, laugh a lot and look like we're having a really good time.
> 
> Then he comes over and talks to us or we become "friends" or whatever.
> 
> *Going in for the Kill:*
> 
> Find an inconspicuous reason to touch him: and gently stroke his arm, remove lint from his jacket, or playfully punch him on the arm.
> 
> Boost his ego: laugh at his jokes, compliment his wit or intelligence.
> 
> Knock him down a peg: playfully insults him (which makes him want to be more impressive). Selectively answer his calls because you have a life (even if you're only sitting around in your sweat pants eating ice cream and watching Bridgette Jones' Diary).
> 
> Seem "cool": tell him how beautiful that other girl is (because it makes you look confident unlike his ex), tell him you love video games, sports, Star Wars, _insert interest here___, motorcycles (because that's what he's into). Show him a talent or hobby of your own. Can you sing or cook, did you go river rafting (one time) but have a picture of it that makes you look like you belong there? Better display that b!tch or fit it into conversation somehow.
> 
> Then bam he asks for the date.
> 
> So come on, who is chasing who?



:iagree::iagree::iagree: Miss Taken has nailed it perfectly. I'd only add that it's even easier for an artistically inclined female.



QUESTION: Why nobody is giving her any "likes".... she has written it so beautifully? Are you scared of the truth, guys? :rofl:


----------



## adriana

WhiteRaven said:


> CIA guys are.


Let's hope so!


----------



## WhiteRaven

I pmed her my appreciation. I have also put a like now. Sheesh, so grumpy....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

adriana said:


> WhiteRaven, I don't have time to through the whole thread again but take a quick look at the one I quoted below.... it's a pure fantasy. Even Mossad's secret agents aren't trained that well.


I agree there... that list is over the top. That's not to say that someone couldn't pick up on a couple of those things, but in its entirety its just overthinking it.

They're not players, they're highly trained p*ssy ninjas! Nah.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

adriana said:


> QUESTION: Why nobody is giving her any "likes".... she has written it so beautifully? Are you scarred of the truth, guys? :rofl:


Hey! I complimented her points right after her post. That has more value than a "like". 

And sometimes I forget to clicky.


----------



## WhiteRaven

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hey! I complimented her points right after her post. That has more value than a "like".
> 
> And sometimes I forget to clicky.


DvlsAdvc8, how goes thy hunt today?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WhiteRaven said:


> DvlsAdvc8, how goes thy hunt today?


Huh? :scratchhead:


----------



## Squeakr

adriana said:


> QUESTION: Why nobody is giving her any "likes".... she has written it so beautifully? Are you scarred of the truth, guys? :rofl:


Probably because even though it is really good and truthful information, it really doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. This description is how a woman can be a player, attract, come onto, and control the situation when she wants a man and the attention, but doesn't really have anything to do with the male player vs husband question asked. 

Sorry but women can be played just as easily, whether you believe it or not. They are not always in full control of the situation like the women in this thread have tried to paint the picture. Woman are just as vulnerable and possible of getting played as men are whether you believe it or not. Are you scared of that truth (as you have rallied against it the entire thread)??


----------



## WhiteRaven

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Huh? :scratchhead:


Hunting for p*ssy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WhiteRaven said:


> Hunting for p*ssy.


I've been in a relationship for like 6 mos. No hunting. She's doing her best to domesticate me - I'm almost house broken even. Of course, now that she's taken over my bathroom with these... girly things... I have no choice but to do my business outside.

Either that's her goal or she's starting a hair salon in my master bath.


----------



## DoktorFun

Miss Taken said:


> The man makes the most overt moves but women definitely do things to get him to approach her. When a woman wants a man, there are a lot of things we do to get his attention a simplified version of it:
> 
> *The foundation*
> 
> We dress nice, we smell good, our hair is styled, make up is on point, shoes are cute. That's not an accident. Do you think these shoes are comfortable? LOL
> 
> *The chase*
> 
> _Where we send out all of these signals that say, "Hello, get over here big boy and talk to me."_
> 
> - We toss our hair, subtley bite or lick our lips, toss our heads back so you can see our beautiful necks and collar bones, exaggerate the sway in our hips when walking, fiddle with our straws at the bar, cross and uncross our legs, smile a lot, laugh a lot and look like we're having a really good time.
> 
> Then he comes over and talks to us or we become "friends" or whatever.
> 
> *Going in for the Kill:*
> 
> Find an inconspicuous reason to touch him: and gently stroke his arm, remove lint from his jacket, or playfully punch him on the arm.
> 
> Boost his ego: laugh at his jokes, compliment his wit or intelligence.
> 
> Knock him down a peg: playfully insults him (which makes him want to be more impressive). Selectively answer his calls because you have a life (even if you're only sitting around in your sweat pants eating ice cream and watching Bridgette Jones' Diary).
> 
> Seem "cool": tell him how beautiful that other girl is (because it makes you look confident unlike his ex), tell him you love video games, sports, Star Wars, _insert interest here___, motorcycles (because that's what he's into). Show him a talent or hobby of your own. Can you sing or cook, did you go river rafting (one time) but have a picture of it that makes you look like you belong there? Better display that b!tch or fit it into conversation somehow.
> 
> Then bam he asks for the date.
> 
> *So come on, who is chasing who?*


:smthumbup:


----------



## adriana

Squeakr said:


> Sorry but women can be played just as easily, whether you believe it or not. They are not always in full control of the situation like the women in this thread have tried to paint the picture. Woman are just a vulnerable and possible of getting played as men are whether you believe it or not. Are you scared of this truth??



How would I know any of this??? As for the scared part.... barracudas, like me, don't get scared. It isn't in our nature.


----------



## WhiteRaven

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've been in a relationship for like 6 mos. No hunting. She's doing her best to domesticate me - I'm almost house broken even. Of course, now that she's taken over my bathroom with these... girly things... I have no choice but to do my business outside.
> 
> Either that's her goal or she's starting a hair salon in my master bath.


Another mustang bridled.. the horror, the agony (((sobbing)))


----------



## Squeakr

adriana said:


> How would I know any of this??? As for the scared part.... barracudas, like me, don't get scared. It isn't in our nature.


LOL and barracudas like you are about as frequent and numerous IRL as Alpha males are. Few and far between. :smthumbup:


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They're not players, they're highly trained p*ssy ninjas! Nah.


Why on earth is everyone making jokes about these people?

I find this rather offensive.

These are not players, they are womanizers and it's pretty sleazy and sick.

I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Allen_A said:


> Why on earth is everyone making jokes about these people?
> 
> I find this rather offensive.
> 
> These are not players, they are womanizers and it's pretty sleazy and sick.
> 
> I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


Infidelity isn't funny at all.But if you don't try to find a way to inject humor into dark things you'll get consumed by those things.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Why on earth is everyone making jokes about these people?
> 
> I find this rather offensive.
> 
> These are not players, they are womanizers and it's pretty sleazy and sick.
> 
> I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


"A Rose by any other name......"


----------



## WhiteRaven

Allen_A said:


> I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


We don't. Humor makes it easier to to absorb the knowledge that we got cheated.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Squeakr said:


> "A Rose by any other name......"


.... has thorns.


----------



## Squeakr

WhiteRaven said:


> We don't. Humor makes it easier to to absorb the knowledge that we got *cuckolded*.


That's the term I hate, because although your statement rings true for the majority of the BH on here in the true original definition of the word, it is so not true for the majority of the BH here in the fetish definition of the term. The fetish thought just turns my stomach, which makes this term that much harder to accept (and some have been the recipient of the fetish part unknowingly).


----------



## Squeakr

WhiteRaven said:


> .... has thorns.


....or pricks (as the case may be)!!


----------



## vellocet

sidney2718 said:


> I had originally written:
> 
> 
> One reply was:
> 
> 
> She can. But believe it or not, she may well not want to. She has a long term marriage, children, a nice life, a husband she gets along with, and so on. They even have a sex life of sorts consisting of no foreplay, quick action, and rolling over into the snoring position right afterwards.
> 
> She and the right guy seduce each other, the foreplay is good, the sex is great, and there is no guilt whatsoever. Who is going to find out about this twice a month affair, conducted quietly and safely away from the usual communication media.
> 
> Such affairs can go on for years and not be detected.


Oh, well silly me, I guess it all ok then


----------



## WhiteRaven

Squeakr said:


> That's the term I hate, because although your statement rings true for the majority of the BH on here in the true original definition of the word, it is so not true for the majority of the BH here in the fetish definition of the term. The fetish thought just turns my stomach, which makes this term that much harder to accept (and some have been the recipient of the fetish part unknowingly).


I edited it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Why on earth is everyone making jokes about these people?
> 
> I find this rather offensive.
> 
> These are not players, they are womanizers and it's pretty sleazy and sick.
> 
> I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


The joke is the myth. The notion of these guys being some kind of masterminds is simply absurd. Yes, they key on some things; yes, many have a good feel for what a woman will respond to; but they're not ninjas. I was being highly sarcastic.

I can see what Adriana was letting on earlier - a desire to build up these men into mythic juggernauts, in a way, possibly justifying why/how their wife went for it. Its, "I didn't do anything, and she couldn't help it. Thor swung by and dropped the hammer."

Its a little over the top. I still think most of these guys are just passive and somewhat hapless opportunists. That probably won't fly if one has been the victim... but perhaps one needs to hype up the OM's "skills" to justify how their wife could have strayed from them. There might be a case there.

I also notice too much self-shame here. Getting cheated on doesn't make you a moron, a fool, inferior or a cuckold. At worst, perhaps you got complacent... but it may have had nothing to do with you or the OM's "skills" at all. It can be totally circumstantial... or it could just be that the woman sought it out right. These OM aren't supermen.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The joke is the myth. The notion of these guys being some kind of masterminds is simply absurd. Yes, they key on some things; yes, many have a good feel for what a woman will respond to; but they're not ninjas. I was being highly sarcastic.
> 
> I can see what Adriana was letting on earlier - a desire to build up these men into mythic juggernauts, in a way, possibly justifying why/how their wife went for it. Its, "I didn't do anything, and she couldn't help it. Thor swung by and dropped the hammer."
> 
> Its a little over the top. I still think most of these guys are just passive and somewhat hapless opportunists. That probably won't fly if one has been the victim... but perhaps one needs to hype up the OM's "skills" to justify how their wife could have strayed from them. There might be a case there.


They went into an environment where women get hit on and picked up, and got hit on and picked up. No sense of making rocket science out of it. The women wanted to respond or else they wouldn't have.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> The women wanted to respond or else they wouldn't have.


For most part, though I do think a man can have a great influence on her desire to respond... just as a woman sets the table for a man to be attracted to her. Men do the same thing. That's game. But when we're talking husband vs player, where "player" is a guy doing the friend thing for long periods... I just have a hard time thinking this guy really has any skills whatsoever. He's just hoping some scraps might fall off the table.


----------



## naiveonedave

I agree Dvls, but you see it work over and over. It is the slippery slope of boundaries. The guy may not even have been interested at the start....


----------



## davecarter

Allen_A said:


> Why on earth is everyone making jokes about these people?
> 
> I find this rather offensive.
> 
> These are not players, they are womanizers and it's pretty sleazy and sick.
> 
> I don't find infidelity funny, i don't' understand why anyone on this forum seems to think it is...


Oh, Allen.


----------



## Headspin

Miss Taken said:


> The man makes the most overt moves but women definitely do things to get him to approach her. When a woman wants a man, there are a lot of things we do to get his attention a simplified version of it:
> .................
> 
> come on, who is chasing who?


Yep bang on 

In my opinion there's no woman alive who got 'pulled' by any man that did not want it to happen (outside of weirdo sh!t of course)

A woman can and does say no, player or not - that's that.

If she ends up being 'played' then she had designs on it being that way from the off 

It's obvious who's in control here


----------



## Lon

If a person entertains a player, then technically there are two people playing the game. A person who plays with a player is a player, even if its only once.


----------



## treyvion

Squeakr said:


> That's the term I hate, because although your statement rings true for the majority of the BH on here in the true original definition of the word, it is so not true for the majority of the BH here in the fetish definition of the term. The fetish thought just turns my stomach, which makes this term that much harder to accept (and some have been the recipient of the fetish part unknowingly).


"Cuckholded", may not be voluntarily. You may have went through a period of strained relations and sexlessness. Later on you discovered the reason why, someone else was the man inside of her during that period of time. You got "cuckholded", lol


----------



## Squeakr

treyvion said:


> "Cuckholded", may not be voluntarily. You may have went through a period of strained relations and sexlessness. Later on you discovered the reason why, someone else was the man inside of her during that period of time. You got "cuckholded", lol


Like I said, in the true definition an sense of the word the majority of BH on this site were that, but not in the fetish sense of the word (hopefully that number is low). This I do know DIDN'T happen to me for a fact, as I know exactly when they met up and fortunately for me that wasn't the case, as I never had the opportunity to be exposed (I could have been but was't as I know the dates they met, as I found them out after d-day through my research). As i said in my prior post though, several may have been unknowingly exposed to the fetish side of it (for me fortunately it didn't happen).


----------



## Clay2013

wow this topic just sucks. 

Who really cares if your SO was played by someone skilled or not. They still cheated. It still hurts all the same. The betrayal is just as harmful. If they allowed this person in there life in the first place then clearly this is your sign to walk away. I think it just kills me to see so many people suffer. 

Sorry. Maybe a bit of a rant there.

Clay


----------



## Miss Taken

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The joke is the myth. The notion of...
> 
> ..................
> 
> I also notice too much self-shame here. Getting cheated on doesn't make you a moron, a fool, inferior or a cuckold....



^Loved this entire post.

I think most of us have felt "cuckolded" by the experience. I know I sure felt, stupid, ashamed, and humiliated (the humiliation part was a big thing for me) after discovering I was cheated on. I was also mad at myself for caring so much about him and the times I tried to please him and blamed ME when I knew something about our relationship was off. Still, if the thing you're guilty of being is the loyal spouse who trusted their partner and then got betrayed there is no shame in that.


----------



## Allen_A

Clay2013 said:


> wow this topic just sucks.
> 
> Who really cares if your SO was played by someone skilled or not. They still cheated. It still hurts all the same. The betrayal is just as harmful. If they allowed this person in there life in the first place then clearly this is your sign to walk away. I think it just kills me to see so many people suffer.
> 
> Sorry. Maybe a bit of a rant there.
> 
> Clay


I am with you on this one Clay. I just find all this giggling about "players" and ninjas just offensive.

Families are being torn apart here... by marital trespassers and immature spouses...

I don't find the giggling funny... maybe it's just me.. maybe Clay and I are just having a bad day.

I know many families who have been torn apart by infidelity, I don't find jokes about the subject to be funny.

Sorry to be such a kill joy.


----------



## vellocet

Clay2013 said:


> wow this topic just sucks.
> 
> Who really cares if your SO was played by someone skilled or not. They still cheated. It still hurts all the same. The betrayal is just as harmful. If they allowed this person in there life in the first place then clearly this is your sign to walk away. I think it just kills me to see so many people suffer.
> 
> Sorry. Maybe a bit of a rant there.
> 
> Clay


Exactly!

Seems that a few cheater apologists here will try to come to the WW's defense that if it was a "player" they spread their legs for, then it really wasn't their fault because they were emotionally prayed upon.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> I just find all this giggling about "players" and ninjas just offensive.


DvlsAdvc8 and others were quite clear that they weren't making light of or giggling at infidelity. 



Allen_A said:


> know many families who have been torn apart by infidelity, I don't find jokes about the subject to be funny.


The majority of us here have been torn apart by infidelity. That's. why. we. post. here. Nobody is laughing at infidelity.



Allen_A said:


> Sorry to be such a kill joy.


Hey I just met you, but this is crazy, you say your sorry, so prove it maybe.


^Oops, that was a little bit of a joke. But seriously, it would be nice if you stopped being one.


----------



## Squeakr

Miss Taken said:


> ^Loved this entire post.
> 
> I think most of us have felt "cuckolded" by the experience. I know I sure felt, stupid, ashamed, and humiliated (the humiliation part was a big thing for me) after discovering I was cheated on. I was also mad at myself for caring so much about him and the times I tried to please him and blamed ME when I knew something about our relationship was off. Still, if the thing you're guilty of being is the loyal spouse who trusted their partner and then got betrayed there is no shame in that.


Wen though the idea fits, women can't be cuckolded by definition or fetish it is strictly a term that applies to and is reserved for the males (not sure what if at all the female equivalent is).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Miss Taken

Squeakr said:


> Wen though the idea fits, women can't be cuckolded by definition or fetish it is strictly a term that applies to and is reserved for the males (not sure what if at all the female equivalent is).
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am well aware that there is no cuckold equivalent in the English language for women. Trust me, I've looked for it because it's how I felt. I am not sure but I also think there is no female equivalent for the word "emasculate" either. I did a search for it because that is also how I felt "defemulated"? (lol, it's not a word either) but that was me.

I think it's because cheating for men wasn't always seen as a big deal like it is now. Attitudes like "Boys will be boys." and "Men like sex more than women." and also it being acceptable for men to be promiscuous while women should be chaste and stand by her cheating man were more of the norm or more common.


----------



## Squeakr

Miss Taken said:


> I am well aware that there is no cuckold equivalent in the English language for women. Trust me, I've looked for it because it's how I felt. I am not sure but I also think there is no female equivalent for the word "emasculate" either. I did a search for it because that is also how I felt "defemulated"? lol, that was me.
> 
> I think it's because cheating for men wasn't always seen as a big deal like it is now. Attitudes like "Boys will be boys." and "Men like sex more than women." and also it being acceptable for men to be promiscuous while women should be chaste and stand by her cheating man were more of the norm or more common.


I agree there should be the same for women. The whole reason I believe is because women were seen as property when these terms generally started. They are power terms and words and the women were always supposed to be softer and yielding.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Miss Taken

Squeakr said:


> I agree there should be the same for women. The whole reason I believe is because women were seen as property when these terms generally started. They are power terms and words and the women were always supposed to be softer and yielding.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


A quick Google search, I guess I missed this back when I was searching for the female equivalent:



> The female equivalent cuckquean first appears in English literature in 1562, adding a female suffix to the "****". One often overlooked subtlety of the word is that it implies that the husband is deceived, that he is unaware of his wife's unfaithfulness and may not know until the arrival or growth of a child plainly not his (as with Cuckoo birds.)


So yeah. I probably won't refer to myself as a cuckquean any time soon but there it is.


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> DvlsAdvc8 and others were quite clear that they weren't making light of or giggling at infidelity.
> 
> The majority of us here have been torn apart by infidelity. That's. why. we. post. here. Nobody is laughing at infidelity.


Right... "p*ssy ninja" isn't making light of infidelity at all... 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They're not players, they're highly trained p*ssy ninjas! Nah.


People are hurting from cheating behavior and they come here for help and find "p*ssy ninja.

Right.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> Right... "p*ssy ninja" isn't making light of infidelity at all...


No. 



Allen_A said:


> People are hurting from cheating behavior and they come here for help and find "p*ssy ninja.
> 
> Right.


*I am hurting from my spouse's cheating behavior*, I have no problem with DvlsAdvc8's, use of the term "pvssy ninja"; moreover, I'd also have no problem with the term "pen1s ninja" or (other phallicious ninja). 

DvlsAdvc8 had a lot of salient things to say in that post. However, you chose to zero in and focus on "pvssy ninja" and missed the forest for the trees. 

Just because you got offended doesn't mean other people will be and to assume that others must be protected from that which offends you is a projection.


----------



## sidney2718

Squeakr said:


> Sidney, that is exactly how I read your message (no disrespect to x) but that we don't always have an ulterior motive when we friend someone but more that the dynamics of the friendship can change over time. Someone that may not be our type or would never had caught our eye can become more kindred as the friendship evolves and we find that we have more in common and share viewpoints that we may not have ever realized in the beginning and this alone can change our attraction or infatuation with the person and cause the dynamics of the relationship to change whether intended or not as this new comfort level becomes apparent.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I fully agree with this. All social situations, including marriage, are dynamic.

And by the way, this is an excellent post.


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> Just because you got offended doesn't mean other people will be and


Of course, what recently cheated on guy wouldn't want to come to a marriage help forum and read people making p*ssy ninja jokes about OM?

MOST of them don't want to hear that crap. They want support and advice, not low brow comedy about their situation.

I have yet to read a single arrival here who wants to hear p*ssy ninja jokes. They are hurting and want help.



Miss Taken said:


> to assume that others must be protected from that which offends you is a projection.


Uh no, it means YOU are apparently a _mind reader_?

People make inferences from experience, live with it. People have a right to express their thoughts as well. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean you get to label their thoughts "projection" and invalidate them. What the heck kind of counter argument is that anyways?

Your argument justifies infidelity for goodness sakes. Someone gets cheated on and expresses their offense, and you would just label it "projection" and keep cheating!?

Projection is just another way of saying "talk to the hand, I am ignorant and don't want to hear it"


----------



## sidney2718

WhiteRaven said:


> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/170857-husband-vs-player-2.html#post7309009
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7310113-post37.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7316201-post108.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7317793-post117.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7320281-post130.html
> I don't know about herhusband, but the scenario is freaky.
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7323497-post141.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7325057-post151.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7327449-post192.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7329977-post225.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7336905-post275.html
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/7340369-post290.html
> 
> I found these posts very insightful. The object of this thread was not to be sexist, misogynist, or portraying women in a bad light. After my D, I have been a playa for the last 3 months. So I would agree with DvlsAdvc8 and weightlifter, it's shockingly easy. Sorry to pull most of the ladies from their high horses but if someone made you marry them, there does exist someone who can make to step outside your marriage. Pray they don't chance upon you. Time and tide leaves none unscathed.
> 
> DaveCarter was the only man who admitted his marriage wasn't perfect. Neither was mine. We all put 100% of the blame on the OM and WW, but we forget to take 50% of our share of blame for the unhappiness in our own marriages.
> 
> Dear Mrs. John Adams, I truly appreciate your honesty. I beseech you to stop being so hard on yourself. We TAM guys and even Mr Adams(I believe my assumption is true) feel bad about it.
> 
> Still the question remains- can a BS do anything? I certainly don't believe the WS and OM are twin tornadoes and you have only two options- seek shelter and pray to the God or run.


I think that the BS has a few weapons, most weak but one a real bomb. The BS can try (an IC helps here) to figure out what bothers the WS about him or her and try to change those things. Like stop being whiney. 

But in the end the only major weapon is divorce. That is the proverbial 2x4 that gets the WS to pay attention to the fact that the BS will not stand idly by forever. It tends to put pressure on the AP to end their marriage as well, and many AP's really don't want to do that. And if there is a player involved instead of the neighbor's spouse the player faces a very hard decision.

And you want to be the first one to file because then dropping the divorce proceedings, if you want that, is up to you, not the WS.


----------



## xakulax

sidney2718 said:


> I fully agree with this. All social situations, including marriage, are dynamic.
> 
> And by the way, this is an excellent post.



Well of course you do it's supports your opinion :rofl:


----------



## sidney2718

Miss Taken said:


> The man makes the most overt moves but women definitely do things to get him to approach her. When a woman wants a man, there are a lot of things we do to get his attention a simplified version of it:
> 
> *The foundation*
> 
> We dress nice, we smell good, our hair is styled, make up is on point, shoes are cute. That's not an accident. Do you think these shoes are comfortable? LOL
> 
> *The chase*
> 
> _Where we send out all of these signals that say, "Hello, get over here big boy and talk to me."_
> 
> - We toss our hair, subtley bite or lick our lips, toss our heads back so you can see our beautiful necks and collar bones, exaggerate the sway in our hips when walking, fiddle with our straws at the bar, cross and uncross our legs, smile a lot, laugh a lot and look like we're having a really good time.
> 
> Then he comes over and talks to us or we become "friends" or whatever.
> 
> *Going in for the Kill:*
> 
> Find an inconspicuous reason to touch him: and gently stroke his arm, remove lint from his jacket, or playfully punch him on the arm.
> 
> Boost his ego: laugh at his jokes, compliment his wit or intelligence.
> 
> Knock him down a peg: playfully insults him (which makes him want to be more impressive). Selectively answer his calls because you have a life (even if you're only sitting around in your sweat pants eating ice cream and watching Bridgette Jones' Diary).
> 
> Seem "cool": tell him how beautiful that other girl is (because it makes you look confident unlike his ex), tell him you love video games, sports, Star Wars, _insert interest here___, motorcycles (because that's what he's into). Show him a talent or hobby of your own. Can you sing or cook, did you go river rafting (one time) but have a picture of it that makes you look like you belong there? Better display that b!tch or fit it into conversation somehow.
> 
> Then bam he asks for the date.
> 
> So come on, who is chasing who?


Point, set, and match. You win!


----------



## sidney2718

adriana said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree: Miss Taken has nailed it perfectly. I'd only add that it's even easier for an artistically inclined female.
> 
> QUESTION: Why nobody is giving her any "likes".... she has written it so beautifully? Are you scared of the truth, guys? :rofl:


She had 8 last time I looked at the original post.

I will say that no single approach works on everybody. I have a slightly nerdy friend who simply slips the fact that he's a physicist into the conversation. The drop in temperature is amazing...

Of course one of these days he'll run into a woman who likes physics.


----------



## sidney2718

vellocet said:


> Inner quote Posted by sidney2718
> 
> 
> 
> One reply was:
> 
> She can. But believe it or not, she may well not want to. She has a long term marriage, children, a nice life, a husband she gets along with, and so on. They even have a sex life of sorts consisting of no foreplay, quick action, and rolling over into the snoring position right afterwards.
> 
> She and the right guy seduce each other, the foreplay is good, the sex is great, and there is no guilt whatsoever. Who is going to find out about this twice a month affair, conducted quietly and safely away from the usual communication media.
> 
> Such affairs can go on for years and not be detected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well silly me, I guess it all ok then
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It is NOT all right. I was just pointing out why many affairs are never found out.


----------



## sidney2718

Headspin said:


> Yep bang on
> 
> In my opinion there's no woman alive who got 'pulled' by any man that did not want it to happen (outside of weirdo sh!t of course)
> 
> A woman can and does say no, player or not - that's that.
> 
> If she ends up being 'played' then she had designs on it being that way from the off
> 
> It's obvious who's in control here


Not so. Long term seductions are just that. Thread after thread here points out what happened. For example a work friend becomes a person to eat lunch with. Life experiences are sometimes talked about. An affinity grows up. They go for a drink after work. Things progress.

At some point a boundary is crossed. It is true that the woman can stop that, but to imply that the woman intended it from the get go is just wrong, at least in my opinion.


----------



## sidney2718

> Originally Posted by sidney2718 View Post
> I fully agree with this. All social situations, including marriage, are dynamic.
> 
> And by the way, this is an excellent post.





xakulax said:


> Well of course you do it's supports your opinion :rofl:


It supports my general position, but I never made the excellent point about social situations being dynamic. Put more simply, pure intentions can change as the situation changes.


----------



## xakulax

sidney2718 said:


> It supports my general position, but I never made the excellent point about social situations being dynamic. Put more simply, pure intentions can change as the situation changes.



Yes intentions can change and a situation can change but there is still a matter of choice if one party wishes to elevate a relationship and the other party does not then nothing happens the relationship either dies or is significantly change there is always a choice. 



Just because music is playing doesn't mean you have to dance


----------



## workindad

I've seen men who think they are players or want to be, but it does require a willing participant for the "game" to be on.

I do not believe that player status is reserved to the male gender.


----------



## xakulax

workindad said:


> I've seen men who think they are players or want to be, but it does require a willing participant for the "game" to be on.
> 
> I do not believe that player status is reserved to the male gender.


True female players are real and they work on a man's competitive nature like crazy


----------



## Horizon

WhiteRaven said:


> You.... nailed the POSOM's mom? Sheesh, why didn't I think about it?


I'd nail the mother now - anything to break this drought. Oh shoot, how desperate of me


----------



## WhiteRaven

Horizon said:


> I'd nail the mother now - anything to break this drought. Oh shoot, how desperate of me


My POSOM's mom died 2 years ago. So much for more my fantasy...


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*

Then you are indeed missing the forest for the trees.

The OP is divorced, and basically self identifies as a player. That may be overstepping, as I don't mean it in a negative context. Lets say the OP is enjoying being single.

I wasn't and am still unsure if any of the women he has seduced subsequently have been married, I suppose you could ask him, but I do know that he has gotten his ex to cheat on her lover.

If you are in fact recently separated or divorced as a result of infidelty you may not find that help you are looking for, in THIS thread.

Your posting style is more than a little angry and indignant. Nothing wrong with that ... yet. Just be aware. People notice these things. Especially moderators. 



Allen_A said:


> Of course, what recently cheated on guy wouldn't want to come to a marriage help forum and read people making p*ssy ninja jokes about OM?
> 
> MOST of them don't want to hear that crap. They want support and advice, not low brow comedy about their situation.
> 
> I have yet to read a single arrival here who wants to hear p*ssy ninja jokes. They are hurting and want help.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh no, it means YOU are apparently a _mind reader_?
> 
> People make inferences from experience, live with it. People have a right to express their thoughts as well. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean you get to label their thoughts "projection" and invalidate them. What the heck kind of counter argument is that anyways?
> 
> Your argument justifies infidelity for goodness sakes. Someone gets cheated on and expresses their offense, and you would just label it "projection" and keep cheating!?
> 
> Projection is just another way of saying "talk to the hand, I am ignorant and don't want to hear it"


----------



## WhiteRaven

No one really cares about the BH, do they?


----------



## RandomDude

In the past I've had intimacy with married women, and if it wasn't me, it was going to be someone else.

So don't rely on weak-willed women mate, they aren't worth your time.


----------



## Mr The Other

WhiteRaven said:


> Then why do players have far more success getting women?


'Player' suggests two things, it is being done as a hobby and that this is a separate type of person to any other man.

What I have read about this, is that is plays on a woman's insecurities, boredom and vanities.

I am a faithful man, but women who are far better looking, far younger and often taller (I am in Scandinavia), will often proposition me. The things men can do for themselves are filtering out most women to pick on easy targets.

I have a social position that means that I can sit in the bar and men will come up to me to speak. Women who are secure in their social status will not react, women who are insecure in their social status, but secure in attractiveness will start to come up. I will not be too bothered, (I am married) and their social insecurities will drive them to be more forward. This is the situation men wish to set up artificially. Were I single, I could take advantage. 

I therefore have a reputation as a 'player', but I do not do anything special whatsoever. However, I am not particularly clever or charming and do not have super powers.

However, it suits two sides to suggest super powers are real. A man will want to give the impression that he is off with the prettiest girl as he could have any woman (pretty and insecure/young are the most open of all), but it is not true. Also, the woman wants to absolve herself of all responsibility, which is not true.


----------



## sinnister

Allen_A said:


> Right... "p*ssy ninja" isn't making light of infidelity at all...
> 
> 
> 
> People are hurting from cheating behavior and they come here for help and find "p*ssy ninja.
> 
> Right.


Maybe your emotions are a little too raw right now to be reading message boards. People make jokes and one-liners. Doesn't mean they are poking fun.

Get a hold of your emotions.


----------



## Headspin

sidney2718 said:


> Not so. Long term seductions are just that. Thread after thread here points out what happened. For example a work friend becomes a person to eat lunch with. Life experiences are sometimes talked about. An affinity grows up. They go for a drink after work. Things progress.
> 
> At some point a boundary is crossed. *It is true that the woman can stop that*, but to imply that the woman intended it from the get go is just wrong, at least in my opinion.


That's it right there, with respect there's your contradiction. Ultimately all power is with the woman the ability to say "no" is with her from start to finish, long term or short term

End of really, imo


----------



## vellocet

sidney2718 said:


> It is NOT all right. I was just pointing out why many affairs are never found out.


No, that not all you were pointing out. Your words insinuate that because there are "dynamics" in marriages, and friendships can change, that maybe we should go easy on our betrayers.


----------



## Deejo

From a betrayed's or one who feels betrayed standpoint, there is no good outcome.

If your wife were to come to you and say," I don't love you, I don't feel fulfilled, and I want something different for my life. I'm divorcing you."

Odds are, you arent going to feel compelled to congratulate her on her forthrightness and honesty.

Odds are, you are going to wonder if shes cheating anyway.

I dated a woman whose emotionally disengaged husband begged her to stay when she said she wanted a divorce. She looked right at him and said, if I stay, I'm going to cheat on you. Do you want that? Because I certainly don't. "

I certainly care about betrayed husbands. But as someone who has dated plenty of divorced women, and hearing about their ex-husbands behavior ... those dudes should not be surprised that they are divorced.

On the flip side, I don't have a great deal of tolerance for those who cannot see, or refuse to acknowledge their part in the deterioration of the marriage.


----------



## vellocet

workindad said:


> I've seen men who think they are players or want to be, but it does require a willing participant for the "game" to be on.
> 
> I do not believe that player status is reserved to the male gender.


I also don't believe, as some here obviously do, that a woman should get some sort of pass or be treated with kid gloves, and that it wasn't their fault because somehow they were preyed upon.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> On the flip side, I don't have a great deal of tolerance for those who cannot see, or refuse to acknowledge their part in the deterioration of the marriage.


Please don't confuse acknowledging problems in a marriage with refusal to acknowledge one's part in the other's decision to cheat.

There isn't one marriage where both spouses couldn't work on at least one aspect of their relationship.
But one spouses decision to cheat is theirs and theirs alone.

Because remember, 2 are at fault for the state of their marriage, but more times than not, only one goes out and cheats. Its on them at that point.


----------



## Squeakr

Deejo said:


> I certainly care about betrayed husbands. But as someone who has dated plenty of divorced women, and hearing about their ex-husbands behavior ... those dudes should not be surprised that they are divorced.


But then you are only getting one side of the story, and do you honestly know anyone that opens a relationship with "I am divorced because I was narcissistic and cheated on my spouse." No they will paint a picture that doesn't make them appear damaged goods as they want to have a happy life and meet someone to share it with, but if the truth came out they wouldn't probably have lots of perspective partners, or at least not ones you could trust, be proud of, and want to spend your remaining days with. My WW is still painting me in a negative light to everyone (she says she isn't, but must think I am blind, deaf, and dumb), yet she was the one that cheated and strayed.


----------



## vellocet

sinnister said:


> Maybe your emotions are a little too raw right now to be reading message boards. People make jokes and one-liners. Doesn't mean they are poking fun.
> 
> Get a hold of your emotions.


Are you a BS?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



vellocet said:


> Please don't confuse acknowledging problems in a marriage with refusal to acknowledge one's part in the other's decision to cheat.
> 
> There isn't one marriage where both spouses could work on at least one aspect of their relationship.
> But one spouses decision to cheat is theirs and theirs alone.
> 
> Because remember, 2 are at fault for the state of their marriage, but then more times than not, only one goes out and cheats. Its on them at that point.


Which subsequently makes it easy to point the finger at who was responsible for ending the marriage, even if the marriage didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it.

The cheater is responsible for the infidelty, not the failure of the marriage. 

I didn't make my ex wife cheat, but I know damn well why she did.

Our marriage wasnt going to survive, regardless of infidelity.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



Squeakr said:


> But then you are only getting one side of the story, and do you honestly know anyone that opens a relationship with "I am divorced because I was narcissistic and cheated on my spouse." No they will paint a picture that doesn't make them appear damaged goods as they want to have a happy life and meet someone to share it with, but if the truth came out they wouldn't probably have lots of perspective partners, or at least not ones you could trust, be proud of, and want to spend your remaining days with. My WW is still painting me in a negative light to everyone (she says she isn't, but must think I am blind, deaf, and dumb), yet she was the one that cheated and strayed.


We could say the exact same thing about the betrayed husbands that post here, couldn't we?


----------



## vellocet

Allen_A said:


> Right... "p*ssy ninja" isn't making light of infidelity at all...
> 
> 
> 
> People are hurting from cheating behavior and they come here for help and find "p*ssy ninja.
> 
> Right.


Relax a bit Allen. I know exactly what you're going through and the emotions that come with it.

And just take the background of someone making a comment like that into consideration. More times than not they aren't real sympathetic to those who are betrayed, so just ignore them.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> Which subsequently makes it easy to point the finger at who was responsible for ending the marriage, even if the marriage didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it.
> 
> The cheater is responsible for the infidelty, not the failure of the marriage.
> 
> I didn't make my ex wife cheat, but I know damn well why she did.
> 
> Our marriage wasnt going to survive, regardless of infidelity.


Ya, well ours could of because the problems were slim to none. A little complacency on both sides was all. Nothing that couldn't have been worked on. But once she cheated, that ended the marriage. Your situation is quite a bit different because yours didn't stand a chance by your own admission. Not the case for some others.,


----------



## Squeakr

Deejo said:


> We could say the exact same thing about the betrayed husbands that post here, couldn't we?


:iagree: We most definitely could and lost of times do. Always asking for the entire truth upfront (stop TT things), asking what their part in it was, calling them out for their behavior, requesting that they get solid proof before acting, and many times casting aspersions of the poster being a troll and the story contrived. 

It is just that you stated it as you knew what they were saying was in fact the truth (and you might have known it to be that way). There was no reference to the fact that it could be false or lies being told, you said "hearing about their ex-husbands behavior ... those dudes should not be surprised that they are divorced." They seemed to have already been found guilty and sentenced by you based upon one sided evidence presented. Had you have insinuated that the story might have been false I wouldn't have been so affected, but you didn't really address it that way. I think it would have been better to state: "hearing about their ex-husbands behavior ... if they did those things, those dudes should not be surprised that they are divorced.

This last at least realizes that we aren't always told the story in the best light.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Right... "p*ssy ninja" isn't making light of infidelity at all...
> 
> 
> 
> People are hurting from cheating behavior and they come here for help and find "p*ssy ninja.
> 
> Right.


Understand that I'm not making light of cheating.

I'm saying that the way these OMs are being described is a caricature. A built up, exaggerated, imaginary person. They aren't ninjas or secret agents. I am poking fun at this unrealistic caricature.

They didn't execute some master plan to perfection to dupe some otherwise perfectly happy woman in a perfectly happy marriage. They aren't able to identify every single vulnerability. Most are just hapless chaps who hang around hoping to get lucky. If it takes a man 9 months to get in her pants, he's not a player... or at least, a very, very poor one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> Relax a bit Allen. I know exactly what you're going through and the emotions that come with it.
> 
> And just take the background of someone making a comment like that into consideration. More times than not they aren't real sympathetic to those who are betrayed, so just ignore them.


I'm quite sympathetic... its not cheating I'm making light of, its the notion that the male friend a woman cheats on hubby with has some special skill set that rivals a ninja. Guys with womanizing skills don't have to go through the long slog of playing her "friend" to get laid. This much I know for a fact.

I've been cheated on myself. The guy turned out to be a less successful, less attractive doofus with nary a womanizing skill in sight. The root causes of the cheating were my own inattentiveness and her validation seeking nature. He was just a dog who loitered around and snapped up what fell off my plate. The less I connected with her, the more she connected with him. This gf was high maintenance / high need for shows of affection, and I wasn't doing much of either because I had a lot of problems at that time and was a generally sh*tty boyfriend. So I get the anger and the shame. I've just chosen to acknowledge how my behavior played a part, even while her actions were unacceptable... and while he was just the lucky guy in the right place at the right time and certainly a pos, he's far from having any special talent. To wit, they're not together today.


----------



## Racer

sidney2718 said:


> But in the end the only major weapon is divorce. That is the proverbial 2x4 that gets the WS to pay attention to the fact that the BS will not stand idly by forever..


I disagree with that. Look at why divorce is a major bomb. It’s their fear of loss, starting over, major change, failure, etc. Your major bomb is to illicit those very negative anxieties in them. Start with a true 180. What that essentially means is you cut them out of your life and focus on yourself. You don’t yell, scream, etc. or really allow them to control your emotional state. You ignore them, get distant and start forging your own path ahead. Remove yourself from the picture. They become a ghost haunting you. And because you aren’t divorcing just yet, there is also a sliver of hope so they just might try to salvage it. 

If that doesn’t work, the next step is carrot/stick and the crazy train where you gain control of their emotional state so they are reacting to you and not visa-versa. You need that emotional distance first though.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> Ya, well ours could of because the problems were slim to none. A little complacency on both sides was all. Nothing that couldn't have been worked on. But once she cheated, that ended the marriage. Your situation is quite a bit different because yours didn't stand a chance by your own admission. Not the case for some others.,


Complacency is one of the worst problems to have. And its tough to work on, because its tough to even recognize. Even when one person does, the other will often think everything is perfectly fine.

Its not the big blowups that usually end marriages - that's something I used to think. It turns out most marriages die a slow death from lack of maintenance. Complacency.


----------



## vellocet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Complacency is one of the worst problems to have. And its tough to work on, because its tough to even recognize. Even when one person does, the other will often think everything is perfectly fine.
> 
> Its not the big blowups that usually end marriages - that's something I used to think. It turns out most marriages die a slow death from lack of maintenance. Complacency.


It wasn't the death of the marriage as far as I was concerned. It wasn't a rampant case. More complacency on her end than mine since I was the one always trying to keep the fires burning.

And if it is the death of the marriage, then she could have decided to divorce rather than stoop to the level of cheater.

If a little complacency is all it takes for one person to decide the marriage is over, then it wouldn't have taken much in the first place. Now outright neglect where one person refuses to see it, sure, then that person can decide the marriage is over. Still no excuse for cheating.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> It wasn't the death of the marriage as far as I was concerned. It wasn't a rampant case. More complacency on her end than mine since I was the one always trying to keep the fires burning.
> 
> And if it is the death of the marriage, then she could have decided to divorce rather than stoop to the level of cheater.
> 
> If a little complacency is all it takes for one person to decide the marriage is over, then it wouldn't have taken much in the first place. Now outright neglect where one person refuses to see it, sure, then that person can decide the marriage is over. Still no excuse for cheating.


Yep, divorcing rather than cheating is always ideal - even cheaters acknowledge this. But its not an ideal world full of ideal people. Sometimes people feel resentment and want to cheat... other times people just have the right circumstances align and the desire to cheat is inspired. Some people are vulnerable, others are just selfish.

One person can decide the marriage is over for whatever reason they wish... complacency, thinking they can do better, entitlement, meeting someone they think they "click" with better... literally anything.

Complacency in your marriage couldn't have been on her end, she cheated. That's an obvious sign she wasn't complacent. Complacency is thinking everything is good and not feeling the need to do the things that maintain the marriage. If she cheated and was distant, she wasn't complacent, she was already checking out.

There is no excuse for cheating. There are however reasons for cheating and from what I gather from women - its rarely just to get some "strange", usually (thought not always), its rooted in both of the married party's behavior and the dynamics of that marriage. In acknowledging how I contributed to it in my case, I didn't/don't forgive or excuse the offense.


----------



## vellocet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Complacency in your marriage couldn't have been on her end, she cheated. That's an obvious sign she wasn't complacent.


I have always linked complacency to just simply losing the fire due to being with the same person for a while, but by definition, you are correct.

So then I would say I was more attentive of the marriage than she was. She simply liked the variety of having sex with different people.


----------



## Miss Taken

Allen_A said:


> Of course, what recently cheated on guy wouldn't want to come to a marriage help forum and read people making p*ssy ninja jokes about OM? MOST of them don't want to hear that crap. They want support and advice, not low brow comedy about their situation.


Again, nobody was joking about the other man or poking fun at us betrayed. 

This post explains what was meant by that. Still, you ignored all of those points in order to continue to take the words out of context to imply that there were jokes being made at the expense of those of us that have been betrayed. This I found to be false. Others (not just me) chimed in and tried to clarify it further for you but you ignored them as well.



Allen_A said:


> I have yet to read a single arrival here who wants to hear p*ssy ninja jokes.


Me either. *Nor has ANYONE made a claim *that is something that everyone wants to hear. I know I certainly didn't claim that they did.



Allen_A said:


> People make inferences from experience, live with it. People have a right to express their thoughts as well.


I agree and I do live with it. Can you? Because it seems to me that every time I've disagreed with you on this thread, it was taken as a personal attack and you became highly defensive. I can respectfully disagree with you and me disagreeing with someone isn't an attack on them as a person or an evaluation of their worth or intelligence. 



Allen_A said:


> Just because you don't agree with them does not mean you get to label their thoughts "projection" and invalidate them. What the heck kind of counter argument is that anyways?


*I'm sincerely sorry that you felt labelled and invalidated by my use of the word, "projection". That was not my intent.* I was not trying to invalidate you nor was I attacking you as a person. I also wasn't making an evaluation about you or your individual circumstances when using that word. 

I was simply saying that just because *you* felt a certain way about the term "pvssy ninja" doesn't mean that everyone feels the same as you do about that term or how it was used in that post. I was simply stating, to imply that everyone will feel upset or mocked by the use of that term and in the context it was used in, just because you did is a projection of your feelings about the term onto others. Some people will feel like you, some won't. THAT'S IT.


Just as


Allen_A said:


> *People make inferences from experience,* live with it.


 is true; it is also true that people can have the exact same experience, at the same time and each can feel totally differently from each other about it. Don't assume everyone feels the same way as you do because doing so is projection is all I was saying. *And I was only discussing the term with you.*



*I wasn't discussing or making an evaluation of you as a person.*
*I wasn't discussing or making an evaluation about your wife's affair.*
*I wasn't discussing or making an evaluation about your feelings about your wife's affair.*
 

Boy do I hope that is clear now.




Allen_A said:


> Your argument justifies infidelity for goodness sakes. Someone gets cheated on and expresses their offense, and you would just label it "projection" and keep cheating!?
> 
> Projection is just another way of saying "talk to the hand, I am ignorant and don't want to hear it"


To use one of your own phrases from another post, this entire quote is a _"straw man argument"_. You're putting words in my mouth again Allen and it's not the first time either (see this post where you called me a straw man repeatedly while being one yourself). 

I was being polite earlier in the thread where I ended our conversation about X. I gave you the benefit of the doubt about twisting my words but now I think it's intentional. You keep misrepresenting my words and twisting them into something sinister or ridiculous and then argue against things I never even said. That is what a straw man argument is and having my words misconstrued by you is getting old to me.


----------



## Allen_A

sinnister said:


> People make jokes and one-liners. Doesn't mean they are poking fun.


If that is'nt a contradiction I don't know what is.

But hey, if you guys want to make jokes about OM trespassing into marriages on a marriage help forum, don't let me stop you.

Carry on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> So then I would say I was more attentive of the marriage than she was. She simply liked the variety of having sex with different people.


Which likely puts you in the "unsalvageable marriage" boat like deej. Nothing wrong with that and no shame in it.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> If that is'nt a contradiction I don't know what is.


It isn't a contradiction. Poking fun is directly aimed at ridiculing at someone's expense. Not all one-liners and jokes are meant as such, they can actually be nothing more then levity to break the mood.


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> It isn't a contradiction. Poking fun is directly aimed at ridiculing at someone's expense. Not all one-liners and jokes are meant as such, they can actually be nothing more then levity to break the mood.


Right... so it's just a person being too sensitive is that it?

These excuses are the exact same excuses OM and waywards throw at betrayed spouses during confrontation.

I don't buy it, sorry.

Just my opinion, but "p*ssy ninja" jokes about "playas" does not belong on a marriage support forum...

Again, just my humble opinion on the matter.. carry on with your "levity"...


----------



## Miss Taken

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Complacency in your marriage couldn't have been on her end,* she cheated. That's an obvious sign she wasn't complacent. Complacency is thinking everything is good and not feeling the need to do the things that maintain the marriage. If she cheated and was distant, she wasn't complacent, she was already checking out.



My WS was definitely complacent. He was happy with and proud of what he was giving to the relationship all the while he was giving less and less of what had attracted me to and made me fall in love with him in the first place.

WS's mother has always been hyper-critical and belittling, towards WS and has made it clear that he is not the family favourite. This impacted our relationship in more ways than one unfortunately.

Before he cheated, he was so defensive and hyper reactive to any criticism at all - regardless of how gently it was phrased. It didn't matter what I said or how I said it. It was taken as an attestation of how unworthy I thought he was.

I asked him for more foreplay to help me get in the mood. He heard, "You're not attractive, you don't turn me on and I hate sex with you." I asked to go out more often on date nights - outside of the house and without the kids. He took it as I thought he was boring.

So feeling unappreciated (while failing to see how little he was actually giving) lead him to resent me for not being happy. I think that this lead to resentment a grand sense of entitlement. He was a wonderful spouse in his mind. Why didn't I see that and appreciate it? He felt if I wasn't happy with him, why not go be with someone who was? After all, he deserved it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Right... so it's just a person being too sensitive is that it?
> 
> These excuses are the exact same excuses OM and waywards throw at betrayed spouses during confrontation.
> 
> I don't buy it, sorry.
> 
> Just my opinion, but "p*ssy ninja" jokes about "playas" does not belong on a marriage support forum...
> 
> Again, just my humble opinion on the matter.. carry on with your "levity"...


You still don't get it. The joke is about something that DOESNT EXIST. This hyper-inflated notion of the OM as some kind of skillful wizard - its not real. My comment was purposefully intended to convey the absurdity of it by hyperbole and sarcasm. These OMs aren't ninjas or secret agents. They simply DONT have the mastermind traits many are ascribing them.

They're just passive. Dogs hopeful to pick up table scraps. Rather pathetic imo. I'm honestly confused as to why you find any of this offensive. I can't make light of something that doesn't even exist?


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I can't make light of something that doesn't even exist?


In the wake of betrayal, anxiety, and panic attacks a guy comes here and you think that's what he wants to read?

I really don't think anyone on D-Day cares if a "p*ssy ninja" exists or not.. it's still not funny to people arriving on marriage support forum on D-Day... at least not that I would imagine.

Most people are devastated. Making jokes surrounding infidelity in any way risks aggravating their unstable mood rather than supporting them through that rough time.

You can make jokes pertaining to infidelity if you want (real or imagined characters), I just can't imagine they belong here on a marriage support forum... 

Again, just my opinion. And yes, I "get" your comment and the joke. I just don't find it amusing, particularly on a marriage help forum.

Would you post that on a battered woman's forum too? Where would you draw the line then?


----------



## Miss Taken

Squeakr said:


> But then you are only getting one side of the story, and do you honestly know anyone that opens a relationship with "I am divorced because I was narcissistic and cheated on my spouse." No they will paint a picture that doesn't make them appear damaged goods as they want to have a happy life and meet someone to share it with...


Agreed but Deejo seems smart enough to consider that there are two sides of every story. At least, that's what I took from this:



> On the flip side, I don't have a great deal of tolerance for those who cannot see, or refuse to acknowledge their part in the deterioration of the marriage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Miss Taken said:


> My WS was definitely complacent. He was happy with and proud of what he was giving to the relationship all the while he was giving less and less of what had attracted me to and made me fall in love with him in the first place.
> 
> WS's mother has always been hyper-critical and belittling, towards WS and has made it clear that he is not the family favourite. This impacted our relationship in more ways than one unfortunately.
> 
> Before he cheated, he was so defensive and hyper reactive to any criticism at all - regardless of how gently it was phrased. It didn't matter what I said or how I said it. It was taken as an attestation of how unworthy I thought he was.
> 
> I asked him for more foreplay to help me get in the mood. He heard, "You're not attractive, you don't turn me on and I hate sex with you." I asked to go out more often on date nights - outside of the house and without the kids. He took it as I thought he was boring.
> 
> So feeling unappreciated (while failing to see how little he was actually giving) lead him to resent me for not being happy. I think that this lead to resentment a grand sense of entitlement. He was a wonderful spouse in his mind. Why didn't I see that and appreciate it? He felt if I wasn't happy with him, why not go be with someone who was? After all, he deserved it.


The way I see it, complacency doesn't drive the complacent person to cheat. It can drive the spouse of the complacent person to cheat... this is the wife who cheats because her husband refuses to acknowledge that he doesn't pay her enough attention; or the man who cheats because his wife sees no problem with their lack of sex life). Again, if you're complacent, you don't see the need to do anything at all - everything is fine. So someone who cheats, is either not complacent, or complacency isn't the driver of their cheating.

By your description, your husband was complacent and YOU were unhappy with it. He clearly has low self-esteem, and your proper attempts to address your unhappiness with his complacency were received as personal attacks.

The ultimate cause of your husband cheating sounds like it was his lack of self-esteem. The other woman provided the validation he needed, while at home he perceived your efforts as telling him he wasn't good enough.

People with low self esteem are very difficult to work things out with.


----------



## Deejo

P*ssy ninja in my case was shorter than me, and outright fat. His killer move?

He was available.

While I was at work, he was working on my home ... while my ex was present. They struck up a friendship. They talked, they connected.

There was a time when I was very, very angry about what took place.

Six years on, I can tell you unequivocally, if I was ever in the presence of someone that called my ex a wh0re I'd knock their teeth in.

Times change. People change. We hurt, we heal, we grow we move on.

Or ... we choose not to.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Allen_A said:


> Right... so it's just a person being too sensitive is that it?
> 
> These excuses are the exact same excuses OM and waywards throw at betrayed spouses during confrontation.
> 
> I don't buy it, sorry.
> 
> Just my opinion, but "p*ssy ninja" jokes about "playas" does not belong on a marriage support forum...
> 
> Again, just my humble opinion on the matter.. carry on with your "levity"...


Allen_A, I don't know whether you are a BS or just obsessed with infidelity. But understand this fact - Most in this forum have a big hole that can't be filled. EVER. Our lives are already dreary and dark. *Humor makes it bearable*. Other members have already explained the logic behind the jokes. If this thread offends you, either report it or stop reading it. Everyone is entitled to express their opinions doesn't mean they can act condescending.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> Would you post that on a battered woman's forum too? Where would you draw the line then?


If the women invented a conceptual caricature with magical talents that somehow render their husbands powerless to avoid beating them up, you're damn right I'm going to mock that concept too.

Ultimately, both are excuse making - both for the WS actions and the ways in which the BS contributed to marital dissatisfaction. Nobody wants to admit or discuss how they played a part - and people even bend over backwards to not think as badly about the WS. Most of the ire goes the OM/W. They did it. Part of healing is getting past doing this. Joking about things takes you out of the moment and past angst. Levity about death is even helpful for cancer patients knowing the end is near. Levity fosters acceptance.

I'm sorry if you're feeling raw and my comment hurt you.


----------



## Allen_A

WhiteRaven said:


> *Humor makes it bearable*.


I am not objecting to humor on a marriage support site.

What I object to is _infidelity contextual_ humor.

I don't consider infidelity a topic to be made light of.

But hey, maybe that's just me...


----------



## vellocet

I actually like that there are p*ssy ninjas/players out there. It helps the rest of us guys weed out the undesirable women

Not only that, the players end up, well, playing these women, then the women complain about what a jerk he was and how unfairly she was treated after she betrayed a perfectly good man. Ya gotta have a laugh at that Allen!


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Right... so it's just a person being too sensitive is that it?
> 
> These excuses are the exact same excuses OM and waywards throw at betrayed spouses during confrontation.
> 
> I don't buy it, sorry.
> 
> Just my opinion, but "p*ssy ninja" jokes about "playas" does not belong on a marriage support forum...
> 
> Again, just my humble opinion on the matter.. carry on with your "levity"...


I think you are taking this way to seriously and need to step back. all I did was point out the truth that it was NOT a contradiction. It is like saying all pit bulls are dogs so therefor all dogs are pit bulls. I was just pointing out that not all jokes and one-liners are poking fun, so there was no contradiction, as you seem to be so strict and tied up in the language semantics. 

But go ahead and poke fun at me with your "levity" comment (as that is a perfect example of poking fun as it was meant solely to do nothing but ridicule) and strike out at everyone if it makes you feel better, just know it isn't helping you or anyone else (which according to you is the reason for this forum and your presence here). If this topic upsets you so, maybe it is time to push away from the keyboard for a while, or visit one of the other 200,000 threads that exist on TAM in this and other sections that suit your taste better. 

Pleas take your own advice for once and help yourself. Sorry you are so offended by everyone here.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Allen_A said:


> I am not objecting to humor on a marriage support site.
> 
> What I object to is _infidelity contextual_ humor.
> 
> I don't consider infidelity a topic to be made light of.
> 
> But hey, maybe that's just me...


Do you know where was I 6 months ago when I came to know my wife was not pregnant with mine but the OM's baby? I was sitting in my car with a 1911 shoved into my mouth. I could have pulled the trigger in a snap. I didn't because I didn't want to lose. I never lose. My xW and OM would have won. They wanted me ruined, broken, dead. You think that was a joke? I have been through hell and back. Most have been through hell and back. But some didn't. 

I won't lose. I won because I live. The xW and OM are inconsequential to me. They played me, I played them. I paid my debts with interest and some. And I win everyday because I can laugh at them.


----------



## Miss Taken

You don't corner the market on infidelity pain Allen. That's why most of us are here. 

This site is highly moderated. The real losers, abusers and trolls get kicked out with the quickness.

Believe it or not, we're actually a really caring, compassionate group of people. We also care that you're in pain. Despite that, you're not always going to like what we say. We also can't tailor the site to your very specific and individual needs, aversions triggers and moral objections thus a grain of salt is required if you want to read here.


----------



## sinnister

vellocet said:


> No, that not all you were pointing out. Your words insinuate that because there are "dynamics" in marriages, and friendships can change, that maybe we should go easy on our betrayers.


But it's hard for people to say one way or the other how a person "should" treat a betrayer.

If for example in my situation I cheated, I would hope my wife would treat me golden. Given my personality, my morals, and what we have been through and are currently going through.

Those challenges of life are different for every relationship. There's no cookie cutter answer to how a betrayed should be treated.


----------



## sinnister

Allen_A said:


> Right... so it's just a person being too sensitive is that it?
> 
> These excuses are the exact same excuses OM and waywards throw at betrayed spouses during confrontation.
> 
> I don't buy it, sorry.
> 
> Just my opinion, but "p*ssy ninja" jokes about "playas" does not belong on a marriage support forum...
> 
> Again, just my humble opinion on the matter.. carry on with your "levity"...


Seriously Allen. You need to take a step back on this one. You're way too amped up. You're like a rookie QB with happy feet when he see's the rush. Slow it down and let the game come to you.


----------



## vellocet

sinnister said:


> But it's hard for people to say one way or the other how a person "should" treat a betrayer.


I absolutely agree. But the insinuation is that we shouldn't really blame a woman that cheats with a player because she was emotionally preyed upon. I'm just calling bullsh!t on that is all.




> If for example in my situation I cheated, I would hope my wife would treat me golden.


?? You mean, for example, treat you golden after you treated her completely in an opposite fashion? I'm not saying if you and her want keep the marriage that she treats you badly, but you really don't have the ground to stand on to hope she treats you better than you have treated her.

If you cheated, then first you need to show that you are capable of treating her golden. Then I'd say, for reconciliations sake, she should treat you the way you wish.


----------



## Allen_A

Miss Taken said:


> You don't corner the market on infidelity pain Allen. That's why most of us are here.


Straw man.. again.

I never said I have the market cornered. Do you have any counter-argument to offer anyone other than straw men?


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Sorry you are so offended by everyone here.


And yet another straw man.

I am not offended by everyone here.

I am not offended by anyone here.

I am offended at _jokes about infidelity_, particularly on a _coping with infidelity_ forum. I find them to be in rather bad taste, and most certainly not funny at all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> I am offended at _*jokes about infidelity*_, particularly on a _coping with infidelity_ forum. I find them to be in rather bad taste, and most certainly not funny at all.


FYI, neither of what you cited are actually straw man fallacies - they aren't reframing your argument to counter you. The bold above is a straw man fallacy. The joke isn't about infidelity - that's what you want to argue against. The joke is about how many here were elevating the OM to ninja status in order to justify why a WS would hook up with him - choosing him over the BS. He has to have super powers. It was all a part of a nefarious prearranged plan to dupe a helpless woman. This _should_ be mocked. He isn't anything special.

Some elements of the caricature are realistic. But the whole of it is just a myth that the mind conjures up - probably to justify how this could have happened. Adriana's point was excellent. My sarcasm was intended to mock this notion of a friend who takes 9 mos to lay a married woman as being a player of any sort. To mock his being held up as anything exceptional. He was just an opportunist at the right place at the right time.

Sorry if mocking the caricature by calling it a "p*ssy ninja" is too offensive for you. I rather find the notion that such a thing exists hilariously absurd - as absurd as a "p*ssy ninja".

Its a step along the path to a BS realizing that the cheating wasn't the result of some special trick pulled by the OM. For the most part, he was simply there to catch the scraps.


----------



## Allen_A

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its a step along the path to a BS realizing that the cheating wasn't the result of some special trick pulled by the OM. For the most part, he was simply there to catch the scraps.


I am well aware of the context.

Yet this joke is still infidelity related. Certainly not a joke of the "three monkeys walk into a bar..." flavor.

But ignore that, where are the threads on this forum where a wayward female is making these sorts of claims?

Is there one on here I can review?

In my reading over many years now I have yet to encounter a single case where a female blamed OM and declared him to have some mysterious powers the wayward could not resist. Not a single case of that.

I don't doubt some remorseless female wayward has tried to argue that, I am just suggesting it's rather rare.

Most cases of blame shifting I have encountered involved the wayward female blaming her husband for being neglectful (paraphrasing). I can even recall threads on this forum where new arrivals tried that stunt.

I have yet to read a thread where a female declared herself some hapless victim to some man of such talents no one could resist.

I understand it's a ridiculous argument. I have yet to encounter anyone making it here, that's all.


----------



## Horizon

I would have ripped that POSOM apart before the event if I had of known. As it transpired I fixed him up after the event because I didn't fully cotton on (even with some now very obvious red flags and outright denial when my intuition kicked in a few times - that's what trust will do I suppose). DDay was after the fact, the year long EA / PA was all but over except for the burning embers. Watch those burning embers folks.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> And yet another straw man.
> 
> I am not offended by everyone here.
> 
> I am not offended by anyone here.
> 
> I am offended at _jokes about infidelity_, particularly on a _coping with infidelity_ forum. I find them to be in rather bad taste, and most certainly not funny at all.


Not a straw man. Just an obvious observation as myself and several have seen you be very blunt, direct, short, agitated, and aggressive towards the posters here. If that is not the temperament of someone that is offended, then I stand corrected.

Please look up straw man argument so you understand it before constantly just replying straw man to everything that everyone says.


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Please look up straw man argument so you understand it before constantly just replying straw man to everything that everyone says.


I am not constantly replying straw man to everything that everyone says.

That is an exaggeration. I also know what a straw man is when I read one. I don't need to look it up.

You may want to read up on the word exaggerate.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> But ignore that, where are the threads on this forum where a wayward female is making these sorts of claims?


EDIT: I misread you. I thought you were referring to how betrayed women think of the OW. You can skip this paragraph. v

Are you serious? You don't think betrayed women attribute all sorts of sexual skanky-ness to the OW? The specific traits are different in respect to what attracts a man vs a woman, but yes, betrayed women similarly play up the sexuality of the OW in the same manner that men play up the skills of the OM as a player. Both are a weird kind of building up a super person, even while having disgust for them. The men think the cheating women are victims of a scheming man who manipulated their emotions, and the women think the cheating men are the victims of a woman who played him with skimpy clothes or sl*tty behavior. Its a dismissive way of saying the OM was incredibly charming and the OW was incredibly sexy. Weirdly building them up into more than they are... how could mere mortals resist? 





Allen_A said:


> Is there one on here I can review?


Got me. I'm lazy. You could ask a couple women what they thought about the OW. I suspect you should brace yourself for a lot of "skanky hoe" replies.



Allen_A said:


> In my reading over many years now I have yet to encounter a single case where a female blamed OM and declared him to have some mysterious powers the wayward could not resist. Not a single case of that.


Its not the female who builds up this picture of the OM. Its the BS... the male. There's a lot of it in this thread. What relevance would the female's perspective provide? Speaking a bit more intuitively, my impression is that women cut down the OM if they stay with the BS, and if they leave the BS - the OM is everything he wasn't. I think women have a tendency to think black and white about men. If he's good, he's great! If he's not so good, he's terrible!

The BS builds this picture of the OM/W pulling all the right strings - not the WS.



Allen_A said:


> I don't doubt some remorseless female wayward has tried to argue that, I am just suggesting it's rather rare.


I'm not sure the relevance?



Allen_A said:


> Most cases of blame shifting I have encountered involved the wayward female blaming her husband for being neglectful (paraphrasing). I can even recall threads on this forum where new arrivals tried that stunt.
> 
> I have yet to read a thread where a female declared herself some hapless victim to some man of such talents no one could resist.
> 
> I understand it's a ridiculous argument. I have yet to encounter anyone making it here, that's all.


I'd imagine making that case simply isn't tenable. Even if she thinks she got brilliantly played, is she going to tell hubby, "I couldn't help it, he was sooo charming!!" That's not gonna fly. Hubby doesn't want to hear ANYTHING good about the OM. When they go back, they tend to be critical of OM, because that's what BS wants to hear - but if he was so bad, why'd she cheat right? Reality is somewhere in the middle. He's a regular guy who happened to get close and one thing led to another - even if he wanted it to go that way, he's still just passive scavenger. A rather pathetic man... not a player.

IMO, its usually not really about him. He's just the dog who got the scraps. Players - or men who are able to draw attraction from women through intentional, direct pusuit don't need to bother with the friend game. Hell, some people on this forum think I'm a player, and I wouldn't bother... too much time and effort for one woman. The guys playing the friend game are just hapless opportunists who probably couldn't get laid with direct intentions. Its the only thing that explains all that time and effort on merely the possibility that something *might* happen.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> I am not constantly replying straw man to everything that everyone says.
> 
> That is an exaggeration. I also know what a straw man is when I read one. I don't need to look it up.
> 
> You may want to read up on the word exaggerate.


Yes, it was an exaggeration (although I thought that was obviously sarcastic to most, but I guess not to you). If you do know what a straw man is and when you see one, then stop calling it out when it does not exist as you have several times recently. 

Sorry but just because you *bold*, underline, _italicize_, insult, and poke fun at people does not make you superior to them. Your connotation and use of a word does not mean it is the only acceptable usage that exists, so stop trying to correct everyone just because it doesn't meet your standards.


----------



## Squeakr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I suspect you should brace yourself for a lot of "skanky hoe" replies.


Oh but we can't use that term as it implies they are a harmless gardening tool and would be associated with a relaxing and worthwhile endeavor that actually produces something of value. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

:rofl::smthumbup:


Edit: Sorry I offended people as I realized I was making a joke and that's not allowed, we all must be serious and down 24/7!!


----------



## Allen_A

Squeakr said:


> Sorry but just because you... does not make you superior to them.


Straw man. I never said I was.



Squeakr said:


> Your connotation and use of a word does not mean it is the only acceptable usage that exists


Straw man. I never said it was.



Squeakr said:


> so stop trying to correct everyone just because it doesn't meet your standards.


Exaggeration. I am not trying to correct everyone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

How about everyone just agree to let the personal arguments go?

The issue being discussed is the tendency of the betrayed to overestimate the OM's nefarious talents. That's what my ninja comments were meant to address. He's nefarious, but there's no real skill there if he's taking the long term friend approach. That's just hapless and hopeful.


----------



## Squeakr

Allen_A said:


> Straw man. I never said I was.
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man. I never said it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Exaggeration. I am not trying to correct everyone.


This is like a game now, so does that officially make me a *player*?? Am I using that terminology as you would like me to use it??

And back to your regularly scheduled programming folks!!


----------



## Miss Taken

Squeakr said:


> Sorry I offended people as I realized* I was making a joke and that's not allowed, we all must be serious and down 24/7*!!



Nobody is implying we need to be serious and down 24/7. You big 










you!


----------



## davecarter

Allen Allen Allen!
You're doing it _again_! In yet _another _thread!!


----------



## WhiteRaven

Allen is baiting, we are biting. He wins,again.


----------



## davecarter

Nah, Allen's okay....everyone has their own take on it stuff like this just as everyone has different levels of sensitivity.


----------



## Thorburn

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How about everyone just agree to let the personal arguments go?
> 
> The issue being discussed is the tendency of the betrayed to overestimate the OM's nefarious talents. That's what my ninja comments were meant to address. He's nefarious, but there's no real skill there if he's taking the long term friend approach. That's just hapless and hopeful.


I was going to talk about the phenomenon of psychic seduction. The concept of having mental powers of seduction. But on further thought it might be considered a joke and not be taken seriously or taken as a joke and offend folks.

Which is how I explain Jack Nicholson, when even over 70 years old is still seducing women. He has to have something to explain the multiple women he has seduced over the years and I can only come up with some kind of super duper psychic seductive power.


----------



## Allen_A

Thorburn said:


> He has to have something to explain the multiple women he has seduced over the years and I can only come up with some kind of super duper psychic seductive power.


He has lots of Money.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Husband vs Player*



Allen_A said:


> He has lots of Money.


And fame which is worth magnitudes more than money


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Allen_A said:


> He has lots of Money.


Charisma and confidence. But most OMs aren't Jack Nicholson.


----------



## sidney2718

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The issue being discussed is the tendency of the betrayed to overestimate the OM's nefarious talents. That's what my ninja comments were meant to address. He's nefarious, but there's no real skill there if he's taking the long term friend approach. That's just hapless and hopeful.


Agreed, but the OM has "skills" that go along with his position. He's NOT married to the WW, their relationship is new and infused with new relationship energy, he's gone out of his way to pay attention to the WW, and more likely than not, is able to take more time to make love to the WW. Plus they both think they won't be caught.

These are not small advantages.

Further, there are some ninja talents. The BH has been out of the game for a while because HE is married. The OM has probably been mixing with women for some time, is used to making small talk, turning compliments, and so on. This is another advantage.


----------



## sinnister

vellocet said:


> I absolutely agree. But the insinuation is that we shouldn't really blame a woman that cheats with a player because she was emotionally preyed upon. I'm just calling bullsh!t on that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?? You mean, for example, treat you golden after you treated her completely in an opposite fashion? I'm not saying if you and her want keep the marriage that she treats you badly, but you really don't have the ground to stand on to hope she treats you better than you have treated her.
> 
> If you cheated, then first you need to show that you are capable of treating her golden. Then I'd say, for reconciliations sake, she should treat you the way you wish.


What I failed to explain adequately is that sometimes a BS has used up their moral high ground. Sometimes they have been so incredibly awful in their marriage, so inept in their abilities as a spouse that sexual and emotional betrayal is a by product of that neglect. There are factions on these boards that believe cheating is wrong. No exceptions. All the time. If you want somebody else you get out of the marriage. Doesnt work for my situation. If you;ve lived the life I have and gone through what I have, you wouldnt leave your kids.

Thats the point Im trying to make. Applying morality to every single situation regardless of previous circumstance cannot work for infidelity. There are too many variables.


----------



## davecarter

sidney2718 said:


> Agreed, but the OM has "skills" that go along with his position. He's NOT married to the WW, their relationship is new and infused with new relationship energy, he's gone out of his way to pay attention to the WW, and more likely than not, is able to take more time to make love to the WW. Plus they both think they won't be caught.
> 
> These are not small advantages.
> 
> Further, there are some ninja talents. The BH has been out of the game for a while because HE is married. The OM has probably been mixing with women for some time, is used to making small talk, turning compliments, and so on. This is another advantage.


Yep, and like OM#2 in my situation - a) an opportunist and b) on paper, looked like a great 'catch'.
Deep-down, a _total _shark.

Didn't help that my wife and I were done at the time and she was seeing OM#1 anyway...


----------



## Headspin

Allen_A said:


> I don't consider infidelity a topic to be made light of.
> 
> But hey, maybe that's just me...


I suspect you will find / are finding that you are correct - it IS you 

Significant life moments and the things that cause them are all part of the rich experience we live - birth death marriages bad luck great luck. We are also born with the ability to humorize to laugh - a counterbalance, to cry

Many matters are gravitous and no one wants to laugh at them but all at some point are 'in the frame'

I have black friends that laugh at jokes about slavery 
I have german friends and jewish acquaintances that can laugh at a jew german joke 

Are they treating those specific subjects with disrespect? No of course not. 
Do they still understand that in more serious circumstances they could never joke about it? Yes.

What they do understand is that there is 'time and place'. In some situations you can laugh at anything and then if you cant, you have to accept that 99% of us can and you need to maybe just live with it 

It does bring about some levity it IS an outlet in sense 

I also do not feel infidelity is a topic to be made light of but in some circumstances it can be and I understand that

Allen - I think you're missing something fundamental here


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

sidney2718 said:


> The BH has been out of the game for a while because HE is married. The OM has probably been mixing with women for some time, is used to making small talk, turning compliments, and so on. This is another advantage.


This is what I refer to as complacency. The BH isn't out of the game, he merely stopped playing it. The game does not end. Truthfully speaking, no man knows how to seduce his own wife better than him. He knows her in every single way. That he doesn't continue to apply this most ultimate element of seduction, comes down to his own complacency.

In my experience, "newness" can't compete with expressions of how well you know someone down to the very last detail, having the weight of memories and nostalgia, and still finding someone as interesting and valuable as the day you met them. New can't compare to ACTIVE depth. Such a man is player proof imo; but it takes effort, and men are lazy creatures of habit who are often unaware.


----------



## xakulax

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is what I refer to as complacency. The BH isn't out of the game, he merely stopped playing it. The game does not end. Truthfully speaking, no man knows how to seduce his own wife better than him. He knows her in every single way. That he doesn't continue to apply this most ultimate element of seduction, comes down to his own complacency.
> 
> In my experience, "newness" can't compete with expressions of how well you know someone down to the very last detail, having the weight of memories and nostalgia, and still finding someone as interesting and valuable as the day you met them. New can't compare to ACTIVE depth. Such a man is player proof imo; but it takes effort, and men are lazy creatures of habit who are often unaware.




So true it's scary complacency is the first nail in any marriages coffin If there is one thing I know it's never take your SO for granted because theirs always competition sniffing for a chance.


----------



## clipclop2

sinnister said:


> Thats the point Im trying to make. Applying morality to every single situation regardless of previous circumstance cannot work for infidelity. There are too many variables.


Sorry. There are not too many variables. There are too many justifications. They are a dime a dozen.

You had multiple choices. You just didn't have the guts to make a moral choice. But in no way does your being a coward remove morality from existence in your circumstance or anyone else's.


----------



## adriana

DvlsAdvc8, you clearly underestimate the influence of "novelty" aspect in extramarital affairs. In most cases it plays more significant role than OM/OW's seduction skills.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm not underestimating it... novelty is certainly a part. But with the exception of selfish cake eaters, people dont generally seek out new interests until they are no longer engaged by the current one. Complacency isn't engaging. Its the same every day. Its not growing or challenging. It gets old, and I think this is the root cause - the reason otherwise good people fail.

Not that this is the case for everyone who cheats. I think some people are probably just selfish cake eaters who can't be satisfied. They want everything and feel entitled to have it regardless.


----------



## vellocet

sidney2718 said:


> Agreed, but the OM has "skills" that go along with his position. He's NOT married to the WW, their relationship is new and infused with new relationship energy, he's gone out of his way to pay attention to the WW, and more likely than not, is able to take more time to make love to the WW.


Of course he goes out of his way to pay attention to WW. He doesn't have the daily life with the WW to deal with...marriage, raising kids, providing for the family, etc.

And sure the OM makes more time because he has more time. I suppose you could say that's what happened in my marriage, even though I made as much time as I could.

Now they are both together and in hell with each other. She nags him, he smacks her around once in a while. She wanted that excitement, so I gave it to her by divorcing her.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not underestimating it... novelty is certainly a part. But with the exception of selfish cake eaters, people dont generally seek out new interests until they are no longer engaged by the current one. Complacency isn't engaging. Its the same every day. Its not growing or challenging. It gets old, and I think this is the root cause - the reason otherwise good people fail.
> 
> Not that this is the case for everyone who cheats. I think some people are probably just selfish cake eaters who can't be satisfied. They want everything and feel entitled to have it regardless.


People who haven't been a cake-eater or greedy or just pure single and no one to worry about hurting don't understand.

These cake-eaters might be with you, they may been with you long enough to feel like they are the prize. They are competing with their friends in the single world, or listening to them. They see someone they "want" and it just happens. Their brain "logically" finds a way it can squeeze it in without "hurting" the primary relationship partner. Now we all know it doesn't work that way, but the brain is convinced it can do it.

The primary relationship partner at this point is going to cause stress on the cheater, when they want to engage sexually. When they have to depend on the cheaters time for something. If they want to initiate a sex act or intimacy like they are still the "man" or the "woman", the cheater will back off or stall them, because the affair partner is the "man" or the "woman".

The cheater may have massive blame redirection and story telling too. It really stupifies someone to have to be fed this non-sense.

And for the most part, once a cheater has done you in, no amount of cajoling, crying, pleading, etc will make things any better. They think they are blessing you just being around you.

They usually have to experience pain and life altering events for any of it to register in their mind, this would include the cheated on moving away and stop helping with bills and not allowing phone calls, cheated on can cheat on them back, not in an eye for an eye effort, but to get the cheater to see how dirty and slimy they are being "Hey, you can't cheat on me!". It really levels them quickly.


----------



## staystrong

Define "taking a spouse for granted"


----------



## vellocet

staystrong said:


> Define "taking a spouse for granted"


Usually that means not putting out on demand, not doing everything the other spouse wants you to do, not tending to every one of their needs multiple times a day regardless of what other obligations are going on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

^ That's not my definition at all.


----------



## Racer

staystrong said:


> Define "taking a spouse for granted"


Gets into my ‘conditional relationships’ theory which also plays a part in the novelty. Envision ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ and how you might define it as a job; listing out everything that would be a requirement to fulfill that role. Everything is examined and judged. 

Now do it with ‘lover’ or ‘boy toy’. Massively different list of expectations and what is valued and what is not even looked at.

“Taking a spouse for granted” is failing to see everything they do on that spouse list. 

Waywards do this a ton because they are comparing ‘husband’ roles to ‘boy toy’ and if you are a great husband, you are probably failing as a ‘boy toy’. Everything else is taken for granted because their mind is wired to just look at a set small list of roles you both perform. 

A ‘boy toy’ can get away with being aggressive in the sack where a husband might be seen as abusive for doing the same. For one it’s a positive because they aren’t looking for deep respect out of that relationship, for the other it’s a negative because they want that deeper respect in a marriage. The novelty is allowing something you wouldn’t ‘just because’ you aren’t looking for something more or fretting about new expectations your spouse might add to your list to provide regularly. You’ll regularly hear stories of waywards performing some sexual act they denied their husband... that’s actually fairly common because of the differences in the ‘conditions of the relationship’.


----------



## Philat

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ^ That's not my definition at all.


Me either. I think it means believing that your spouse will be there whenever you need him/her regardless of whatever you do or don't do. Plan B.


----------



## Pandakiss

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ^ That's not my definition at all.




Not mine either. To me it's taking without a thought of giving in return, not totally selfish, but a habit you fall into after years together. You don't always see it. 

Not saying thanks or showing appreciation for things they do. Maybe not sharing more conversations, or spending more time with hobbies then them. 

Forgetting to date and romance your wife or husband. Having conversations that only surround work and kids, and forgetting the important "couple" talks. Just assuming they agree with decisions you have made without getting their input. Every body does this once in a while but on a constant basis....well a body could feel put upon and under valued. 

Simply put, if a spouse does the laundry, you come in and it's all put away, you rifle through the drawers and leave it hanging open, and a trail of dirty clothes in your wake, leave clean clothes on the floor, and don't at least say ooo clean clothes, thanks. Once in a while it can be over looked, but every week, it would wear and drain the spouse who took the time to wash and fold and put away the clothes. 

If you were asked nicely and continued to be inconsiderate it would feel like you were taking advantage of their niceness. Even though laundry has to be done, it starts building resentment every week. 

Just what I think.


----------



## Pandakiss

Racer said:


> Gets into my ‘conditional relationships’ theory which also plays a part in the novelty. Envision ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ and how you might define it as a job; listing out everything that would be a requirement to fulfill that role. Everything is examined and judged.
> 
> 
> 
> Now do it with ‘lover’ or ‘boy toy’. Massively different list of expectations and what is valued and what is not even looked at.
> 
> 
> 
> “Taking a spouse for granted” is failing to see everything they do on that spouse list.
> 
> 
> 
> Waywards do this a ton because they are comparing ‘husband’ roles to ‘boy toy’ and if you are a great husband, you are probably failing as a ‘boy toy’. Everything else is taken for granted because their mind is wired to just look at a set small list of roles you both perform.
> 
> 
> 
> A ‘boy toy’ can get away with being aggressive in the sack where a husband might be seen as abusive for doing the same. For one it’s a positive because they aren’t looking for deep respect out of that relationship, for the other it’s a negative because they want that deeper respect in a marriage. The novelty is allowing something you wouldn’t ‘just because’ you aren’t looking for something more or fretting about new expectations your spouse might add to your list to provide regularly. You’ll regularly hear stories of waywards performing some sexual act they denied their husband... that’s actually fairly common because of the differences in the ‘conditions of the relationship’.




Sadly it is different. This is only my point of view I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. 

When a new person enters the picture, of course they aren't held up to the same standards as a spouse. There is no emotional baggage. There is no resentment. You are free to talk openly and freely. There is no over done disagreements no rehashed same talks. 

This new person wants to talk, thinks you thoughts are interesting and important. When one feels taken advantage of, and have massive amounts of anger towards their spouse, a new and different person dosent have that "baggage". Your problems are not an issue. 

I don't think the AP is any where as great as the spouse. But the anger and resentment build up makes it easy to ignore glaring red flags. When my husband and I were having problems, I didn't really want to have better sex. Missionary was fine. Even though I wanted a little rougher sometimes, my resentments wouldn't allow me to voice my wants. 

But if I had sought out a new guy, I would have told him straight up what I wanted. I was so mad at hubby. We had years of issues that went unresolved. It's not that I would have wanted some strange and different penis, I wanted his. But though my seething anger and constant rejections, it would have just been to get back at him for all the hurt. 

All I would have been doing would have been trying to have the "marriage" I wanted just with someone of whom I wasn't married to. I would have tried to fast track the relationship so we could have the inside jokes, the sexual talks, basically mirror the marriage relationship with the same likes and dislikes. Same taste in movies and music. 

I could demand dates, since he would not have been to all the same places, it would feel new and yet comfortable. And he would not have the anger and resentment built up against me, he would go without a second thought. He would have no knowledge of your last visit to the mall which resulted in a weekend standoff. We would not have the emotions of years waiting to explode at a moments notice. 

We could go to a movie and enjoy it without sexual tension of a month sitting in the middle seat between us. A comfortable movie going experience could be had, which with your spouse is walking on eggshells, so to speak. You can laugh a crude sex jokes with out having someone eyeing you and both of you thinking phhhffffff when was the last time they did that for me. 

Sorry for book, again this is just my take on affairs. Not justifying anything. Not trying to say affairs are ok.


----------



## vellocet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ^ That's not my definition at all.


No, but it seems to be for a lot of WS's out there. Because, IMO, a lot of times when someone says they were neglected sexually may not really be anything of the sort. They just didn't get every one of their little needs met exactly as much as they want or as often as they'd like.

I don't doubt there are some serious cases of neglect out there, but I think a lot of cheaters will make that excuse when everything doesn't go perfectly their way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think it usually works like this when there isn't an problematic elephant in the room:

Some small ember of negativity exists in the wayward.... Resentment, unmet desire, or personal deficiency (self-esteem) - these can be almost anything (could even be a totally selfish desire). Complacency, neglect, dissatisfaction, regret for not having experienced this or that... virtually anything. 

Combine this with an inability to express or deal with this problematic ember, whether external or internal, in a healthy manner, often for fear of offending or yes, even losing the spouse (the desire to leave hasn't fully engaged yet after all). It could even be a matter of low self-esteem and no longer feeling validation via the spouse... somewhat narcissistic in this sense. They've gotten all the narcissistic supply that this relationship had to offer - it is now empty for them. 

Then exposure to an ignition source: single friends, the validation of another man/woman's attention/flirts, even the "perfect" life of someone on facebook or idealized notion of marriages in movies.

What follows is a myriad of excuses, mostly actually believed by the wayward as legitimate, as their rational mind does the mental gymnastics to justify their feelings. It starts with distance, evolving to "I don't know what's wrong" or "I'm not feeling how I should feel", and moves on to finding more and more "problems" to pin it on. I think its really just a detachment process to get the rational mind up to speed with the emotional mind. Looking for reason to feel the way they do, even though the ultimate reason was that they neglected to handle a small ember in their own psyche. Left unhandled, it truly erupted when exposed to gasoline (single friends, nights out, flirting whatever).

In the other cases of cheating where the wayward didn't actually want out, I think they just had a selfish desire or narcissistic need that they knew wouldn't be met by their spouse (probably correct), and they thought they could get away with meeting it in secret. These are the cake eaters.

I'm inclined to believe that Adriana's husband is a cake eater from what I've read of her story, and most of the waywards I've read about in this thread are unhandled embers that found gasoline. Maybe a wayward could even be both.


----------



## treyvion

Racer said:


> Gets into my ‘conditional relationships’ theory which also plays a part in the novelty. Envision ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ and how you might define it as a job; listing out everything that would be a requirement to fulfill that role. Everything is examined and judged.
> 
> Now do it with ‘lover’ or ‘boy toy’. Massively different list of expectations and what is valued and what is not even looked at.
> 
> “Taking a spouse for granted” is failing to see everything they do on that spouse list.
> 
> Waywards do this a ton because they are comparing ‘husband’ roles to ‘boy toy’ and if you are a great husband, you are probably failing as a ‘boy toy’. Everything else is taken for granted because their mind is wired to just look at a set small list of roles you both perform.
> 
> A ‘boy toy’ can get away with being aggressive in the sack where a husband might be seen as abusive for doing the same. For one it’s a positive because they aren’t looking for deep respect out of that relationship, for the other it’s a negative because they want that deeper respect in a marriage. The novelty is allowing something you wouldn’t ‘just because’ you aren’t looking for something more or fretting about new expectations your spouse might add to your list to provide regularly. You’ll regularly hear stories of waywards performing some sexual act they denied their husband... that’s actually fairly common because of the differences in the ‘conditions of the relationship’.


After you describe the requirements for husband and "boy toy", it really makes me understand how far gone they are when they are able to compartementalize the two.

Husband gets relieved of all "lover" activities, after a while, the won't see any point in it.

Another reason to be MAP'd up on MMSL, also to always remain desireable in the single realm.


----------



## clipclop2

They get relieved of it because of resentment. Men focus on sex often and that appears aggressive. Womenrespond by going on the defensive. It sucks.

I made it a rule to marry someone I was wildly attracted to so I could get over the humps caused by anger or resentment. The idea is since we both want sex, he would calm down and be better able to listen to me and he would feel wanted and appreciated because I would genuinely want him.

That plan has worked somewhat. We have a lot of sex. That bond is in good shape. It doesn't cure personality conflicts. It doesn't make us better people. But I think it helps reduce the motivation to cheat just for sex. Every little bit helps.


----------



## Cloaked

When I first read the Facebook messages between my wife and the POS I got a sense that he what familiar with pick up artistry or playerdom. I got this gut feeling that this was not his first affair. When I mention this to my wife she and one of her toxic friend deflected it. It wasn't till much later I was looking at his YouTube activity that I discovered that he had been watching player pick up artistry channels. Mostly during at the beginning and near the end of last year. One of those periods coincided with the time he was having an affair with my wife. I can only assume the other time he was having a prior affair.

He was very pushy, overly positive and was selling a lot of false promises.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## adriana

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm inclined to believe that Adriana's husband is a cake eater from what I've read of her story, and most of the waywards I've read about in this thread are unhandled embers that found gasoline. Maybe a wayward could even be both.



Although, I agree with you about my husband's inclination toward "cake eating" behavior, he's been lately referring to himself as a plain idiot. Just like someone said.... _simplicity is the ultimate sophistication._ .


----------



## convert

Adrana, are still in contact with your husband?
You went straight to divorce no chance for R if i can remember your story right.
I don't remember if have any children with him


----------



## adriana

convert said:


> Adrana, are still in contact with your husband?
> You went straight to divorce no chance for R if i can remember your story right.
> I don't remember if have any children with him



Convert, I guess I could say that my divorce is as easy as they get in the real world. I have done all "required" thinking three and half year earlier when my sister was getting divorced for the same reason so I knew exactly "what to do" when I discovered the affair. It made everything much easier.

Fortunately, there are no children involved and I have prenuptial agreement. Despite that my husband absolutely doesn't want to get divorced, he isn't going to contest it and accepted my conditions. Apart from his cheating side he is a great guy, right? 

No, I'm not in contact with him. Actually, I haven't spoken even a word to him since I discovered the affair. He was on the first day of five day long business trip when it happened. When he returned I was already gone and after the initial consultation with my attorney.


----------



## davecarter

adriana said:


> Convert, I guess I could say that my divorce is as easy as they get in the real world. I have done all "required" thinking three and half year earlier when my sister was getting divorced for the same reason so I knew exactly "what to do" when I discovered the affair. It made everything much easier.
> 
> Fortunately, there are no children involved and I have prenuptial agreement. Despite that my husband absolutely doesn't want to get divorced, he isn't going to contest it and accepted my conditions. Apart from his cheating side he is a great guy, right?
> 
> No, I'm not in contact with him. Actually, I haven't spoken even a word to him since I discovered the affair. He was on the first day of five day long business trip when it happened. When he returned I was already gone and after the initial consultation with my attorney.


Impressive.
Adriana's not playing games here, huh?

No messing.
Straight in there.
BOOM.


----------



## adriana

davecarter said:


> Impressive.
> Adriana's not playing games here, huh?
> 
> No messing.
> Straight in there.
> BOOM.



Dave, there's hardly anything impressive about it. In my situation moving out and cutting him off was by far the easiest way out of the mess he had created. But let's not highjack the thread with my personal "sorrows".... the spot light in on the _playas_ here.


----------

