# Just Prior to or During an Affair, Exactly What Goes Through the Mind of the OM?



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Given the parameters as well as the facts of my case, the *"primary" OM* (keeping in mind that there were two of them, however) that my STBXW "hooked up with":


Knew STBXW as far back as her college days.
Was best friends with and a co-worker with STBXW's first husband.
Was married and later divorced himself.
Was on the wedding invitation list for my marriage to STBXW. Think that he and "a guest" only attended the gala reception.
Was formally introduced to me in our home some 4 years after our wedding when he was just "passing through" town.
Had full knowledge that STBXW was already a "married woman."
For some 2 years prior to our separation, unbeknownst to me at that time, had a ratio of nearly a 20:1 cell phone call/minute time with STBXW.

Knowing that STBXW had a functioning marriage, with a large "blended family"; was rather active in Church, community, and social activities; knew that STBXW was left to be rather wealthy after death of her first husband and his best friend ~

*What exactly goes through the mind of a person like that? Is there no consciability over the welfare of that marriage from an ecclesiatical/religious/social perspective? Or is it greatly like the old addage of "a hard appendage hath no conscience." 

As a person who has way too much respect for that holy institution of marriage and has never even given a scintilla of thought to ever desiring to cheat, I would love to know what the OM's true psychological thought-process is on this issue, and if there is any degree of consciability involved on his part.

Now it's largely a "given" that he would have been "led-on" by STBXW, in her reconnecting with him on FB, but what, if anything, could lead him to be wantonly proactive in the dissolution of a marriage of which he is fully aware of? *


----------



## rrrbbbttt (Apr 6, 2011)

Goes through the mind 
" Oh, Boy I can have Sex with this woman and have no responsibility"

So what if it destroys the marriage causes untold emotional issues and will be hanging over the BS and the WW forever. I can get some.


----------



## ironman (Feb 6, 2013)

There's an old saying ...

_"All is fair in love and war"_

Besides, it's the WS that break the "holy institution of marriage", not the AP .. the AP is not married to you

If your house gets burglarized every weekend and then you find out it's your wife that is friends with the burglars and has been inviting them into the house every weekend knowing full well that they are going to steal from you ... who should you really be pointing the blame at?


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

What goes through their mind? "I am in love!"

And that's about it. Thoughts of any other kind are lacking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

ironman said:


> There's an old saying ...
> 
> _"All is fair in love and war"_
> 
> ...


I think that people who knowingly date / pursue someone who is married or in some kind of exclusive relationship are still knowingly doing wrong.

You will find that the only relationship message boards online that will deal with someone who wants to / wants to help commit adultery are the ones specifically for adultery. 

No one wants to be seen aiding and abetting a homewrecker.


----------



## ironman (Feb 6, 2013)

As to what goes through OM's mind?

People over think this all the time ... it's simple.

_This chick digs me and I'm going to get lucky._

Yep, that's about it. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## ironman (Feb 6, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> I think that people who knowingly date / pursue someone who is married or in some kind of exclusive relationship are still knowingly doing wrong.


Well of course it's wrong (if you have morals that is). My only point is that BSs continually want to vilify the APs and view their WSs as "victims", when in reality it's the WS that deserves the lion's share of the blame.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

ironman said:


> As to what goes through OM's mind?
> 
> People over think this all the time ... it's simple.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

Yep, some variation of _"Hey, free tail!"_ seems to be the primary thought for most OM. And a staggering number of WHs as well.


----------



## ironman (Feb 6, 2013)

I guess what I'm trying to say is a marriage is like a castle perpetually under siege ... there will always be some new barbarians at the gate that want in ... it's up to you and yours to defend against it.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

Their why is probably as varied as all the justifications your wayward had. Doesn't really matter... the bottom line is they knew it was wrong and it was a selfish choice they made.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

ironman said:


> Well of course it's wrong (if you have morals that is). My only point is that BSs continually want to vilify the APs and view their WSs as "victims", when in reality it's the WS that deserves the lion's share of the blame.


I see both as culpable.

An AP who sucks info out of the WP and then uses this info as reasons to dislike / leave the partner....... well, the AP knows what he/ she is doing.


----------



## SomedayDig (Jul 17, 2012)

ironman said:


> Well of course it's wrong (if you have morals that is). My only point is that BSs continually want to vilify the APs and view their WSs as "victims", when in reality it's the WS that deserves the lion's share of the blame.


If someone sees their wayward as a victim, they're setting themselves up to fall later on down the road.

As for the awesome thrown around statement on TAM that the AP is not married to you stuff and what the connotation is, I say bullsh-t.

In my life, the AP knew who I was. I barely knew him more than meeting him once. But he knew me. He knew that Regret was married to me. He knew we had kids. He knew of my career and hers. I was not a faceless person to that cowardly POS.

So, by him pursuing and Regret accepting, he DID help break our vows.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

Oh and I should probably expand... 6 OM’s my wife had, so I’ve got a “range”.... Listed in the newest to oldest...

OM1- LTPA; Player... thought with his privates only. Did however ‘fall for her’.. Drove him crazy to have to share... So he cheated on her to drive her crazy. He’ll be a SA too.
OM2- ONS; just thought with his privates. Easy score and much better looking than his wife.
OM3 - EA; Had feelings, was developing the emotional reliance on her and visa-versa. “Helping each other”. He also just went through a divorce and was reeling... eventually took his own life after ‘destroying’ hers (he didn’t know she had others and thought he was the source of me wanting a divorce; or at least that’s the version I like best in my head for why).
OM4 - Attempted PA; Wanted more than friendship but triggered her by bringing me up (thus adding guilt where she claims she didn’t.... I’m assuming she did, but had her own guilt and ended it rapidly)
OM5 - EA; Lots of sexual banter and pics... excitement. But a boundary of no physical because he was married (so it wasn’t really cheating right?)
OW1 - Just the sexual interest of doing girl on girl groping/kissing in a bar with a wild party friend on a dare.
OM6 - ???; Wife pursued and tried to initiate sex. He liked the banter and being pursued. Had an issue with her being married. Told her he didn’t need that in his life. (I still suspect they did do it and he felt guilty about it and dumped her)


----------



## JustGrinding (Oct 26, 2012)

Ideally, a baseball bat, or some similar instrument . . .


----------



## movin on (Jan 24, 2012)

In my sitch,I didn't know om.but I outed them both. Why not? What gives them the right to do what they do without any blame?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SomedayDig (Jul 17, 2012)

ironman said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say is a marriage is like a castle perpetually under siege ... there will always be some new barbarians at the gate that want in ... it's up to you and yours to defend against it.


Well...then let's turn it around here.

How about the OM's like you NOT try to break down a f'ng marriage?

It's not perpetually under siege. If it was, who the hell would want to do it? This kind of stuff is what makes guys like me want to do some serious damage to OM's.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Am I completely wrong here, or am I just being too ethical or religious, but whenever I see a very attractive woman, someone that I'd have absolutely no problem in approaching and talking to; then when I see that wedding band or diamond on their finger, I just kind of just step back and come to the full realization that they are "taken," and are encumbered in a union that was fully given it's blessing to by our Heavenly Father.

In and of that, I can't help but feel His blessing greatly emanating from that and have nothing but the utmost respect and love for that union that He richly gave his blessing to. 

That has an all-too-lasting impression on me, greatly from the standpoint, that as He blessed my own particular wedding vows, He has also seen fit to bless this couple's particular marital union; and it is with my ardent respect and love that I show the utmost reverence for that institution that God has seen fit to lovingly bless this couple with!

Does that make any sense or am I just simply out of touch with reality here?


----------



## SomedayDig (Jul 17, 2012)

I think that makes complete sense arbitrator. As a matter of fact it makes so much sense that people without sense are the ones confused by that reality.


----------



## movin on (Jan 24, 2012)

Originally Posted by ironman:
I guess what I'm trying to say is a marriage is like a castle perpetually under siege ... there will always be some new barbarians at the gate that want in ... it's up to you and yours to defend against it.


OM should not get away with having sex with your wife, I'm sorry but even though that man didn't take the vows with me like my wife , he still betrayed me. Even though he didn't know me, he still betrayed me. Not as much of a betrayal as my wife,but he betrayed me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

movin on said:


> Originally Posted by ironman:
> *I guess what I'm trying to say is a marriage is like a castle perpetually under siege ...* there will always be some new barbarians at the gate that want in ... it's up to you and yours to defend against it.
> 
> 
> ...


All relationships are perpetually under siege....... and none of them occur in a vacuum. When you decide to buddy up with someone, you should give some consideration to the "baggage" that that person brings with it.

If you don't feel like facing done an unhappy spouse, then why would you even bother with someone who is married.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

movin on said:


> Originally Posted by ironman:
> I guess what I'm trying to say is a marriage is like a castle perpetually under siege ... there will always be some new barbarians at the gate that want in ... it's up to you and yours to defend against it.
> 
> 
> ...


Given a situation where a WW pulls her wedding ring off, hits a bar, hooks up with some lonely guy greatly in need of a "little trim," by telling him that she's totally single, and then does a ONS with him. Basically, he is "not guilty," strictly by some degree of "unknowing" omission, and of unknowingly contributing to the delinquency of the marital relationship. But when he later finds out through some party, that the woman in question was indeed married, he then has some "knowing" culpability in what came to eventually occur between the two.

In the situation of the OM who has "full knowledge" of what it is that he is doing in fostering the adulterous relationship/activity, then he is equally guilty of breaching the marital union, as is the WW.

My point is that the resulting infidelity is largely nothing more than just an unconsciable, premeditated, self-justifying act by either the WW/WH or the OM/OW, or jointly by both!


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I've been in sisutations in which men who were otherwise engaged have hit on me. You know it because 

1. they can't make a date with you in advance, everything is right now.
2. they may give you a cellphone number, but they are loathe to give a lanline. One guy didn't want to tell me where he worked.
3. well, if a would be cheater was able to finesse the above, then someone would have to ask why are they not able to see where that person lives.....
4. or meet their friends.......


People keep talk about having "trust issues" as if that were bad thing. 

In the last decade, we've had the Scott Peterson case; 

that situation in Utah where the husband lied to his wife about getting into med school; 

my sister assumed that the guy she was dating lived in a loft apartment, since he always picked her up for dates, she never questioned it; 
he was living his parents and when my mother investigated, also found out that he was spending the night at the baby mama's when he did visitation.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

NextTimeAround said:


> *All relationships are perpetually under siege....... *and none of them occur in a vacuum. When you decide to buddy up with someone, you should give some consideration to the "baggage" that that person brings with it.
> 
> If you don't feel like facing done an unhappy spouse, then why would you even bother with someone who is married.


I might agree more with the precept that "all relationships have the potential to be under siege."

But what you say NTA, is so "spot on!" With all due respect to the late, great comedian, Redd Foxx, way too many of the subscribers to the cheater's community strongly believes in the mantra of just having themselves "a Samsonite Wedding: Shack ~ then if you want a divorce, all you have to do is Pack!"

In addition to her money, STBXW will, undoubtedly, pack a literal crap pot of baggage for whoever eventually ends up standing to the right side of her up at the alter. But something just greatly tells me that she won't ever follow through with any more marriages, primarily because she seems to adore her unfettered freedom to sleep around with whoever and whenever; but then again, I've been wrong before!


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> But something just greatly tells me that she won't ever follow through with any more marriages, primarily because she seems to adore her unfettered freedom to sleep around with whoever and whenever; but then again, I've been wrong before!


I disagree Arb. 

I dunno... there is something... insidious... about your STBXWW. 

Looking at the way she literally pushed you out of her life and threw you on the street, with no explanation for why, displays a cold, calculated pathology that seems to have gotten off on setting you up and then humiliating you. She seemed to take great pleasure in tossing you away and then doing her best to turn your boys and everyone else against you at the same time. 

This is not a morality issue. This is a pathology issue. There is something distinctly sociopathic about her motives.

She is going to do it again. Yep. She will find another good, decent guy like you... and do it all over again.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

bandit.45 said:


> I disagree Arb.
> 
> I dunno... there is something... insidious... about your STBXWW.
> 
> ...


Greatly provided that the money holds out, Bandito! But she better plan on keeping a lil' bit of it stashed somewhere, for bail money to spring her worthless kids from out of jail from their many heralded exploits with the PoPo!


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

He's after a piece of free tail. No strings attached - the woman already has a man at home to take care of her, and the OM gets a free piece of candy. So if the WS is cake-eating, the OM is just taking the icing for himself.

The OM in my case was married and trash talked about his wife to mine, though he and his wife had only been together less than 1/2 as long as we had. He was looking for some strange, tired of his wife, probably unfulfilled, and here was this beautiful and perfectly naive co-worker in front of him that seemed interested. 

I even met him, twice, and shook the guy's hand. He obviously has no honor and didn't give a crap about anyone but himself. Instead of feeling remorse after the fact, the guy had the nerve to threaten me through my WS, yet he didn't have the cojones to say anything to me directly, even via text.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Cabsy said:


> He's after a piece of free tail. No strings attached - the woman already has a man at home to take care of her, and the OM gets a free piece of candy. So if the WS is cake-eating, the OM is just taking the icing for himself.
> 
> The OM in my case was married and trash talked about his wife to mine, though he and his wife had only been together less than 1/2 as long as we had. He was looking for some strange, tired of his wife, probably unfulfilled, and here was this beautiful and perfectly naive co-worker in front of him that seemed interested.
> 
> I even met him, twice, and shook the guy's hand. He obviously has no honor and didn't give a crap about anyone but himself. Instead of feeling remorse after the fact, the guy had the nerve to threaten me through my WS, yet he didn't have the cojones to say anything to me directly, even via text.


Interesting scenario, Cabsy. 

But in my case, it was my extremely wealthy WW, who was busy hooking up with OMen from her past on FB. One of them was a married professional, who was a BF of hers in high school; who initially sniffed after her for 6 or 7 months, then later ditched her advances, probably coming to the fast realization that he might actually have way too much to lose over it.

The other was a best friend and co-worker with STBXW's deceased husband from many years ago. Like you, I met this guy and he didn't really impress me one bit other than being a pseudo-entreprenural lardass, who seemingly had his derivations from the 70's flower child culture! That relationship still continues to blossom, even until this very day!

But truth be known, even in that one meeting with him, I probably didn't impress him all that much either!


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

Yeah, all situations are different of course, but even so, there are similarities. The guy knew you both, knew you were married, and still went after all he could take physically. 

And with the money situation, that could add another incentive for the guy, being pseudo-entrepreneurial and liking him some food, having a wealthy wife would certainly help those endeavors. He may have coveted her even when she was with his best friend.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Cabsy said:


> Yeah, all situations are different of course, but even so, there are similarities. The guy knew you both, knew you were married, and still went after all he could take physically.
> 
> And with the money situation, that could add another incentive for the guy, being pseudo-entrepreneurial and liking him some food, having a wealthy wife would certainly help those endeavors. *He may have coveted her even when she was with his best friend.*


They hadn't really come into their wealth at that time. That came later when her first husband, a brilliant engineer in his own right, became a VP at the corporation that he worked for. Along with that promo came his chronic alcoholism. 

By that time, L'il Lord Lardass had quit his employ there and had gone on back to "Hippydom," marriage, and a later divorce. He attended her first husbands funeral, and supposedly was at our wedding with a female guest of his, but STBXW really didn't hook back up with him until some 4 years into our marriage, when she began to get heavily ensconced into her FB activities and found him and her HS BF, who had become a doctor and a married father to five.


----------



## old timer (Nov 23, 2012)

I will regretfully (and shamefully) admit that I was guilty of being the AP of a couple of WWs years ago, when I was between marriages.

Honestly, at that time, I never gave it a moment's thought. I had no thoughts of a LTR with them, and was just getting laid. Bottom line - it was because I didn't value the sanctity of marriage. 

Up until I discovered TAM, I had never truly understood the pain infidelity can cause. Now, as I move toward single life again, and "survey the landscape", the first place I look is for a wedding band. 

I do not want to have any part of that. 

It is possible to teach an old dog new tricks, I suppose.

.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

old timer said:


> I will regretfully (and shamefully) admit that I was guilty of being the AP of a couple of WWs years ago, when I was between marriages.
> 
> Honestly, at that time, I never gave it a moment's thought. I had no thoughts of a LTR with them, and was just getting laid. Bottom line - it was because I didn't value the sanctity of marriage.
> 
> ...


*You're a good man, OT!*

But in retrospect, I can't really blame either of these guys that my STBXW reeled in on FB. After all, she was the perpetrator ~ not them!

She shook her booty at them and told them to "Jump!" ~ and they quickly responded back to her, "How high!"


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

There are plenty of people who will not on principle be with a married person - witness the current threads here where the AP informed the BS when he/she discovered that the AP was married.

There are also so many cases where the AP simply doesn't acknowledge the humanity - the existence, really - of the spouse. I think for these people, the BS is worth no more thought or care than a speed bump, if they give any thought to the person at all.


----------



## old timer (Nov 23, 2012)

> =alte Dame;1914082
> There are also so many cases where the AP simply doesn't acknowledge the humanity - the existence, really - of the spouse. I think for these people, the BS is worth no more thought or care than a speed bump, if they give any thought to the person at all.


I'm ashamed to admit it, but that's where I was, aD. 

I can't change the past, can't unring the bell, but I can behave differently going forward. 
.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

You're doing really well, OT. I've been lurking on your thread....


----------



## sdcott (Oct 9, 2012)

Two simple things in play - Selfishness and complete disregard for anything and anyone else. Or is that just further definition of selfish. There are no innocents on the betraying side, both are culpable and both or manipulating others and the situation. It is all pretty sad anyone you look at it. 
Bodes the question what has our world come to and I seem to remember something being mentioned once or twice in the bible about such things for those who read such an OLD book.


----------



## sdcott (Oct 9, 2012)

Please forgive the typos, too fast on the keyboard, to slow to read my own post before pushing the post button


----------



## old timer (Nov 23, 2012)

sdcott said:


> Please forgive the typos, too fast on the keyboard, to slow to read my own post before pushing the post button


TAM needs an EDIT feature, right? Lol. 

Infidelity has been around at least since the beginning of recorded history, unfortunately. 

Is it more widespread now? Possibly, but I'm not so sure. 

.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

old timer said:


> Infidelity has been around at least since the beginning of recorded history, unfortunately.
> 
> Is it more widespread now? Possibly, but I'm not so sure.
> 
> ...


Verily, OT! Only that in this computer and telecommunications age that we're in, it has gotten so much worse. And the technology that is fastly on the forefront of the future is only going to accentuate the problem further still, thereby enabling that scurrilous pastime just all that much more!

And sad to say, even easier to avoid detection!


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I wonder how he got an invitation?
> 
> *She had her list; I had mine. I had never even heard of the dude, by the time of the wedding, anyway! And a third party addressed all of the invitations.*
> 
> ...


*After having examined all of her cell phone/texting records with both of these guys, well into our separation, I might add, that you can see that she "starts" her telephone dialogue with the "Hippy" on February 11, 2010, immediately followed by a "business trip" to his city later that very same day, staying gone from home until late the next evening. Then more calls in March, followed by another 2-day trip back down there. Her FB contact actually starts with him on January 3, 2010, and is somewhat intermittent for most of the rest of the year, but it once again picks up, rather hot and heavy by October, much the same as her cell-phone activity did.

STBXW's FB dialogue to her BF Doctor begins October 12, 2010, and continues on into late November, but no actual phone calls until late December. Then this relationship seemingly cools, then as abruptly, suddenly re-energizes itself in March, 2011, where roughly 50% of her cell phone time is split between her two OM, and I, as her husband, was garnering less than a 3% share of her total cell-phone time.

From this point on, she's seemingly playing both of these guys against each other and making frequent overnight business trips to both of their respective cities; all while I'm staying at home, taking care of the house and the lion's share of the farm/cattle/horse duties.

In early March, I finally get my "walking papers" release date from her, asking me for the "trial separation," commensurate with my youngest son getting out of high school for the summer in mid-May.

Her cell-phone time slowly begins to profoundly predominate with the good Doctor over the Hippy, but in late September, the Doc seemingly falls off of the charts, leaving the Hippy as her only man of interest. Methinks that Dr. Sawbones had a sudden "Come-to-Jesus" moment, accompanied by a vision of his medical practice being ripped asunder, along with a crap load of child support for 5 kids, not to mention property division and hefty alimony for the old lady.



*


----------



## The-Deceived (Jan 8, 2013)

MattMatt said:


> What goes through their mind? "I am in love!"
> 
> And that's about it. Thoughts of any other kind are lacking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How romantic! I highly doubt this is the case most of the time. "I'm in lust!" is probably more accurate.


----------



## The-Deceived (Jan 8, 2013)

It takes a special kind of POS to screw someone else's spouse. Just as it takes a special kind of POS to screw someone who is not their spouse.

I would never screw a married woman (separated women are different). The guilt and anxiety would kill me. I would never inflict that kind of pain on another person.

Can't wait for some to chime in with "nobody is above having an affair" or the like. Bunk!


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

MattMatt said:


> What goes through their mind? "I am in love!"
> 
> And that's about it. Thoughts of any other kind are lacking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Or the other justification is:

"But I have feelings for him/ her" as if that should justify a relationship that never should have gotten started.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

The-Deceived said:


> It takes a special kind of POS to screw someone else's spouse. Just as it takes a special kind of POS to screw someone who is not their spouse.
> 
> *I would never screw a married woman (separated women are different).* The guilt and anxiety would kill me. I would never inflict that kind of pain on another person.


But aren't "*separated women*" usually deemed to be "*married women*?"

If not, then where is the demarcation?

A lot of guys would, without equivocation, jump a married, separated, single, or any kind of woman's bones in a heartbeat without ever entertaining a second thought. But there are men like you who would never ever "*knowingly*" have sexual relations with that woman solely because of that marital status of hers.

And there are men, such as myself, that honors the age-old institution of marriage so much, that despite a nearly two-year-old separation and pending divorce, I, still very much a married man, and until such time that the gavel actually falls on the divorce decree, will not as much as date or even talk with a woman until well after its finalization.

Until then, I am a married person. Isn't it rather strange, however, that my lecherous, "still-married," STBXW doesn't exactly have the same opinion!

I guess that it's largely due to her being just a tad more comfortable with a little bit of familiar "strange" in her bed!


----------



## old timer (Nov 23, 2012)

The-Deceived said:


> I would never screw a married woman (separated women are different). The guilt and anxiety would kill me.


How are they different? 

They're still married. 

.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

