Yep, those are more the teef I see.

sorry to take the thread back to serious ladies...I just had a chance to respond to Mr. G.

Carry on.

LOL, MEDC, I didn't see you'd posted when I replied about Mel's big growly teef.

Mr. G...as an example. Probably over a year ago...maybe more, maybe less...I engaged in a discussion with Mr & Mrs W about her infidelity. I had clearly stated before that I would NOT have been able to stay with her as a result of her actions (actually, I am quite in awe of Mr W). What I said next really defines for me that I don't see things as you have suggested. I told both Mr W and Mrs W that it "would have been my loss" for not staying since she is such a terrific woman. That doesn't sound like the words of a person that refuses to see a FWS on equal footing.

I will admit that not ALL FWS attain that position. It all depends on their actions and how they handle the recovery. TST is a friend of mine and a man that I gave a REAL HARD time too. I don't look down on him even a little...and I view him as a FWH.

Hopefully these two examples clear things up for you.

My "fences"or boundaries are quite high. I know within moments a dangerous situation or what could be dangerous and avoid it. So my experience as both WW and BW have given me the ability to know this.

Pep, I think it is great that your H can use the F to protect his boundaries.

Pep - I totally get your point.

I wonder if it's different for an addiction than an aberation of character like an affair?

from JJ (Weaver)

Masterfully illustrated. I would like to add a thought or two.

It’s kind of funny but you may notice that for the recovered or mostly recovered posters I see an interesting phenomenon. That is, it seems that the betrayed spouses resist using the label “formally wayward spouse” to refer to their partner any longer, some even becoming slightly defensive about it, while the formally wayward spouses are more than willing to wear that title.

Why is that?

I think it’s a case of one side protecting the other. Each insuring that the other is treated with the utmost care and consideration. Perhaps a deep respect born from the remnants of their long journey together to reach this thing we call “recovery”.

I have more to add regarding “labels” but I wanted to make sure that I didn’t lose this particular observation.

Mr. G

It exists when someone gives it meaning. You may note from an above post how Aphelion defines formally wayward spouse; there is nothing noble or honorable in her use of that label. I think that you might be doing just that, giving it meaning and then applying to someone to segregate them into their own group even though you may say that is not your intention. You refer to them as criminals or more accurately as former criminals. Now I ask you, where do you see the positive connotations associated with that label? The language that you use makes all the difference. You have now associated the label, “formally wayward spouse” with “former criminal”. Then you defend it to give it a noble and honorable spin through countless explanations and rationalizations when you could have just abandoned the term altogether when no longer applies to a specific individual.

First, let me clear a misconception that I think you may have in regard to how I view labels. I have no problem with individuals using a label to describe themselves. For instance, I being of Italian decent might refer to myself as a **EDIT**, but would you use those terms to describe me or others of Italian decent? Perhaps you would, but I hope not. Things become much murkier once others use those same labels to describe a group of individuals or even a specific individual as part of a group.

You have stated and others have agreed with you, that you don’t see labeling a person with the term “formally wayward spouse” for the rest of their days as a discriminatory action. But I think that it is discriminatory as it may no longer describe who and what that person is even though they may themselves may carry that term. It is not for you to assign it as a life sentence. Most will do this without your help. This is what this **edit** believes.

Mr. G

**edit for grammer

Close. Let me be a bit clearer. If a betrayed spouse forever tags their partner with the term “formally wayward spouse” then the best recovery could very well be an elusive target.

I would be happy to further discuss but all you really need to do is to examine the fully recovered betrayed spouses contribution in this post alone that helps illustrate my point. You will see that they no longer define their formally wayward spouse with that label. One has to wonder why?

Mr. G

since it always does...there is no reason to abandon the term.


Honestly, I think it is you that is "spinning" here. Either a person has this behavior in their past or they do not. If they do...then BY FACT...they are a "former." No amount of spin or feel good speak is going to change that very fact. How the person uses their past and what they do with it, in part, defines who they are today.

You act as though the labels are like the "brand" that you liked to use in your spin. It isn't. The brand is there for all to see....the term FWS is selective.

As for the criminal thing...I liken the behavior of waywards to criminals (in fact I believe infidelity should be a crime). The act creates a record of what that person has done....as it should. What that person does with this record is up to them. And it isn't as though a person is walking around with that flashing on their forehead. It is part of their record...and what they do with it is up to them. According to your logic, an ex-con...that is no longer acting like a con should leave that label behind forever. Sorry...it doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

As for your childish inclusion of derogatory names...I will let the mods speak to that.

Now you have added the word DEFINE. Why? Mrs. W is NOT defined solely by her waywardness in the past. But that does not change the fact that she is a FWS...and a wife...a mother...friend...daughter...sister, etc. I would give a lot more weight to her OTHER labels...but one does not erase the others.

You have taken this to ridiculous places IMO. No one here has stated that their partner is defined by their past. No one has suggested pointing fingers and discriminating against a person for their past. I am about as strong an opponent to abortion as you will ever meet. But, I have no problem dating a person that had an abortion in their youth so long as they have learned from their mistake and now have a pro life stance. That does not change the fact that they had an abortion...but I don't go around pointing a finger or judging. It is merely a statement of fact.

For me, my WAYWARD HUSBAND and MY CURRENT HUSBAND are two completely different people. It would be difficult for me to continue to evidence and feel LOVE for HIM if I in any way EXPERIENCED him DAILY as being the WAYWARD HUSBAND. Giving HIM that LABEL would be a LOVEBUSTER..like how going into PLAN B saves the LOVE you have for your SPOUSE..

I LOVE him even more NOW because he has continued to WORK so hard on being COMPLETELY different from the WAYWARD. Early on, it was difficult to BELIEVE that the WAYWARD had DIED but I believe NOW that HE HAS...for months and years, I would keep checking him out to see if any traces of HIM remained...

This is about PERSONAL CHANGE. Can a person CHANGE?

I believe that it's been well-documented in the psychological literature that lasting and permanent PERSONALITY CHANGE most often results from MAJOR TRAUMAS. For some/many, my H being one, his AFFAIR, was a MAJOR LIFE TRAUMA for HIM as well as ME. His PSYCHOLOGICAL WOUNDING was MAJOR. As I have said previously, he is no longer the self-confident, dynamic person he used to be...It's pitiful to see him attempt public-speaking. He comes across as being ashamed. I know why...others don't..OH WELL..his story..his cross to bear...

So, it's not JUST the ADDICTION..as with an alcoholic.
Yes, I think he will be FOREVER ADDICTED to HER or what she PRODUCED...his PERSONALITY FLAW, weakness for THAT...

It's the resulting DEVASTATION in all respects that can be TRAUMATIC for the wayward..PERSONAL, FINANCIAL, SOCIAL...OUR WHOLE WORLD CRUMBLED...

Once the decision is made to RECOVER..it becomes OUR WOUND..we began work on HEALING as A TEAM...in life together til death do us part..as MARRIAGE is supposed to be...

MEDC:


Good comment. Fact is all of are born with "Entitlement" and self interest as our mantra and all of us grown up or not as the case may be. We are taught by peers, parents, schools and the hard lessons from the consequences of mistakes and we carry the genetic predisposition of our parents.

Fact is, we are all who we are based on our past and our present. We can hate how we got where we are but appreciate who we are if who we are is worth appreciating. I haven't cheated on my wife, but that by no means entitles me to the moral high ground in dealing with her or anyone else for that matter. I have enough past mistakes that I totally regret for me to think I am more moral than the next person as a PAST and to the best of my ability, my present.

Larry

Good post, Larry.

One BIG question, though.... When does the "past" turn to "present"? That's the one that stumps me.

For single folks (divorced due to betrayal, or not) who are in the dating scene, I think its a must to know if potential suitors were ever a WS or had cheated.

And if they had, what did they learn. And if their answer isn't in alignment with what I've learned about remorse, repentence and lessons from being on this site for 8 years, they're outta here.

So yes, i think its important for folks to recognize a life's lesson about themselves and share it when needed.

Jo

I believe the dynamics of adultery and recovery make this a complicated issue.

Recovery is an unusual situation IMO because the primary victim chooses to live in the deepest level of intimacy and vulnerability with the person who devastated them.

I have said before that if another external person had threatened my family and delivered me an insult equivalent to Squid with her affair I would not rest until I had killed them.

Yet I eat, sleep, and intimate with Squid. I do not do that with any other person who has offended against me.

I do not think that descriptive factual compound nouns are "labels". I am an ex rugby player, and former employee of BT for example. They are not labels so much as compound nouns used in context.

However the relevance of those nouns is close to nil in most life situations. My status as a BS and Squids as a FWS are relevant a thousand times every day however.

That is because our recovery is not complete.

I do believe that some folks in complete recoveries genuinely never consider their adultery experience because the value added to each others lives on a daily basis is so pervasive and positive, FWS or BS becomes as redundant as "warley Wasps rugby club alumnus".

That is not my experience, nor is it the experience of the majority of recoverers I have read and known.

So in summary its is silly to deny the fact of the names FWS and BS. What varies is their relevance to everyday life.

Both are still unfortunately central to my own life.

Denial of adjectives (or compound nouns, as BP calls them) is often taken to ridiculous extreme, you know.

The first MC FWW and I saw after the first affair did not want me to use the word adultery, or adulterer.

She said it was labeling.

Sounds like you guys agree with her.


A spade is a spade. Don’t like calling it a spade? Stay out of the adultery game (a label) in the first place.

What in the world did she want you to call it??

I remember reading years ago about an Amazon tribe that would duck and cover when someone yelled a curse or a name. They thought labels and names had magical powers and could be avoided by physical contortions.

Aren’t you guys supposed to be more cosmopolitan than that by now?

The most direct word she would use was "infidelity".

But usually she just called rutting in a seedy No Tell Motel an "unfortunate choice".


ed: oops, have I offended cheap motels now?