Why do women hate an OW?

[Oatmealbiscuits]

When a woman is seeing a married man, why do people say they wouldn't want her as a friend, in their lives anymore etc? Why are they judged solely on one thing when there may be so many other positives to their character.

I'm curious really, for the record I'm not an other woman, but my friend is. It's her business and I shall be there when the shit inevitably hits the fan.

If some posters on here had their way, she wouldn't have friends and would be isolated and lonely. I just don't think anyone deserves that when in reality it's the man who has taken vows.

If you support someone doing awful immoral things you are effectively colluding with it. Next time you listen to her telling you all about her affair, remember the heartbreak and hurt that will take place as a result of her actions. Turning a blind eye and supporting horrible behaviour is not something I would ever want to sign up for.

Morals! I don't know how any woman ( or man) would happily break up a family and have no shame . I certainly couldn't be one

@ReneBumsWombats at this point in the thread it's difficult to avoid you and your little friends' demented bile.

So much hate for women, does it come from a place of hurt?

I didn’t hate or dislike my friend when she became the OW.

I started disliking her when she started bad mouthing the wife, and was resentful about him spending money on his children whereas she was fine when he spent money on her and her kids (not his biological children).

then it became untenable when she couldn’t have a conversation without saying mean things about the wife and she got angry at me when her attempts at rewriting history and the start of her relationship with MM was scuppered by the fact I knew exactly how her relationship began.

I had to step away from her as she became a very unlikeable person.

Try harder.

@ReneBumsWombats Try answering

You said that you were angry that some people insisted on holding MM entirely responsible when most women on here wanted to blame OW too. Effectively saying that the dissenters shouldn't speak because lots of people disagreed with them.

Sadly I can't quote it because it's in one of your numerous abusive, deleted posts.

Because the thread is literally about why women hate the OW, not about how shitty cheating men are.

Yes. The threads are always about how shitty the OW is. They are never about why or how the MM could do such a thing or whether you'd stay friends with a cheating MM.

That's part of the point.

Except lots of us haven’t been the other women and nor has our partner cheated.
And yet we can still see that it’s not right.
A married man or woman ( and I would extend that to a co habituating) is not available to have a relationship with. I don’t take things that belong to other people regardless of the fact that they are easily available.

Wow, the point of this thread flew right over your head, didn't it?

They are literally enabling the men to cheat. People can’t cheat if there’s no one to cheat with

And this, in two lines, is the heart of (one of the) disagreements. That is your position.

My, and others, position is that this argument makes women the police of men's sexual behaviour. Because it shifts the focus away from the men wanting to cheat, and onto the woman 'allowing' him to cheat. If she, and every one of the 3.5 billion females on the planet ( or at least every one of them within travelling distance of his house/work and of legal age) did not allow him, there would be no cheating.

I fundamentally cannot see this as anything other than misogynistic. Its exactly the logic used by Islamic fundamentalists as to why women need to cover. I've heard Iranian clerics make exactly this argument. Women need to cover so that men won't commit adultery (punishable my eternal hellfire in Islam) by wanting to have sex with them.

No, men have the responsibility for their own sexual behaviour. They have the capacity and responsibility to say NO. That is what it comes down to. The husband is always 100% solely responsible for his own fidelity as he is able to say NO.

It’s not the ow though that’s breaking up the family- it’s the cheater. It makes no difference who the ow - it could be anyone. It’s the man’s behavior that’s at fault.

all this talk of “enabling” men to cheat is just taking away responsibility from the cheater. If he wants to cheat, he will find someone to do it with. The ow is not some femme fatale tempting him away. He is choosing to cheat and who he does it with is irrelevant.

Once again, as many pps have repeated ad nauseam, no one here is saying it’s not the man’s fault. Just that it’s ALSO the OW’s fault.

You said that you were angry that some people insisted on holding MM entirely responsible when most women on here wanted to blame OW too. Effectively saying that the dissenters shouldn't speak because lots of people disagreed with them.

Sadly I can't quote it because it's in one of your numerous abusive, deleted posts.

Literally never. I said I was bored of the rhetoric of women completely brushing over the fact that nearly everyone on here has said the man is just as culpible. 'Effectively' is not the same as 'said' and your interpretation is on you, not me.

I'll say it one more time: I am sick of seeing women telling women to direct their anger at their partner and not the OW, when everyone on here has said both are equally responsible. Nobody is giving the person cheating on their partner a walkover, but this post is specifically about the OW. If you want to keep saying that we only believe the OW is culpible and not the person having the affair, that's fine, doesn't mean people won't be sick of seeing it, though.

It's so strange, though, I've referred to the people having an affair as people or humans, not once have I assumed the OW is having an affair with a man, but according to you, I've mentioned married men, or 'MM', an abbreviation I've literally just had to Google because I didn't know what it meant. Mad.

It's easy to try and discredit me by saying my posts were abusive - I've checked with MNHQ and they could be viewed as 'inflammatory' - but not abusive. Fair dos- most posts could be deemed inflammatory, but not all posts are reported because there are people who disagree with them 🤷🏻‍♀️

Of course not. I believe DH would never cheat or I wouldn't be with him and if he did I'd blame him entirely but I certainly wouldn't think much of the OW either. Why would I, or anyone respect another woman who allows herself to be a bit on the side. I do get your point but I'm not sure why you are so keen to defend OW. Are you one?

"For some, having a husband is a sort of possession, it’s almost a territorial thing."
@Weonlyhavealoanofit

There has been a few mentions of this behavior from page one. I think people are forgetting the biological imperative and that we are mammals. Jealousy and being territorial around our sexual relationships is a known biological fact in humans. It has a natural biological component around survival. We may have it long buried beneath layers of later development in our sophisticated brains, but it's hardly rocket science that both women and men are territorial around their mates.

It is of course threatening behavior for another individual to come in and affect the stability and safety of a family home. The male partner is most to blame but I have known women who knowingly and willingly cross boundaries to be in sexual relationships with married men.

I don't see how we can be feminists who say women have their own agency and not acknowledge that an OW who knows she is with a married man, is a woman who is willing to face the behavior of an angry spouse to get what she wants (same for a man).

Women who say that the woman has no responsibility as its on the man only are being somewhat naive in my opinion. I know a woman who, when the wife and kids went back home after a canal boating holiday and the husband stayed behind to "return the boat" drove up from Cornwall to Norfolk to shag the husband. The wife was one of my best friends and the woman was someone she had known for years as a family friend.

I have known a number of relationships where the cheating couple knew everyone involved very well and still went ahead. People seem to balance the risks they are taking with the short and long term rewards pretty well.

"People can't cheat if there's no one to cheat with" is very clearly laying the blame at women's door, and it's misogynistic for all the reasons Hitatiks so articulately laid out.

If you must blame the OW, and it seems a lot of you really, really must, well, nobody can stop you. I wonder, though, why you presumably don't hold every man you meet responsible for your own fidelity, or whether you'd nod in agreement if your cheating husband said, "Well it's only partly my fault, babe, don't lay it all on me. She was there, after all!"

I don't know how you could move on with your marriage either if your husband promises to be true only as long as he never meets another willing woman.

Oh, not this tired, lazy old shite again.

No, I'm not. I've explained over and over why I hold individuals responsible for what they do. I'm sick of stunted thinking that can't conceive of how I might hold a MM responsible for himself without shagging one.

It's precisely because I don't think I have anyone else to blame if I stray that I walk the line. Because if I fuck up, it's on me alone.

Do you not feel the same? If you did stray, would you tell yourself the OM is responsible because he was there and you don't have agency?

I do get your point but I'm not sure why you are so keen to defend OW. Are you one

Yes an open question, are we going to get any real answers, you defend ow yet I've not heard anyone state they actually are currently an ow, or that they have been in the past.

If you are so proud to defend the ow, why are you not proud to admit you are one. If that is your aim to dignify an ow possition, stand up and be counted, no one will ever take you seriously if you are not firm and open in your stance.

We can only guess.

@Ravensclawdropout

Women who say that the woman has no responsibility as its on the man only are being somewhat naive in my opinion. I know a woman who, when the wife and kids went back home after a canal boating holiday and the husband stayed behind to "return the boat" drove up from Cornwall to Norfolk to shag the husband. The wife was one of my best friends and the woman was someone she had known for years as a family friend

This is horrendous!!! Your poor friend.

I know a woman who shagged a man the night before his wedding because she could. She got a kick out of doing it to the wife to be because she knew her and known her for years whilst they were having an affair.

For the people who aren't getting it, this doesn't mean I don't think the husband is a horror, he's disgusting, but equally, so is she.

Same woman went on to come onto many of her friends husbands. It's a two way street - both make a choice and enable each other.

And once again: "married men are responsible for themselves" is seen as "you defend OW". Or even "you must shag married men, you couldn't think they're wholly responsible if you didn't".

As fish don't have a word for water, some people are so mired in misogyny that they literally can't conceptualise male agency without it.

Once again, as many pps have repeated ad nauseam, no one here is saying it’s not the man’s fault. Just that it’s ALSO the OW’s fault

No that it your position, not mine. I outlined mine quite clearly. It can never be the OW's fault as the man can say NO. The man is always responsible for his own fidelity. Making it her partly fault, relies on him not having full responsibility for his own sexual behaviour.

Saying men do not have full responsibility for their own sexual behaviour is behind all misogynistic cultural practices around women and sexuality, including the covering of women, shaming and blaming of victims of sexual assault for 'leading him on', and blaming OW because ' he could not cheat if she did not open her legs.'

And this is exactly the misogynistic mentality I just talked about. The assumption lying beneath these anecdotes is that the man could not say no, when sex was freely offered to him.

Do I think the woman in this story is a good woman? No. Do I like her morals? No. Would I want to be her friend? No.

Do I think it is her fault the husband had sex with her? No. Because he is an adult capable of sexual choices and control. He could have said No. His sexual choices are 100% his responsibility.

*I know a woman who shagged a man the night before his wedding because she could. She got a kick out of doing it to the wife to be because she knew her and known her for years whilst they were having an affair.For the people who aren't getting it, this doesn't mean I don't think the husband is a horror, he's disgusting, but equally, so is she.

Bollocks. The man shagged another woman then got married the next day and kept on shagging, and he's no worse than she is?