to believe you can't steal husbands?

[WashwithCare]

I have been perplexed to read on here that some posters seem to believe you can "steal someone else's husband".

I am sure you can steal a dog or a handbag, maybe even a good idea(!?!)... but spouses, even if belong with each other, certainly do not belong to each other.

Equally, I'm rather confused that once a man has married or other moved onto the ummmm... the "new model", how can the lady in question continue to be termed the OW? Surely, she is now "The Woman"...

Just wondering as people keep referring to the NM culture about this issue, so sorry if it has been debated before.

Dittany - I think you have a funny idea of what a family is then.

I've read it a couple of times now, it's an old, hoary chestnut and it's bull. Why oh why is there this insistance that a woman who dates a married man must be lacking in self esteem?

I can't speak for any other "Other Woman" but FFS, call me a saddo, call me pathetic, call me a home-wrecker, call me the whore of Babylon if it pleases you, but lacking in self esteem?

Not in a million years!

Oh yes, now I remember I met my DH when I was about to get with someone else. That relationship was never serious and when it finished on New Year's Eve (he finished it but was a bit of a PITA 'women never say what they mean so she must mean something else' type) I pursued DH straight away, we were together in February, engaged in August, living together in September, bought a house in October, married the following February and I had twins in November. We are coming up to our first wedding anniversary! It's all a bit quick but our relationship is absolutely rock solid.

DH would laugh to be called the OW in our situation! lol

"It's an oddly dated attitude and to me it sits weirdly on here considering how terribly modern most MNers are about everything else."

Really? Do you really think this? I am mostly fascinated by MN because it is so extraordinarily reactionary!

At least you now admit she is a lunatic Sassybeast - I knew you would come round to my way of thinking eventually

"Ho hum ho hum - why do newbies always (a) assume and get stroppy about some secret MN club "

Don't be mean, we all had to learn the ways of MN...even you.

"(b) assume they are always right"

Err, we all generally think we are right, what a silly thing to say

"Why do OW always assume (a) that there was soemthing wrong with the marriage or the exW"

OP has pointed out that she was not the OW.

If a man leaves a marriage something must be wrong with it, its simple logic. Whose fault is another question. And at no point did OP state the failure of the marriage was the the fault of the XW.

"not the prick of a lying man"

where is evidence of lying man?

" that they are so much better than the XW/P and it will never happen to them "

All I see is that the OP has provide her version in which the exw is behaving, in her opinion, bady since the relationship ended.

She also has clearly stated she makes no assumptions about how long her marriage will last.

Can't stand this knee-jerk sainted first wife, evil husband and witchy second wife scenario so often touted on MN.

Shit happens. And unless we are there we cannot know the full story of any marriage breakdown. There are people who behave badly in relationships, both men and women. And some who behave with dignity. And some who just need to end a bad marriage.

Although in certain cases, I would certainly object to 2nd wives demonising the first.

So just to clarify...

the OP had a baby with someone.

Then met her DP who was someone else's DP until just beforehand.

OP now saying that a) she is not the OW (given that her DP's relationship was over) and b) DP's ex-gf & her kids should be grateful they live in DP's house?

Wow.

Feel sorry for the dad-less kids, myself...

Oh, ffs, sometimes MN is really like someplace transported from the 50s. Little Twatting on Sea.

So what if she had a child with someone first? I had my ds with exp. He was not planned, a contraceptive failure. We were just breaking up at that point.

But ds has a dad. Just not one that lives with me.

OP stated clearly her dd also has an involved father.

OP also has pointed out that her DH is still standing in loco parentis to the children of his exp.

Where are all these fatherless children you speak of?

I stole them and they are in my cupboard. I drive about in a rickety old van thing and sing "lollipops, lollipops..and all free today."

DId you have to have a really big net specially made, Hully?

Lol at Hully.

Madame - OP's DP's ex-gf's kids aren't his.

yes my dear, that what in loco parentis means, standing in for a parent. Which he did for ten years. And continues to attempt to.

I agree with OP - you can't steal a husband unless he wants to be stolen.

However, I do agree with Dittany in that there are some women out there who are manipulative, determined and selfish.

I don't recall writing that people who go out with married people in non-open relationships have low self-esteem.

I wrote they have low self-respect (and little respect for other people, for that matter).

And are sad and pathetic.

Whole different kettle of fish, IMO.

There isn't really any consistent Mumsnet view or culture (well apart from some of the silliness maybe ). The forum is way too big for that to make sense, and I've yet to come across a thread where everyone agreed.

The opinion that the other woman (this is a fairly commonly used phrase IME, just an update on mistress really, as compo says homewrecker is another alternative, and I have seen OM in similar circumstances) plays an important part when an affair happens is a very common one, and has something to do I think with the idea that in general women should be nice to each other. I don't think that "stealing" is a particularly appropriate way to think about things, or very helpful either (people can get very fixated on the idea of vengeance and the other party is easier to attack than the person that you may well still love).

I also think it's not unusual for people to hang on in there until someone else comes along, and that does mean that the other person (male or female) appears to be the catalyst. If the unhappiness is buried then it can come as a total shock to the person who then gets left behind.

I also think there is a big difference between the person who knowingly takes up with a married/committed person, and the person who really thinks they are available. I think that the later is immoral and very unwise too.

I'd also avoid starting a serious relationship with someone who had just broken up from a long term commitment. It is IMO/E bound to be messy.

No, I don't think a husband (or wife!) can be stolen'.

BUT, I do think if you date someone (male or female) that you know is married, you bear some responsibility. It's not about whether the other person is in an unhappy marriage etc or not. It's about being fair to their spouse and to yourself.

If the marriage is indeed over and you and the married person are meant to be together, imo you should be able to wait until a divorce is finalised.

I've met plenty with a very high opinion of themselves/self-esteem who had FA respect for themselves or anyone else.

Most of the actions demonstrated this.

And yeah, I learned that I was good enough to get someone who wasn't attached to someone else. I mean, who needs someone with so much baggage like that unless they're, well, desperate and sad (even though most who do this believe the opposite of themselves)?

If you think about it - you would be out of your mind to steal someone with the load of baggage that WWC had to deal with

That would be a little bit like stealing a terrorists bag full of a possible explosive device but conning yourself into believing its full of diamonds.

OK not the best example but thought I would make some input as Antiques Roadshow has only just started.

Expat, there comes a time when everyone has baggage, whether single or no.

At my age if I meet a man who is single he is likely to have a failed marriage/relationship behind him, and possibly children.

Have to say that was a rubbish post and on reading it makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot. (Oh yes today I am on a roll!)

In all honesty, I don't believe any person can be lured without alcohol and a desire to be unfaithful somewhere in their brain. I think being "stolen" is something that the other party believes because lets face it we all believe we are perfect and quite often delude ourselves into believing it won't happen.

Does that make more sense?

MD, you know that's not what I'm talking about.

Past relationships are, well, in the past.

Sure, everyone's got one of those.

But someone still married or in a long-term partnership?

Why bother when there are so many people out there who aren't?

I agree, Doodley!

Everyone has "baggage", even 19 yo boys with no relationship history can have negative baggage it's just LIFE.

Doesn't make anyone "desperate" or "sad" to fall in love with someone in not so perfect circumstances.

Of the married men I know/have spoken to who've had affairs not one has ever intimated that the OW stole or seduced him.

Does the belief that a married man can be stolen exist only in the minds of cheated-upon wives or in merely the female sex? And if so, why?

lol @ Doodley "bowing out gracefully"

that is sort of like running naked into a room, shitting of the floor and then saying "and now I will bow out gracefully"

my husband and I were both married to other people when we met and both serially unfaithful

we've learnt a lot since then