Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Wouldn't this give you the ick?

57 replies

CataTonic58 · 01/07/2022 12:48

If you were ever (knowingly) an OW, didn't it give you the ick knowing that the clothes he's turned up in were probably washed and ironed by his wife, that the aftershave he's wearing was probably bought for him as a present by his wife/DC, etc.?! Doesn't all that family stuff make him seem less - I dunno, 'sexy'?

OP posts:

Original poster

CataTonic58 · 02/07/2022 10:21

It's certainly interesting. It raises another question. Why would some women be turned off and other women turned on? It would be wrong to say that those women who are turned off are always going to be those women who aren't looking for stability in a mate. What's going on there? Why would two women - let's assume for argument's sake, both looking for stability - have such different responses to the desire to have a sexual relationship with a married man. (Using a hypothetical case here, not suggesting the example is universal, nor that all OW are looking for stability, also ignoring all other facets of infidelity, just for the purposes of understanding why some women would and some women wouldn't (find a married man sexy)).

OP posts:

5128gap · 02/07/2022 10:39

Sofacouchboredom · 02/07/2022 10:09

Deep sigh... it's not JUST women, this thread was about women who cheat with married men so I wrote it in that context. The theory applies to BOTH sexes.

And in no way does it diminish the actions of a cheat, there's a whole load of theories around them, it's a theory to explain the psychology of 'some' women who get involved with married men. As such it's interesting.

But you must see that its nonsense when applied to a man? The traits that make a man desirable in accordance with the theory are in direct conflict with the traits that would make him easy prey. Perhaps less so the other way round given men are more keen to accept that women are weak and easily conquered.
It also attempts to explain the motivation of OW based on the possible actions of a minority.
Even in 2022, it is far more common for men to pursue women than the other way round. We know this by our own experiences of the general behaviour of both. Yet we're expected to discount all we know, and imagine that in the specific circumstance of an affair its the woman who is suddenly the predator, because Dave from marketing is such a prize?
Don't get me wrong, I know there are women who set their sights on attached men, but its far from the norm, and generally reserved for very high status men, not your average Joe, who makes up the vast majority of cheating men. Yet suddenly we have a whole theory (that serves men well) based on a minority.

Original poster

CataTonic58 · 02/07/2022 10:52

Always find your posts interesting @5128gap but I wonder if there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here? The 'mate poaching' explanation was presented to explain reasons why a woman wouldn't be turned off when she starts thinking about the man within a family setting.

The 'poaching' explanation isn't intended to explain why these affairs happen in the first place. I'd agree with you that anecdotally it does appear to be the man who makes the first move usually, so the explanation doesn't let men off the hook.

OP posts:

Sofacouchboredom · 02/07/2022 11:01

@5128gap I actually think you're denying the attractiveness of commitment, being a good father and being stable to MANY women. I'd argue most women are not asking for a man with a high powered job and loads of money, they want stability for their children to come (or current children) and commitment.

Yes it's cognitive dissonance in action to get involved with a married man and think it'll provide you with someone you can trust but if that cognitive dissonance wasn't there you wouldn't get involved in the first place.

I also don't believe this happens consciously, its the subconscious driving behaviour. These woman's aren't deliberately targeting men, it's why I think they find them attractive!

@CataTonic58 really good question and one I did wonder about, foo issues, self esteem, previous history with unattached males who knows?

Great thoughtful post, it's really interesting. But I need to leave this thread anyway. I have a day to get on with.

UWhatNow · 02/07/2022 11:18

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

5128gap · 02/07/2022 11:43

CataTonic58 · 02/07/2022 10:52

I see. Then i have misunderstood. I took it as a theory that OW will actively pursue (poach) the 'best' men for themselves. Which I don't think is at all reflective of most affairs, which in all truth, typically involve either a serial cheat who deliberately courts other women; or two people who meet circumstantially, often both attached, are attracted to each other and choose not to ignore it.
I do see the application in that context though, even though I don't care for it as a theory.

sslz82pe · 02/07/2022 11:53

😂@UWhatNow
Washing and ironing the clothes is being used somewhat emblematic in the opening post.
It doesn't mean she's downtrodden. Maybe she likes doing the ironing or maybe it's simple division of labour.
I would be infinitely more depressed about DH having an affair than I would thinking there are some women in the world who assume wives iron their partners' clothes 😆

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread