Ask me anything: I am a kept woman

[Anonymous]

Being able to afford to keep a mistress the way that the OP's boyfriend is keeping her was and probably still is a status symbol/indication in some places. I'm thinking of Japanese businessmen patronizing geisha houses, and that patronage indicating that those men are cultured and have good taste, as opposed to men who see "normal" prostitutes.

There has always been a difference between high and low class prostitutes. Always. It's not like this arrangement is unique to the OP and the guy who's paying her rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This used to be the norm in some cultures. Marry the "wife" type and have kids with her. Then keep the woman you want on the side.

Still the norm many places in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being able to afford to keep a mistress the way that the OP's boyfriend is keeping her was and probably still is a status symbol/indication in some places. I'm thinking of Japanese businessmen patronizing geisha houses, and that patronage indicating that those men are cultured and have good taste, as opposed to men who see "normal" prostitutes.

There has always been a difference between high and low class prostitutes. Always. It's not like this arrangement is unique to the OP and the guy who's paying her rent.

Much more logical to me than some of the emotional affairs of some DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being able to afford to keep a mistress the way that the OP's boyfriend is keeping her was and probably still is a status symbol/indication in some places. I'm thinking of Japanese businessmen patronizing geisha houses, and that patronage indicating that those men are cultured and have good taste, as opposed to men who see "normal" prostitutes.

There has always been a difference between high and low class prostitutes. Always. It's not like this arrangement is unique to the OP and the guy who's paying her rent.

Much more logical to me than some of the emotional affairs of some DCUM posters.

I actually completely agree, but I don't think it would work around here in a widespread sort of way. It requires at least passive consent and buy in from the wife, which I do not think would happen here. It also indicates that there is a social function that a wife does not and is not obligated to fulfill. It also implies that a man who chooses to support a mistress that way has and will not shirk his obligations to his legal family, and also that he will treat the mistress with respect - so not abusive or cruel, helping with medical expenses caused by him (such as accidental pregnancies, birth control, etc.), and the like.

It's an agreement that requires an acceptance of a more flexible understanding of romantic adult relationships, which is unlikely to happen as long as you have people like the PPs shrieking about how it's impossible to respect anyone who has an affair, ever, for the rest of forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I kind of thought from the beginning that this thread was merely a ruse to take the opportunity to liken a wife who does not bring home a salary to a "kept woman."

I don't know if it was a ruse or not but I believe there is a very strong parallel; one is a sanctioned relationship by virtue of marriage and the other is not accepted as being the norm.

But a simple question/statement: if the OP led the very same life she does with the same benefits and essentially not supporting herself but married to her benefactor, most of her critics would be silenced. Heaven alone knows there are lots of women who fit the OP's mold but they are married to their "sugar-daddy".

You guys are such hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I kind of thought from the beginning that this thread was merely a ruse to take the opportunity to liken a wife who does not bring home a salary to a "kept woman."

I don't know if it was a ruse or not but I believe there is a very strong parallel; one is a sanctioned relationship by virtue of marriage and the other is not accepted as being the norm.

But a simple question/statement: if the OP led the very same life she does with the same benefits and essentially not supporting herself but married to her benefactor, most of her critics would be silenced. Heaven alone knows there are lots of women who fit the OP's mold but they are married to their "sugar-daddy".

You guys are such hypocrites.

I'm pretty active in the WOHM camp but this is ridiculous. Most of the questions are about the morality of the situation vis a vis the wife and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I kind of thought from the beginning that this thread was merely a ruse to take the opportunity to liken a wife who does not bring home a salary to a "kept woman."

I don't know if it was a ruse or not but I believe there is a very strong parallel; one is a sanctioned relationship by virtue of marriage and the other is not accepted as being the norm.

But a simple question/statement: if the OP led the very same life she does with the same benefits and essentially not supporting herself but married to her benefactor, most of her critics would be silenced. Heaven alone knows there are lots of women who fit the OP's mold but they are married to their "sugar-daddy".

You guys are such hypocrites.

I'm pretty active in the WOHM camp but this is ridiculous. Most of the questions are about the morality of the situation vis a vis the wife and kids.

You need to go through the thread and you will see plenty of references to the aspect of OP being a "kept woman".

[Anonymous]

^^Also, references to her lacking self-esteem, etc.

I assume all these "kept" wives must also lack self-esteem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is his wife a bitch or extremely fat or crazy or an addict or asexual? Or is she basically normal?

The impression I've gotten is that she's high strung and ... doesn't put out. They had big issues with having their second child because she wanted one but didn't want to have sex to "make" him. She is exhausted a lot despite having a full time housekeeper and nanny.

He could have broken off the engagement and not had two children with his wife. It's not her, it's him, pp.

Every man who cheat says he has a wife who doesn't put out, is "crazy", is too controlling, blah blah blah. It's never about the cheating man who is obviously too selfish, immature and cowardly to either end his unhappy relationship before taking up with another woman OR address his marital issues through therapy, etc. Pathetic.

Incidentally, I don't blame the other woman in these scenarios. Feel sorry for them to some extent since they usually have issues themselves. But they didn't take the vow of marriage, the guys did.

That is true, but since OP is a consenting adult with knowledge of her affair partner's marriage and children, she is undeniably complicit. Blame is not mutually exclusive.

Sure, but she doesn't owe anything to her partner's wife and kids. Sure, it's not morally upstanding to be the other woman. But she's not complicit. She is a symptom of her partner's dishonesty and selfishness.

She surely is complicit from an ethical perspective, though not a legal one. She's an agent, not a passive "symptom." She can act and stop the relationship should she wish. Legally, she has no obligation to her affair partner's wife or kids, but morally she is culpable. She has chosen with intent, time and time again, to participate in an act that can cause potential harm to innocent bystanders (the children). I agree that the husband has more responsibility in this case, but it is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy to say that the OP has clean hands.

I disagree with you and your line of thinking simply props up the absurd notion that the cheater is not absolutely and undenaibly culpable, legally and otherwise. Again, she didn't take the vows of marriage and fidelity. I'd feel the same way if the cheater were a woman, by the way.

How about the common law tort of alienation of affection and the crime of criminal conversation (apparently nine states recognize one or both in this situation). By being a kept women she is converting money from the marital estate. http://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcearticles/alienation-of-affection-and-criminal-conversation/ Not my expertise, but a quick google pulled up these potential legal problems. Any lawyers care to comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Much more logical to me than some of the emotional affairs of some DCUM posters.

I actually completely agree, but I don't think it would work around here in a widespread sort of way. It requires at least passive consent and buy in from the wife, which I do not think would happen here. It also indicates that there is a social function that a wife does not and is not obligated to fulfill. It also implies that a man who chooses to support a mistress that way has and will not shirk his obligations to his legal family, and also that he will treat the mistress with respect - so not abusive or cruel, helping with medical expenses caused by him (such as accidental pregnancies, birth control, etc.), and the like.

It's an agreement that requires an acceptance of a more flexible understanding of romantic adult relationships, which is unlikely to happen as long as you have people like the PPs shrieking about how it's impossible to respect anyone who has an affair, ever, for the rest of forever.

I think we can all agree that at least some wives on DCUM would prefer a sexless (sex-free?) marriage. They have the HHI to be SAHMs, yet afford to outsource any number of undesirable duties normally done by wives and mothers. Some women in the US don't have fertility issues, but use gestational carriers from India to avoid weight gain, morning sickness, etc. What if these women would actually be relieved if DH scratched his itch elsewhere, but they have to pretend outrage for the same of others?
To be fair, there are some husbands who'd be thrilled if the pool guy serviced their wives and left her in a good mood before he arrived home from work.
Sex is cheaper than therapy when it isn't attached to a $33k a year apartment, but even that is cheaper than divorce and alimony or child support.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the OP has been gone for like 10 pages and you chatty kathies are still talking/arguing ?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


So you are actually teaching them to be this judgemental? Handing them stones to cast? That is hardly an open minded, progressive, realistic approach to parenting.

You are absolutely right. I teach my children to be "judgmental" about lying, cheating, betraying the trust, causing traumatic pain, venereal diseases, and all that is associated with cheating spouses. Destroying the lives of others is hardly open minded or progressive; it is simple cruelty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh for fucks sake, this thread got totally derailed by a few ninnies arguing with each other. next time, just start a new thread rather than hijaking.

now I'll never how much of a psychopath OP really is. but I'm kinda into that so maybe she'll come back and I can hit her up for her number.

Point taken. But maybe she'll come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh for fucks sake, this thread got totally derailed by a few ninnies arguing with each other. next time, just start a new thread rather than hijaking.

now I'll never how much of a psychopath OP really is. but I'm kinda into that so maybe she'll come back and I can hit her up for her number.

I really miss OP.

Me, too. Come back OP. Pretty please???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see how someone who makes less than 1 million dollars a year (and thats at the min) can afford to support another person entirely. By the time you pay for all your cars, your house, your retirement, your wife and childrens needs, your vacations, etc to have enough left over for a.) to support someone entirely b.) without your wife realizing another 70k or so net is gone seems so unlikely.

My husband makes about $1M. I am sure he does not have a mistress that he supports and we have a very happy marriage, but to answer this question, I do not pay close enough attention to our finances that I would notice if $70K or so was "missing." I am the one who goes through the mail and opens the bank statements and credit card bills, but I don't really look at them. When you have a lot of money, it is easy not to pay attention to the details. I would not have realized this before having a high HHI. When I was young and poor, I knew where every penny of my money was.

If you don't really look at statements and the bills, how do you know whether there are any errors or fraudulent charges? Come on, ladies, pay attention! Someday, chances are, you will need to take care of these matters yourself. Most women outlive their husbands.

You have time for anal nitpicking like that?? I don't. Not many do I believe.

I can't ever see myself so rich, so indifferent that I would allow 70K of our hard earned money to (poof!) vanish, disappear and not even be aware of it. I would be ashamed to be so careless. It's nothing to brag about..

I'm the PP who posted above. We are not careless. I know that my husband checks over the charges on our cards and from our accounts online. He is very careful about these things. I also was single until I was 30 and took care of my own finances, so I have plenty of experience running my own life. I am still the one who handles insurance, bill paying, house maintenance, etc. I was simply saying that I while I have access to our financial information, I don't go through it carefully looking for strange charges. I have one credit card that I make all my purchases with and I look at that one carefully since I know my husband wouldn't know what was a charge I made and one I didn't. On his card or from our bank account or brokerage accounts, I wouldn't necessarily notice. I don't think I would notice if, from all of our accounts, something like 70K was missing. It just isn't that much money for us and, in my case, I trust my husband. I can understand how the wife in this situation wouldn't know about the mistress based on missing money.