|
|
Post by WindSister on Oct 25, 2017 11:54:04 GMT -5
So, disclaimer: I am not a busy body on Facebook and I do not stalk my husband's exes. The only reason I know what she posted is my husband's best friend told us in a skype session the other night, he was laughing at it (at her) for the stupid post. So, yes, we looked. Not that we "care" - it was just brought to our attention, so we took a peek. You would have too. Admit it. So - this is the post. Looks innocent enough until you see WHERE it comes from, the page from which it originates is titled, "Seeing your ex with their new partner and noticing they downgraded." (insert a big ole eye roll here). Is she talking about me? Who knows? I don't think the universe revolves around me, so I won't assume so. But -- the message she sent out to the universe, the message my husband's best friend got anyway, is this: "I am pining over my ex at midnight through a song and I want all his friends and family to know I am clearly better than his new wife." So, the lessson? Never "Facebook" Drunk! You will end up looking like a tactless, class-less, pitiful fool.  |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Oct 25, 2017 13:42:31 GMT -5
If you are thinking about your ex - YOU have a problem.
Your judgement as to weather or not it's a "trade up" is mote.
YOU are stuck.
(Of course I don't mean YOU personally, I mean it as the general You. )
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Oct 25, 2017 14:10:54 GMT -5
When I was a kid they'd say when you point the finger at someone, the other three are pointing back at you...
If someone's ex was willing to trade-down in their escape, it speaks volumes about the person they divorced - like, despite appearances, they'd rather be elsewhere.
It's like criticizing your spouse for poor judgement - after all, they married you.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Oct 25, 2017 19:00:29 GMT -5
So, trolls will be trolls. Never mind if they're facile or twits (or both).
Back in the good ole usenet days I'd comment:
"What is green, lives under
a bridge and molests goats?"
Trolls rarely have anything meaningful to contribute; laugh at them, or ignore.
I think not going to either Facebook nor Twitter facilitates a happier life for me.
Sometimes, on EP, I used to bait trolls for a laugh - but I just can't be arsed any
more. Too much of that kind of thing going on already for it to be funny any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by WindSister on Oct 26, 2017 9:47:54 GMT -5
When I was a kid they'd say when you point the finger at someone, the other three are pointing back at you... If someone's ex was willing to trade-down in their escape, it speaks volumes about the person they divorced - like, despite appearances, they'd rather be elsewhere. It's like criticizing your spouse for poor judgement - after all, they married you. But what is a "trade down"? It is specifically that language that gets me riled up. You can't "upgrade or downgrade" HUMAN BEINGS. There is only the relationship and the dynamic between two people and LOOKS and JEAN SIZES have nothing to do with that unless someone is extremely petty and small minded. When exes play that stupid game, they are revealing how petty they are. And that's fine -- she can think I am a "trade down" from her (roll eyes) all she wants. I won't play her stupid facebook passive aggressive games. Facebook is THE ULTIMATE playground for the PA's of the world. Isn't it? I am glad she posted that for all the family and friends we share to see, actually. Gives them a little glimpse into who she really is. She may not have noticed the page from which the stupid meme came from, but knowing her like I do, she knew damn well and that was her way to get a little jab in (without looking obviously guilty). It's how she rolls. Beyond the fact that she posted that, the fact that such a petty page exists in the world makes me sad for humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Oct 26, 2017 12:49:04 GMT -5
As far as the topic of "trading up or trading down" there is something to be said for the person who marries into another SM and gets gaslighted, and falls for bait and switch again. Don't you think?
In reading your post I am 99% in agreement, then there's that 01% so here it is.I do think very highly of the sight shrink4men, the author of the sight talks about the "20 yr. younger, once in her youth was a model, now leather clothes tattoos, pierced nose ring, buck toothed, purple haired ,unemployed woman" that her ex is now seeing.
That does sound like a downgrade.
|
|
|
|
Post by WindSister on Oct 26, 2017 13:28:15 GMT -5
As far as the topic of "trading up or trading down" there is something to be said for the person who marries into another SM and gets gaslighted, and falls for bait and switch again. Don't you think? What are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Oct 26, 2017 13:31:30 GMT -5
As far as the topic of "trading up or trading down" there is something to be said for the person who marries into another SM and gets gaslighted, and falls for bait and switch again. Don't you think? What are you referring to? People who jump right back into another SM. To me that would be a trade down, again!! |
|
|
|
Post by WindSister on Oct 26, 2017 13:32:27 GMT -5
What are you referring to? People who jump right back into another SM. To me that would be a trade down, again!! lol. Well, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by jim44444 on Oct 27, 2017 17:01:09 GMT -5
But what is a "trade down"? It is specifically that language that gets me riled up. You can't "upgrade or downgrade" HUMAN BEINGS. There is only the relationship and the dynamic between two people and LOOKS and JEAN SIZES have nothing to do with that unless someone is extremely petty and small minded. . . . The concept of "trading up or trading down" is irrelevant in a relationship. We chose who we chose based on a complex set of criteria that we probably are not fully analyzing. We may not be fully aware of the criteria we are using. The only time I can see "trading up or trading down" being relevant is when dealing with trophy wives and sugar daddies but those examples have more in common with hookers and johns than with love based relationships. |
|
