ihatedumbpeople: [www.mirror.co.uk image 615x409]

to

[www.mirror.co.uk image 620x819]

based on looks alone, I can see why he bolted. Add in some paranoia and (up until then) false accusations, and people in dating relationships are gonna split quick.

/the girl looks much cuter in the first pic though, looks like she put on a few.

In that top pic, it looks like she's wearing a bunch of ribbons used to hold medals, but is still waiting for the medals.

ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

This just reads like justification to me.

You said you wouldn't want to be in her shoes - that should be pretty much it.

I couldn't willfully cross that line and still think of myself as a decent person. I expect others to hold themselves to the same standard. It doesn't really seem like that high a bar - don't be a hypocrite.

Yeah, well I never thought I would cross that line and I, much like you, thought that people who did were heartless farks who deserve to die alone.

ObscureNameHere: ph0rk: ObscureNameHere: And if you don't believe her word, then the trust element of the relationship has died.

the current legal situation is one where to trust her at first would put you on the hook for 18 years in a real, inescapable, even-with-contradictory-paternity-test outcomes. To support a kid and act as father at first can lock you in to "acting" as a father for the kid's entire childhood, no matter the test results.

Why should she choose this point, of all points, to dig in her heels and be a jackass?

I don't watch her all the time. She clearly has nothing to hide. What's the problem?

/This is exactly why I think it is a great idea for the state to mandate testing for things like putting a man's name on the birth certificate or applying for child support.

*blink*
Wow, we both appear to be typing in English, yet seem to be speaking entirely different languages. Eerie.

I'm sure a woman would feel someone insulted at the request, but try to imagine why a man would want to make it.

We all know that fidelity is a joke, and I sure as shiat don't get any bonus points for staying true in this particular case.


An analogy might be getting tested for STDs before you start unprotected intercourse (say, 2ish years using condoms, chick gets an IUD or goes on the pill).

You might trust the person quite a bit, but this is a situation with permanent, life-altering repercussions. Trusting someone's word just isn't enough.

FarkLiberty: So once your name is on the paper you're screwed? Or is there a reasonable time frame in which you can contest it?

/Didn't get my GED in law...

The way the law is written, paternity is currently one of the few forms of premeditated fraud that there is absolutely no legal or civil course of action to remedy.

ForMadmenOnly: ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

This just reads like justification to me.

You said you wouldn't want to be in her shoes - that should be pretty much it.

I couldn't willfully cross that line and still think of myself as a decent person. I expect others to hold themselves to the same standard. It doesn't really seem like that high a bar - don't be a hypocrite.

Yeah, well I never thought I would cross that line and I, much like you, thought that people who did were heartless farks who deserve to die alone.

Is poon that hard to come by? I mean, I'm still not getting the attraction.

nicoffeine: SpiffyandRedhot: I swear I saw this on Lifetime. The Bravo version ended with the women together, and the Cinemax version turned into a threesome.

You forgot the Oxygen version where she kills them both.

Or the lmn version where he abuses both, and they team up to take him down

I never understood having to proove the other one is cheating unless there is going to be a messy divorce proceeding. If you suspect your boyfriend/girlfriend of cheating, leave them.

ph0rk: ObscureNameHere: ph0rk: ObscureNameHere: And if you don't believe her word, then the trust element of the relationship has died.

the current legal situation is one where to trust her at first would put you on the hook for 18 years in a real, inescapable, even-with-contradictory-paternity-test outcomes. To support a kid and act as father at first can lock you in to "acting" as a father for the kid's entire childhood, no matter the test results.

Why should she choose this point, of all points, to dig in her heels and be a jackass?

I don't watch her all the time. She clearly has nothing to hide. What's the problem?

/This is exactly why I think it is a great idea for the state to mandate testing for things like putting a man's name on the birth certificate or applying for child support.

*blink*
Wow, we both appear to be typing in English, yet seem to be speaking entirely different languages. Eerie.

I'm sure a woman would feel someone insulted at the request, but try to imagine why a man would want to make it.

We all know that fidelity is a joke, and I sure as shiat don't get any bonus points for staying true in this particular case.


An analogy might be getting tested for STDs before you start unprotected intercourse (say, 2ish years using condoms, chick gets an IUD or goes on the pill).

You might trust the person quite a bit, but this is a situation with permanent, life-altering repercussions. Trusting someone's word just isn't enough.

Wow, based on the anger in both your discussions here I'd say you've been screwed over. You say fidelity is a joke but seem shocked at the fact there is someone in the thread admitting to cheating.

ph0rk:
*blink*
Wow, we both appear to be typing in English, yet seem to be speaking entirely different languages. Eerie.

I'm sure a woman would feel someone insulted at the request, but try to imagine why a man would want to make it.

We all know that fidelity is a joke, and I sure as shiat don't get any bonus points for staying true in this particular case.


An analogy might be getting tested for STDs before you start unprotected intercourse (say, 2ish years using condoms, chick gets an IUD or goes on the pill).

You might trust the person quite a bit, but this is a situation with permanent, life-altering repercussions. Trusting someone's word just isn't enough.

Bolded text indicates that yes, your life and past relationships must indeed suck so very very hard.

In a marriage, yes, the other persons word HAS to be 'enough', or, the whole foundation of trust that the relationship is built on crumbles.

I sense we have had such different life experiences that we cannot even connect in a common language to an agreed upon frame of reference for a discussion on this topic.

ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

This just reads like justification to me.

You said you wouldn't want to be in her shoes - that should be pretty much it.

I couldn't willfully cross that line and still think of myself as a decent person. I expect others to hold themselves to the same standard. It doesn't really seem like that high a bar - don't be a hypocrite.

Yeah, well I never thought I would cross that line and I, much like you, thought that people who did were heartless farks who deserve to die alone.

Is poon that hard to come by? I mean, I'm still not getting the attraction.

Well, I don't have any unmarried/committed relationship men lining up for dates with me. Men say I'm farkable if that matters for that statement.

FarkLiberty: umad: You are already farked by then. If your name is on the birth certificate and you have been "acting as the father" there is no going back. The courts don't care that it isn't actually your kid.

So once your name is on the paper you're screwed? Or is there a reasonable time frame in which you can contest it?

/Didn't get my GED in law...

depends on the state

in my state, louisiana, name on the birth certificate is a presumption of fatherhood. there is a timeframe to deny the paternity. I forget what it is. maybe a year from birth or a year from when you should have doubted paternity. but, either way, i'm pretty sure, 10 years into the kid's life, there is nothing you can do, because the law wants this stuff settled, even if it's false.

/ but, I'm not well studied on this area of law. so, don't rely on anything i say on the matter. oh yeah, and your state will have different laws.

ForMadmenOnly: Wow, based on the anger in both your discussions here I'd say you've been screwed over. You say fidelity is a joke but seem shocked at the fact there is someone in the thread admitting to cheating.

I think you're projecting anger, perhaps. This is just how I debate something.

That line should have been in scare-quotes, as it was a reference to the first half of the thread.

There was only one "maybe" in my past, it was early, it was over fast, I walked away.

I can still remember what it felt like, though, and as much of a dick as I am, I'd never want to do that to anyone, least of all someone I've been together with for a long time.

ForMadmenOnly: Well, I don't have any unmarried/committed relationship men lining up for dates with me. Men say I'm farkable if that matters for that statement.

There is an entire universe of shiat to talk about with that statement.

Try going out and looking for something instead of waiting for it to come to you comes to mind.


ObscureNameHere: In a marriage, yes, the other persons word HAS to be 'enough', or, the whole foundation of trust that the relationship is built on crumbles.

You say marriage is about trust, I say trust is important, but it is about being able to coexist.

Trusting someone not to piss in your coffee is one thing. Placing oneself's health (medical or financial) on the line at their word is another.

I won't do that, and only a fool would. Only a self entitled jerk would ask me to.

royone: How come the Tfettes never comment on the hittability of the guys in stories?

Because it's not as likely to turn this into an eye bleach thread if we state the obvious -- that he looks like a cheap, shifty weasel.

Pass.

ph0rk: Trusting someone not to piss in your coffee is one thing. Placing oneself's health (medical or financial) on the line at their word is another.

I won't do that, and only a fool would. Only a self entitled jerk would ask me to.

If you want to go down this road, only a jerk would suggest you're a fool for trusting someone to integrate your health situation and more specifically, your finances. If you trust them, you trust them.

If you want a fark buddy, get a fark buddy.

If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Jim from Saint Paul: If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Absolutely not.

Nogale: Ph0rk - it's not that simple. I find ForMadMen's cheating abhorrent, but she says she's already seen the light as far as that goes and would never do that again. As far as being the third person - I'm not taking a moral stance on the issue one way or another but it's not quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

I do think that anyone who intentionally makes a play for a married/committed person is doing a rotten thing.

She also said she isn't looking to end the current affair. That's pretty shiatty, in my book and is the basis for my comments.

What's the difference between "making a play" and refusing a play? Should be none, where cheating is concerned.

If everyone thought as I do, trust wouldn't be a problem. Clearly it still is, however.

Nogale: As far as being the third person - I'm not taking a moral stance on the issue one way or another but it's not quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

yeah, it is.

/been cheated on a bunch 'o times.

ph0rk: Jim from Saint Paul: If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Absolutely not.

Then good luck out there. I wish you the best life you can have, good internet citizen.

Jim from Saint Paul: ph0rk: Jim from Saint Paul: If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Absolutely not.

Then good luck out there. I wish you the best life you can have, good internet citizen.

It's working out just fine - I got nothing but first world problems.

I'm not bitter, I'm not angry, I'm just arguing a moral point. Hopefully for some who probably are bitter and angry and are unable to articulate it without getting man-motional (read: rage-stompy).

Nogale: Sometimes loneliness can drive people to do things that are against their ethical code. If you've never experienced that, you're lucky.

We're not talking about stealing bread to survive, here.

There are scads of ways to meet people and hook up - I can't think of a case where helping someone cheat on their spouse or partner is the only solution.

Again, this is obviously a "high" moral standard, but it seems like an entirely fair expectation to me.

ph0rk:

ObscureNameHere: In a marriage, yes, the other persons word HAS to be 'enough', or, the whole foundation of trust that the relationship is built on crumbles.

You say marriage is about trust, I say trust is important, but it is about being able to coexist.

Trusting someone not to piss in your coffee is one thing. Placing oneself's health (medical or financial) on the line at their word is another.

I won't do that, and only a fool would. Only a self entitled jerk would ask me to.

Bolded shows that you do not understand the depth of commitment a successful marriage requires. Don't feel bad, there seem to be many that don't have the right skill set.

ph0rk: Jim from Saint Paul: ph0rk: Jim from Saint Paul: If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Absolutely not.

Then good luck out there. I wish you the best life you can have, good internet citizen.

It's working out just fine - I got nothing but first world problems.

I'm not bitter, I'm not angry, I'm just arguing a moral point. Hopefully for some who probably are bitter and angry and are unable to articulate it without getting man-motional (read: rage-stompy).

I understand. I choose to live in a world where faith in others is scary, yet rewarding.

Others choose to live in a world where the only faith they have is in themselves.

Whatever works.

ForMadmenOnly: What's that about everything before the but?

Anyway - If you wouldn't want to be in her shoes, stop being an asshole.

Offer mitigating circumstances if you want, but you are contributing to assholish activity. Stop it.

For the record, I am reasonably sure the custom isn't for a woman (or a man) to have to ask if their partner wants an open relationship. In most cases, it is safe to assume a closed relationship is the default position. Husband is a jackass for not telling her beforehand. Shocker.

For the record, I'm pro equality, anti-marriage, and think religion is stupid in most cases. However, when the culture has a predominant form of a type of relationship, you're being a dick if you participate in breaking that custom.

Don't be a dick.

It's weird because I am also anti-marriage and am actually a non anti-religion atheist (I don't hold religion against people) and grew up in a household where the man of the house and the woman of the house were 50/50 all the way. Overall I do not think that stepping out on someone is acceptable but ever since I did cheat I can understand how it happens. In my case the relationship had died long ago. I did however see how what I was doing was wrong and broke the relationship off because it was not fair to my boyfriend. What I did/do was/is wrong. That doesn't mean I am accountable for everything. I wish the man would leave his wife. But not to be with me, I don't want that. He has tried to have the conversation with his wife about the terms of their relationship and she wont have it. If she doesn't want to even face the reality of what may be happening that's her problem and she shouldn't have married a man she didn't love because he knocked her up. I don't expect to get anyone's approval for what I'm doing or expect why I do it to make sense. The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

There's no reason the husband can't file for divorce, it sounds like he's making excuses so he can get a little something-something on the side. Sorry, but marriage in the Western World is rarely forced. If it's a loveless marriage, why would he want to stay unless he's afraid of the division of assets maybe?If not being about division of assets, maybe it has to do with guilt over the child that came from their earlier pairing. Though that's faulty logic on his part, the child(ren) get hurt either way, either via lack of affection for their mother while married or through watching the probably nasty divorce proceedings that will almost inevitably follow. Sometimes the most humane thing to do is to divorce early on when you realize there's no way it can work with the two of you behaving as a couple.

He may be a serial cheater, and she may simply be ignoring it or playing naive for her own financial stability which makes you more the fool than her. I believe you said you'd marry someone if they knocked you up, are you going to expect him to marry you if you get pregnant? You might have meant to say wouldn't given the context of what else was said, but you said "would" so I don't know what you meant. If you're saying you would marry because of pregnancy, it's kind of hypocritical, because that's apparently exactly what she did, and it probably is part of why she ended up in a loveless marriage with your lover.

You're helping deter affections from the wife and mother of his child. You are helping create an unhealthy idea of what a parental relationship should be like. Cordial divorced parents are sometimes better parents than ones that are cold towards each other because they both know there's cheating going on. You're helping set the standard for the kid to end up in the same situation as his/her parents are in because most people learn relationship dynamics from their families. I'm definitely not suggesting he wouldn't be doing the same if it weren't you, because most people that rationalize cheating probably still would cheat. I'm suggesting that the ones that really matter in this situation are the kids and apparently all the "adults" in this situation are being selfish.

ph0rk: Jim from Saint Paul: If you want a spouse, don't be a weenie, get in there and make things work. Work hard. Have faith.

Absolutely not.


I'm curious; is there any reason you can see yourself getting married? I can't imagine you finding the prospect at all appealing.


Nogale: Ph0rk - it's not that simple. I find ForMadMen's cheating abhorrent, but she says she's already seen the light as far as that goes and would never do that again. As far as being the third person - I'm not taking a moral stance on the issue one way or another but it's not quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

I do think that anyone who intentionally makes a play for a married/committed person is doing a rotten thing.

She also said she isn't looking to end the current affair. That's pretty shiatty, in my book and is the basis for my comments.

What's the difference between "making a play" and refusing a play? Should be none, where cheating is concerned.

If everyone thought as I do, trust wouldn't be a problem. Clearly it still is, however.

I agree.

But I still don't understand the appeal/motivation of/for the affair. Please explain.

And ty to the other farkers for the info re: paternity.

ObscureNameHere: Bolded shows that you do not understand the depth of commitment a successful marriage requires. Don't feel bad, there seem to be many that don't have the right skill set.

Given the high rate of marital infidelity in the United States, why on earth would you still hold to this notion?

Marriage is a fleeting, temporary situation here. I expect someone not to cheat on me while in that state, but I'm sure as shiat not going to put myself at risk on their word. How well can you ever really know the mind of another person?


Anyone who was with me would know damned well I felt this way.

In my opinion, a paternity test falls in the same category as a prenuptial. Trust doesn't have anything to do with it, rather it's just a matter of realistic expectations. I wouldn't even think of marrying or having a child with someone (in that order) I didn't completely trust to begin with.

Unfortunately, no matter how good things are now, sometimes it just doesn't work out. The inconvenience of a quick test is a lot better than the unpleasant surprise that I was too blind to pick up that she's been dishonest until it was too late *and* the child isn't mine *and* I have to pay child support until he or she 18.

ph0rk: ObscureNameHere: Bolded shows that you do not understand the depth of commitment a successful marriage requires. Don't feel bad, there seem to be many that don't have the right skill set.

Given the high rate of marital infidelity in the United States, why on earth would you still hold to this notion?


1) Do not live in the United States

2) I hold to that notion because it has worked for me for over 17 years of marriage.

Sorry you can't fathom that happiness can be achieved via trust. Yes, it is a risk. So what? The rewards are well worth it.

So the worst that happens is that anonymous folks on the internet think I am a fool for being happily married. Well, off to get my jesters hat then...

This scenario seems like the best of all possible worlds:
- The GF wastes no more of her life on a guy who would cheat
- The BF wastes no more of his life on a girl who would hire a PI to test him *and* he gets to bang a relative hottie
- The PI gets paid *and* gets to boff the BF

It's win-win-win IMHO.

ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: /currently the other woman
//I know, I know, I'm horrible

Not good enough. Maybe for a drunken one-night stand, but after you've sobered up the only moral thing to do is demand they tell the other woman/break up.

Anything less is despicable, provided the man isn't in an open relationship.

not to worry...if she allows herself to be in that situation she probably already knows she doesn't deserve more.

FarkLiberty: I'm curious; is there any reason you can see yourself getting married? I can't imagine you finding the prospect at all appealing.

It isn't. I'm okay with a long term "partners" relationship though. Marriage is about property anyway, and I think that's just lame.

It seems sort of obvious to me you'll be committed emotionally to someone until you aren't. Being married is a bunch of extra paperwork to deal with later (potentially).

That said, I got married anyway. Sometimes you gotta bend, I guess. She really, really wanted the paperwork and it wasn't that big a deal for me to not have it - I didn't have to behave any differently or anything like that. In my mind we'd be right were we are now if we weren't still married.

So, CSB/TMI, but no I don't generally find the institution that appealing.

I'm surprised that nobody's commeI'mnted on the photos. This gal's had guy problems, a lot, and apparently falls for shallow men -- like this one. He likes hot funny chicks.

Before photo: after photo. She's put on what, forty pounds IN SIX MONTHS?

He has issues -- he's shallow. otoh, if her definition of being with somebody is "I get to completely let myself go and be a slob now, b/c he's sleeping over," then I can see why all her relationships are falling apart, too.

ObscureNameHere: Sorry you can't fathom that happiness can be achieved via trust.

Happiness is probably genetic, not behavioral. So, I guess I don't really believe you.

That said, I'm doing quite fine.

ph0rk: She really, really wanted the paperwork

No, you married someone like you.

She wanted something that proved what you meant about being serious in your relatinship with her.

In short, she didn't have *faith* in just your word.

Please know I cannot seem to come up with a way to say the above in a way that doesn't make me sound like I am ripping you or your spouse
/swear I'm not

Jim from Saint Paul: ph0rk: She really, really wanted the paperwork

No, you married someone like you.

She wanted something that proved what you meant about being serious in your relatinship with her.

In short, she didn't have *faith* in just your word.

Please know I cannot seem to come up with a way to say the above in a way that doesn't make me sound like I am ripping you or your spouse
/swear I'm not

Probably, I can't blame her much - or, at least I signed the document. I think she may even have used words to the same effect as you just did.

I don't really much care what her motivations were, unless she thinks/thought she was going to change me. It is pretty obvious that's not the case.

FWIW, she wasn't "like me" until we'd been together for about a decade, she originally wanted a more traditional arrangement, but I don't think she had thought about it that critically yet (at age 20).

/I also think that "love" is just a fancy word for "am used to you being around", and I even told her this.
//Every opportunity for her to run screaming, oh well.

ForMadmenOnly: What's that about everything before the but?

Anyway - If you wouldn't want to be in her shoes, stop being an asshole.

Offer mitigating circumstances if you want, but you are contributing to assholish activity. Stop it.

For the record, I am reasonably sure the custom isn't for a woman (or a man) to have to ask if their partner wants an open relationship. In most cases, it is safe to assume a closed relationship is the default position. Husband is a jackass for not telling her beforehand. Shocker.

For the record, I'm pro equality, anti-marriage, and think religion is stupid in most cases. However, when the culture has a predominant form of a type of relationship, you're being a dick if you participate in breaking that custom.

Don't be a dick.

It's weird because I am also anti-marriage and am actually a non anti-religion atheist (I don't hold religion against people) and grew up in a household where the man of the house and the woman of the house were 50/50 all the way. Overall I do not think that stepping out on someone is acceptable but ever since I did cheat I can understand how it happens. In my case the relationship had died long ago. I did however see how what I was doing was wrong and broke the relationship off because it was not fair to my boyfriend. What I did/do was/is wrong. That doesn't mean I am accountable for everything. I wish the man would leave his wife. But not to be with me, I don't want that. He has tried to have the conversation with his wife about the terms of their relationship and she wont have it. If she doesn't want to even face the reality of what may be happening that's her problem and she shouldn't have married a man she didn't love because he knocked her up. I don't expect to get anyone's approval for what I'm doing or expect why I do it to make sense. The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

I'll be honest, I think you're a terrible human being. You lack anything beyond the most superficial of emotions. You claim you've been on both sides of the equation, and demonstrate a complete lack of empathy. You're evil for blaming the guys wife. They are married, that covenant alone should be enough for you to not sleep with her husband buy instead you excuse your immorality by blaming an innocent woman that has never harmed you. You are the definition of a terrible person and you will never be in a good relationship because there is something inside you that is fundamentally flawed and broken.

2MS: screwzloos: In my opinion, a paternity test falls in the same category as a prenuptial. Trust doesn't have anything to do with it, rather it's just a matter of realistic expectations. I wouldn't even think of marrying or having a child with someone (in that order) I didn't completely trust to begin with.

Unfortunately, no matter how good things are now, sometimes it just doesn't work out. The inconvenience of a quick test is a lot better than the unpleasant surprise that I was too blind to pick up that she's been dishonest until it was too late *and* the child isn't mine *and* I have to pay child support until he or she 18.

This. I only have 4 years left....

The problem with trust is that we speak of it when there are big stakes if it turns out to be misplaced.

Take the decision to be a stay-home mom. It's great if the marriage works out. But you really have to trust your husband and your relationship, because if it turns out you were wrong about either---you're completely and utterly farked.

It can turn out pretty bad.

Still better off out of the marriage than in it, and that's saying a lot.

ph0rk: ForMadmenOnly: Well, I don't have any unmarried/committed relationship men lining up for dates with me. Men say I'm farkable if that matters for that statement.

There is an entire universe of shiat to talk about with that statement.

Try going out and looking for something instead of waiting for it to come to you comes to mind.


ObscureNameHere: In a marriage, yes, the other persons word HAS to be 'enough', or, the whole foundation of trust that the relationship is built on crumbles.

You say marriage is about trust, I say trust is important, but it is about being able to coexist.

Trusting someone not to piss in your coffee is one thing. Placing oneself's health (medical or financial) on the line at their word is another.

I won't do that, and only a fool would. Only a self entitled jerk would ask me to.

I am out socializing every night. I was dating but stopped when I realized I didn't want a relationship. Getting back into the game now but I think forcing relationships leads to the very topic we are discussing.

ohokyeah: ForMadmenOnly: What's that about everything before the but?

Anyway - If you wouldn't want to be in her shoes, stop being an asshole.

Offer mitigating circumstances if you want, but you are contributing to assholish activity. Stop it.

For the record, I am reasonably sure the custom isn't for a woman (or a man) to have to ask if their partner wants an open relationship. In most cases, it is safe to assume a closed relationship is the default position. Husband is a jackass for not telling her beforehand. Shocker.

For the record, I'm pro equality, anti-marriage, and think religion is stupid in most cases. However, when the culture has a predominant form of a type of relationship, you're being a dick if you participate in breaking that custom.

Don't be a dick.

It's weird because I am also anti-marriage and am actually a non anti-religion atheist (I don't hold religion against people) and grew up in a household where the man of the house and the woman of the house were 50/50 all the way. Overall I do not think that stepping out on someone is acceptable but ever since I did cheat I can understand how it happens. In my case the relationship had died long ago. I did however see how what I was doing was wrong and broke the relationship off because it was not fair to my boyfriend. What I did/do was/is wrong. That doesn't mean I am accountable for everything. I wish the man would leave his wife. But not to be with me, I don't want that. He has tried to have the conversation with his wife about the terms of their relationship and she wont have it. If she doesn't want to even face the reality of what may be happening that's her problem and she shouldn't have married a man she didn't love because he knocked her up. I don't expect to get anyone's approval for what I'm doing or expect why I do it to make sense. The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

There's no reason the husband can't file for divorce, it sounds like he's making excuses so he can get a little something-something on the side. Sorry, but marriage in the Western World is rarely forced. If it's a loveless marriage, why would he want to stay unless he's afraid of the division of assets maybe?If not being about division of assets, maybe it has to do with guilt over the child that came from their earlier pairing. Though that's faulty logic on his part, the child(ren) get hurt either way, either via lack of affection for their mother while married or through watching the probably nasty divorce proceedings that will almost inevitably follow. Sometimes the most humane thing to do is to divorce early on when you realize there's no way it can work with the two of you behaving as a couple.

He may be a serial cheater, and she may simply be ignoring it or playing naive for her own financial stability which makes you more the fool than her. I believe you said you'd marry someone if they knocked you up, are you going to expect him to marry you if you get pregnant? You might have meant to say wouldn't given the context of what else was said, but you said "would" so I don't know what you meant. If you're saying you would marry because of pregnancy, it's kind of hypocritical, because that's apparently exactly what she did, and it probably is part of why she ended up in a loveless marriage with your lover.

You're helping deter affections from the wife and mother of his child. You are helping create an unhealthy idea of what a parental relationship should be like. Cordial divorced parents are sometimes better parents than ones that are cold towards each other because they both know there's cheating going on. You're helping set the standard for the kid to end up in the same situation as his/her parents are in because most people learn relationship dynamics from their families. I'm definitely not suggesting he wouldn't be doing the same if it weren't you, because most people that rationalize cheating probably still would cheat. I'm suggesting that the ones that really matter in this situation are the kids and apparently all the "adults" in this situation are being selfish.

No I said I wouldn't marry someone because I was knocked up which is what she did. And he's staying married because he thinks it's better for his kid.

Julie Cochrane: Take the decision to be a stay-home mom. It's great if the marriage works out. But you really have to trust your husband and your relationship, because if it turns out you were wrong about either---you're completely and utterly farked.

They outlawed alimony and child support now?

ForMadmenOnly: I am out socializing every night. I was dating but stopped when I realized I didn't want a relationship. Getting back into the game now but I think forcing relationships leads to the very topic we are discussing.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a relationship. There is a lot wrong with participating in an extramarital/extra-relationship affair, especially if you wouldn't want to be in the offended partner's position.

Since you don't want a relationship I think the obvious move is to not see this dude again. There are plenty of other men to have fun with without being a part of a real horrible experience for the other woman in the relationship.

Bender The Offender: ForMadmenOnly: What's that about everything before the but?

Anyway - If you wouldn't want to be in her shoes, stop being an asshole.

Offer mitigating circumstances if you want, but you are contributing to assholish activity. Stop it.

For the record, I am reasonably sure the custom isn't for a woman (or a man) to have to ask if their partner wants an open relationship. In most cases, it is safe to assume a closed relationship is the default position. Husband is a jackass for not telling her beforehand. Shocker.

For the record, I'm pro equality, anti-marriage, and think religion is stupid in most cases. However, when the culture has a predominant form of a type of relationship, you're being a dick if you participate in breaking that custom.

Don't be a dick.

It's weird because I am also anti-marriage and am actually a non anti-religion atheist (I don't hold religion against people) and grew up in a household where the man of the house and the woman of the house were 50/50 all the way. Overall I do not think that stepping out on someone is acceptable but ever since I did cheat I can understand how it happens. In my case the relationship had died long ago. I did however see how what I was doing was wrong and broke the relationship off because it was not fair to my boyfriend. What I did/do was/is wrong. That doesn't mean I am accountable for everything. I wish the man would leave his wife. But not to be with me, I don't want that. He has tried to have the conversation with his wife about the terms of their relationship and she wont have it. If she doesn't want to even face the reality of what may be happening that's her problem and she shouldn't have married a man she didn't love because he knocked her up. I don't expect to get anyone's approval for what I'm doing or expect why I do it to make sense. The question to me is this; is a forced loveless relationship bound by the same "rules?" I open to be swayed one way or the other.

I'll be honest, I think you're a terrible human being. You lack anything beyond the most superficial of emotions. You claim you've been on both sides of the equation, and demonstrate a complete lack of empathy. You're evil for blaming the guys wife. They are married, that covenant alone should be enough for you to not sleep with her husband buy instead you excuse your immorality by blaming an innocent woman that has never harmed you. You are the definition of a terrible person and you will never be in a good relationship because there is something inside you that is fundamentally flawed and broken.

Nope, lots of compassion and love here and everybody here to to blame; me, him and her but mainly him and I.

FarkLiberty: Julie Cochrane: Take the decision to be a stay-home mom. It's great if the marriage works out. But you really have to trust your husband and your relationship, because if it turns out you were wrong about either---you're completely and utterly farked.

They outlawed alimony and child support now?

I can imagine that in some (most?) cases the amount of income from that pales before the amount if she had remained in the workforce.