I'd act somewhat upset, but gently tell her that I love her dearly and that I couldn't think of giving up all the good times over one discretion. Then I'd take out a large life insurance policy on her.
In my little scenario, understand that the best friend is history, of course, but the problem is not telling the friends the reasons because then working out the relationship would be history. They think your being an a-hole to the friend and just don't get it. They hang with the friend and you can't do the same due to potential violent (or otherwise, hopefully) confrontations (coming from you, naturally). The friend doesn't explain what's happening to the others as the friend doesn't want to be seen as what the friend is (fill in the blank) and has been told to keep quiet. The relationship with the spouse is delicate, the spouse loves you and wants to work it out, but doesn't want the bad publicity. The spouse loved the friend as a friend, as did you, and didn't intend for it all to happen. You love the spouse and have for years prior to getting married, so it's a long term relationship that's on the line. Unfortunately, your effort to keep the marriage together has unforeseen results over the years with the other friends. The marriage works out great after this early bad period, but your life is very different. You have kids later and all that is great, the relationship ends up great, but you keep wondering if it was still all a big mistake. Not all the time, just when you think about the friends you no longer have. Pretty complicated hypothetical, huh?
<b>Jeff, isn't the odds the other way around? I thought men was 40% and women was 60%?</b> Some studies vary widely but the most respected have been the Kinsey Institute and the Institute for ... something and marriage. Crap, I hate it when I can't remember. Both of them show something like 60-65 percent male and 45-50 percent female. I found a few references on the net to those same numbers as well. <b>Not that I disagree with you, but I don't see how relationship problems help justify cheating (which at the heart of it is what you're trying to say). To me it's the same as trying to argue that a parent figure who worked to hard and didn't spend enought time with their kid growing up is just as responsible when the kid goes on a shooting spree years later because of depression. Would you really want to be with someone who didn't respect you enough to bring up the realtionship problem first and try to work things through? If you are too stubborn and she has tried her hardest to make things work and cheating is the last resort, you're in the wrong relationship anyway.</b> It is NEVER justified, however, think of it this way. Are you the same person you were 5 years ago? Do you think and believe all the same things? Has your relationship changed you at all? There isn't a cookie cutter solution to these types of problems. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It is very difficult to make a determination about how you would handle it unless you were in the situation.
giddyup: I just wanted to post this to you directly. Your situation SUCKED beyond belief. Your ex sounds like a b**** on wheels and I'm sorry that you and your kids had to go through all that. Good for you for doing what you cool, but good grief, that sounds awful. :angry:
I'd be 43 by the time 20 years had elapsed. I'd probably have several children in the 8-15 year old range. Divorce is not an attractive option. It isn't that elapsed time dulls the pain, it's that in the intervening years you have deepened your commitment to the woman substantially and can no longer afford to surrender all that and start over. If my wife had told me she cheated on my when I was 25, I could get a clean divorce and find a new spouse (as could she) and there'd be no children to consider. At 43, you put the kids' future in jeopardy and face a more difficult market in remarrying. As far as pain inflicted, that's probably worse -- knowing, in addition to the infidelity, that she's essentially tricked you into tolerating it -- though you're more stuck than ever. So, I don't think I would divorce. I might murder her though. I'm not recommending it nor justifying it. But I might in this hypothetical.
Is she a janitor or a peasant? <b>jeff</b>: Yeah, I guess she was a b**** (on- or off-wheels). This was back in the late 80s when women could do no wrong. We got married too young, lived 7 years without kids and 6 with kids. Now you may understand why I don't resonate to some of the feminist tripe. Yea, Tammy Bruce! Ask any woman (except my ex-wife, of course) who knows me and they'll tell you I'm about the most fair-minded man toward women they've ever met-- for a Republican, of course!!! On top of that she cheated on me when we were engaged. She shrugged it off as one of those my-last-chance deals. We got married anyway. I'm glad we did because we have two beautiful kids together. To top things off 10 years ago she asked permission to move an hour away for a 2-year job. That was 10 years ago. Do some people just have no conscience?
Oh, I knew you were kidding. I was just referencing the other thread about the "predators" at K-Mart and Enron.
I remember that! Reagan granted women special legal immunity back in '87. Man what a time I had in my late teen theiving and vandalizing ... then wet blanket George Bush Sr. had to come into office and spoil our fun. Now we have to obey the same damn laws as everyone else.
Get pissed if you want but you're not even trying to understand what I am saying. I'm not talking about petty misdemeanors, I'm talking about feminist politics here! Were you married to a woman coming of age in the late 80s? I didn't think so! If you really want to discuss this... I'm up for it, but don't exagerate and distort what I'm saying with your anti-Reaganesque bootjack rants!
giddyup: Um, I think you missed the joke. It's called "exaggeration." She wasn't literally saying that women had some kind of immunity from criminal behavior. You knew that, right?
Of course, I picked up on the sarcasm/exageration.... but it was attached to an Angry Face which indicated her being irked with my assertion. Not all sarcasm grows out of agreement... in fact, very little does!
Her was in response to this fictional statement: "then wet blanket George Bush Sr. had to come into office and spoil our fun. Now we have to obey the same damn laws as everyone else." as if she was pissed at having her "fun" spoiled, not because she was pissed at you or your statement. She was trying to poke fun at the way it sounded. Why am I explaining a joke that someone else told?
<b>jeff</b>: obviously these brief, cryptic comments are open to interpretation. There's no way of knowing to what exactly the Angry Emoticon belongs. May I surmise that you are talking to the author? I've never seen or would have expected Anger to rear its head in a sarcastic response...
