jenny Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 o well, if the impulse for bad-fiction continues, i give this pairing a shelf-life of 11 months before one of them feels "desperately unsatisfied, longing to do the right thing, but irresistibly drawn to the kindness in that stranger's eyes/loins; until their bodies coming together form one. . ." i know you think it's simply my inexpereince, merry, but that's not it, and it's an ad hominem besides. the man was married. she was so full of her own BS that she choose to ignore simple facts. there are millions of people out there and no shame in being alone, but she chose to continue talking to, and meeting, a married man who she knew was intentionally being unkind to his wife to get her to divorce him. imagine if the post had been pared down to its essentials, leaving out all the endless font about how good she considers herself: i have left my husband. i tried to get back together with him because i am good, but he is too bad. (fair enough on this part) i met another guy who was married. i love him. he left his wife because he doesn't like her, but he wants to be a good person so he went to church and back to her. i still love him. (repeat love 11 times) even though he is married to her, he calls me every day and i love him. we meet , and kiss, and make out but we don't have sex so it is not cheating and we are still good. i hope he leaves her. i can't wait till he leaves her. i know this might be wrong but i don't care about the wife, or ethics, or anything but my Love. (repest love another 7 times) so i'm pretty sure god and human nature wants it this way. o! i hope he leaves her, then i will be happy forever. he left her. we had sex. i talked to her. we are in love and nothing else matters, including who got hurt. so, i don't think she's terrible. i think she's tragic, and cheesy. no, closer to tacky. i think, merry, if i posted that i loved a married guy, regardless of the stage of seperation, you would tell me to get a life, a life big enough where i could meet lovable guys who were not married. you would ask me closely about the other woman's feelings and make me aware that my actions have an impact on people and consequences. you would remind that love is to some degree a choice, and it does not provide enough to live on, nor does it excuse poor behaviour. i would trust you to do this, or tell me *at least* to stop being with him unitl he has gotten complete closure from his other woman. finally, i wonder if this man has children?i doubt we'd hear about them, or much about hers, because kids don't really factor into the romance fiction genre. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 i know you think it's simply my inexpereince, merry, Not true. In this matter, we differ on semantics and chronology. . the man was married. See, I think that's the crux of it. She says she was attracted to him but did zipola UNTIL he separated. I believe that. If he had not been separated when they hooked up, I'd agree with you and Enigma, you see. I do not consider a man who has separated with the intent of divorcing to be 'married'. I was separated for a couple years before I divorced. The marriage was over; the paperwork just not complete. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 ok, but she met him, and talked to him, and made out with him, while he was living and trying to work it out with his wife, after the intial seperation - does this make any difference to you? she met him, knowing his wife was at home; she knew the wife was in the house when he called, she knew that he was treating the wife badly. more than anything, why do this when there are so many other options? for my concern: wife's pain > poster's oxytoxin. period. i do not have any female friends that would let me get away with this. why the non-sequitor plato quotation then? i'm not offended; i thought it was funny; i was just surprised. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 ok, but she met him, and talked to him, and made out with him, while he was living and trying to work it out with his wife, after the intial seperation - does this make any difference to you? she met him, knowing his wife was at home; she knew the wife was in the house when he called, she knew that he was treating the wife badly. I think if we assessed it the same, we'd have the same conclusions. To me, the wife already knew he didn't want to be married. She had kicked him out! Then, when he told her he had someone else, she talked him into trying a reconciliation, but surely she couldn't have believed that he was doing it because he truly wanted to reconcile. As I understand it, he tried it out of duty. To my mind, the marriage was already over when he left and what happened after that in his life was not something done against his wife. Yes, they met a couple of times during the pseudo reconciliation, but the reconciliation was a sham. I didn't get that the wife was given to understand anything other than that so it doesn't seem to me to be in the same realm as cheating on an unsuspecting wife who thinks a marriage is in fine shape. more than anything, why do this when there are so many other options? ? It wasn't a long time frame. for my concern: wife's pain > poster's oxytoxin. period. Marriage was dead; pain was begun before poster got to dose up on oxytocin. why the non-sequitor plato quotation then? i'm not offended; i thought it was funny; i was just surprised. Remember your supposition about my antiquity. Certainly years add perspective and nuance situations. I see, however, that you're not being black-and-white but rather that we have not interpreted the chronology and its implicatons the same way. To you, wife was wounded by the second relationship. To me, the marriage was over before ithe second relationship began and therefore she was no longer 'wife' to be wounded. Link to post Share on other sites
LuckyStar Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 The problem that most people have with marriage is, until a divorce is finalized it's not over. The other man and his wife were married and i bet he was initimate. And it's unclear whether or not she's still married. Her motives and actions are wrong. What's Love got to do with this? Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 aahh..i see. ok. i am using the wife's timeline, and you are using the poster's. i understand where we are coming from now. i don't find the poster a very credible, because oblivious, narrator, so i am more prone to accepting the wife's (the victim's) perception of events. to the wife, the marriage was not over. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts