Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

euronorris

Marriage classes, for those getting married in a church, are still a requirement imposed by most (if not all) churches. As is attending Sunday service for a set amount of time before the ceremony.

I don't believe registry offices do anything like that (that I'm aware of)

catkins

euronorris wrote: »

Marriage classes, for those getting married in a church, are still a requirement imposed by most (if not all) churches. As is attending Sunday service for a set amount of time before the ceremony.

I don't believe registry offices do anything like that (that I'm aware of)

Well registry offices did not when I got married (over 30 years ago) and I am pretty sure they do not now.

Churches do require the couple go to church for a certain amount of time but I think each church may vary (although I am not sure). I seem to recall that a friend of mine only had to go for 4 weeks whereas a friend who is getting married later this year has to go for 6 months. Not sure I see the point because once they are married if they were not churchgoers before I am pretty sure they will not go again

neverdespairgirl

nickyhutch wrote: »

I didn't say she could; I just said something wrong in the relationship. Do you honestly think the wife is always blameless, that it's never down to something she does or doesn't do, something that's changed in the relationship? That it's always the man's fault?

I don't think it's gender specific. But the person who cheats is entirely in the wrong when s(he) makes that decision. It doesn't matter what, if any, the issues are in the relationship. They should be sorted out or the relationship ended.

To my mind, it's a bit like asking to look at the behaviour of someone who hits a partner. There might be reasons. they aren't good ones, or excuses, and the hitter is in the wrong.

neverdespairgirl

purpletoenails wrote: »

I'm still not sure what good it would do her to know? If, as most people on here assume, he is only using me and will never leave her, then whats the point in her knowing?

The point? That she is (finally) able to make her own decisions, based on proper knowledge.

As far as I know, my OH hasn't ever cheated on me. I don't think he will, and I certainly hope he won't.

If he did, however, I'd want to know about it, so I could make my own decisions about the relationship, and my physical, mental and sexual health.

One of the most damaging things about infidelity is that it takes away the autonomy and independence of the person cheated on. That person should know what is happening. You know you're having an affair with a married man. He knows he's cheating. You are both making decisions on the basis of those facts.

The wife, on the other hand, doesn't have that.

neverdespairgirl

nickyhutch wrote: »

He was willing to cross the line of cheating on that woman. That doesn't mean he'll cross the line of cheating on a different woman. We don't know why he's cheating, but whatever it is that's wrong in the relationship to make him cheat might not exist in a new relationship.

I'm not defending cheating, just saying that it's not a foregone conclusion that a cheater is always a cheater.

I agree that cheating once doesn't mean cheating always.

But I think that carrying on a sexual and emotional affair for well over 2 years demonstrates a breathtaking ability to lie and dissemble. And it shows a happiness and willingness to live like that.

Whatever relationship the man's in, he'll take with him that lying and cheating ability, and whatever void in him he's seeking to fill will remain.

CH27

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I agree that cheating once doesn't mean cheating always.

But I think that carrying on a sexual and emotional affair for well over 2 years demonstrates a breathtaking ability to lie and dissemble. And it shows a happiness and willingness to live like that.

Whatever relationship the man's in, he'll take with him that lying and cheating ability, and whatever void in him he's seeking to fill will remain.

And that's why IMO the OP will never rest easy if she gets her man.
She knows what he is capable of.

catkins

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I can't believe anyone, however dense, goes into marriage not knowing that they are meant to be faithful to the person they are marrying. I accept they probably take a "only while it suits me" attitude, but they do at least understand the principle? If not then we are further down the slippery slope than I thought.

I can't remember the wording of the civil ceremony (although I had one, but that was 37 years ago!), but the church one definitely includes "forsaking all others".

A lot of people don't see the point of marriage, and think it is outdated - that's their prerogative, but for those who do take the plunge they might at least pay lip service to what is supposed to be a solemn commitment to monogamy.

I think a lot of people don't take marriage seriously. Nowadays it has turned into the big flashy day. Thousands spent on a big dress, big cars etc etc. Of course people are entitled to spend what they like but when and why did it become this over the top?

I know quite a few couples who spent over £10,000, most of them getting into debt, and they are almost all divorced now, several of them getting divorced long before the debt was paid! One couple spent £15,000 and then spent the next 3 years moaning about the small damp rented flat they had in a pretty bad area when most of their friends had suggested using that money as a deposit on a house and having a cheaper wedding.

When I got married it was the norm for weddings to be pretty cheap. I got married in a registry office but both my siblings got married in church and none of our weddings cost much. We all enjoyed our days, as did our guests, and we are all still with our partners (myself 32 years and my siblings both 30 years).

It just seems now it is all about the one day and not the actual married life ahead of you i.e. about the wedding and not the marriage. Personally I have never really bought into "it's the happiest day of your life". Of course it should be a happy day but really the happiest? May as well kill yourself after then. It was a happy day for me but I have had plenty of as happy ones since

Both me and my husband have very strong views and beliefs on marriage. We did not get married in church because neither of us are particularly religious but still believe strongly in marriage and the vows - in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part. We both strongly disagree with infidelity and, whilst neither of us believe in divorce, if our marriage had not worked out we would have separated but not divorced.

POPPYOSCAR

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I agree that cheating once doesn't mean cheating always.

But I think that carrying on a sexual and emotional affair for well over 2 years demonstrates a breathtaking ability to lie and dissemble. And it shows a happiness and willingness to live like that.

Whatever relationship the man's in, he'll take with him that lying and cheating ability, and whatever void in him he's seeking to fill will remain.

Whilst no doubt there are those people that are 'serial' cheaters not everyone is like that.

I know of people who have cheated and then married the person they had the affair with.They are happy and have no 'void' in them.

You cannot tar everyone with the same brush.

VestanPance

I'd say you'd be a fool to trust anyone who cheated in a previous relationship. They've shown that they're willing to take that as an option rather than doing the right thing of trying to resolve what ever issues there are and if it wasn't possible to resolve them then break up first before seeking a new partner.

At the very least it gives you a great insight into their personality on how the deal with any difficulties that may lie ahead.

poet123

VestanPance wrote: »

I'd say you'd be a fool to trust anyone who cheated in a previous relationship. They've shown that they're willing to take that as an option rather than doing the right thing of trying to resolve what ever issues there are and if it wasn't possible to resolve them then break up first before seeking a new partner.

At the very least it gives you a great insight into their personality on how the deal with any difficulties that may lie ahead.

That sums it up for me, if they do it once, the propensity is there, the ability is there, the will is there.

That is why I think that those in public office should be named if they do it, if they can cheat on their nearest and dearest it shows to me a character trait that I would much rather not see in those in whom I am supposed to place my trust. They go down in my estimation.