Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

nickyhutch

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

I would have to look up the words to be sure. eta think you are quite right, unless the couple choose to say that.
Bit of a hassle though, having to check out what the guy said in his wedding vows and where he said them!!



Unless there are very strong mitigating factors, e.g. abuse, yes I am.

Was it you or someone else who mentioned a husband who was verbally abusing the children? Well if that was systematic then that would be a reason wouldn't it?

I have to say I think that's rather extreme.

So I fall out of love with my OH, and he with me, and we are unhappy living together, try hard but can't get past it, never do anything together, never go on holiday together, avoid each other in the home, never socialise, never have sex, have grown older and no longer have anything in common, but we should stay together because 20 years ago we said "til death us do part"?

Yes, it was me who said that. My ex-OH once called my son (then 7) a "little !!!!". It wasn't systematic and he'd never done the same to me other that in tit-for-tat arguments where we both gave the same as we got. It was the final straw for me. He was and is a fantastic father. For him to have said that, even under his breath and probably out of earshot of DS (and maybe even directed at me as we were mid-argument), I knew he was pushed to the limit, and the state of our relationship had done that. I knew then it was time to give up.

nickyhutch

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

Unless there are very strong mitigating factors, e.g. abuse, yes I am.

But who decides the "mitigating factors"? Would those factors have to be up to your very high standards? What one person can weather and put up with could absolutely ruin another's life. Just because you could live together despite being unhappy, doesn't mean others could - it would send me round the bend, lead to me to drink.... anything could happen.

If your OH had an affair, confessed (or you found out) and ended it, and asked you to stay, despite it making you unhappy?

gratefulforhelp_2

nickyhutch wrote: »

But who decides the "mitigating factors"? Would those factors have to be up to your very high standards? What one person can weather and put up with could absolutely ruin another's life. Just because you could live together despite being unhappy, doesn't mean others could - it would send me round the bend, lead to me to drink.... anything could happen.

If your OH had an affair, confessed (or you found out) and ended it, and asked you to stay, despite it making you unhappy?

I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here, I'm a sinner and worse than many, I'm sure.

What I'm on about is what you strive for in your life.

Who decides? Well it used to be society...but now we are left with the individual, his/her conscience, his/her family and his/her God - if applicable.

I would struggle terribly with staying with DH on those circs, but I would probably give it a go...though don't tell him that!!

eta I don't think one can be led to drink either.

lostinrates

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Well it wasn't me who got married. It'd be a cold day in hell before I ever tied the knot

The point of my post is that all this moral bombast about getting divorced before embarking on another relationship is just rot. People get married for all sorts of reasons these days..from the sham marriage (as my ex did), or because they're just a little bit dim and don't look beyond 'the big day', or because they rather stupidly believe that getting married will fix an already broken relationship (oh...and if that doesn't work then getting pregnant is always sure to work).

This Daily Mailesque fallacy that marriage is sacred is something straight out of fairy tales. It never has been. The only difference between now and 'the good old days' is that now divorce is socially acceptable so people do it...in the 'good old days' people simply kept a bad marriage together for outward appearances and did what they wanted behind the scenes.

Again...people really need to look beyond the black and white and into the shades of grey.

I'm married. I've been married for 6 years, together for eight. I have no moral view against divorce or people having a relationship after agreeing to split but before divorce. No big day here, no relationship fixing (although we did really want dh to formally be my NoK for medical reasons) and not a fairytale, but a bloody good romcom

I have also been in one open but committed relationship (first ''serious'' relationship) and more than one casual and open relationships, so I really do have not a whole view, but a pretty good view from other angles. And I really can see the difference between an open relationship and an affair. And from the point of view of marriage.


Suggesting that this is not possible, long term commitment with a respect to others' long term commitment is equally ignoring a ''shade of grey''. A few of us HAVE been in the situation and declined. A few of us have decided to to a permanant or long term commitment for ourselves and while I wouldn't dream of wanting someone to do something before a cold day in hell happened, I also think its fair that people understand that for others this commitment is very sincere and serious.

I can't tell you whether we will last, or dh will cheat or not, I can only tell you that I believe that we will stick to it.

In cidentally, I remember reading once research that people who had been in families where divorce happened were more likely to divorce. Its a bit of a meanlingless stat, because oit gives no basis as to joy and experience with in those relationships... DH's dad is thrice married, but widowed from his second wife, my husband's mother. My parents are divorcing now we are adult...no infidelty as far as anyone knows at least. I have no idea if the stability in marriage reflects on us, I doubt it from my pov because I had more liberal relationships in the past. I certainly couldn't understand staying in a bad marriage, but similarly I find it difficult to understand not working on a good one when it hits problems.

nickyhutch

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here, I'm a sinner and worse than many, I'm sure.

What I'm on about is what you strive for in your life.

Who decides? Well it used to be society...but now we are left with the individual, his/her conscience, his/her family and his/her God - if applicable.

I would struggle terribly with staying with DH on those circs, but I would probably give it a go...though don't tell him that!!

eta I don't think one can be led to drink either.

Thanks for your reply, which makes complete sense.

When I say led to drink, I mean to feel that you need to blank things out to the extent that you need to be either intoxicated or mildly numbed. You're weak, have no support, are vulnerable, lonely, no-one to turn to and are stuck with a partner you don't like or love just because 20 years ago you were madly in love and believed every word you said when you stood there in front of everyone important to you. Just because you haven't experienced or seen that in others doesn't mean it can't be the case.

Bogof_Babe

Errata wrote: »

I thought a civil ceremony married people, but with no part of it requiring them to spend the rest of their lives together. It's a legal undertaking, and the law doesn't give two hoots how long peeople choose to stay married.

I find that surprising, but if you say so.

Doesn't that mean there is no such thing as a contrived marriage then? It shouldn't matter if they wed and then say cheerio at the register office door and never see eachother again.

As regards the other party being innocent even when they know they are chasing a married person, in my case the OW made all the running. My OH for some reason was not strong enough to tell her to sling her hook, probably flattered by the attention, but he never phoned her or initiated contact other than when they unavoidably saw eachother at work. I know this because I have access to phone records.

Yes it was his fault for not making it plain that he wasn't interested, but it was she who kept phoning him at home while I was away, so I do blame her even though he is the married party. He is guilty of not putting a stop to it, which isn't quite the same thing as making all the running.

erdd2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My own opinion is that the divorce should be finalised, or at least at decree nisi stage.

Scotland does not grant divorce decree until all marital matters are formally agreed between the parties and this can take many years. In some cases one party having access to children and marital assets block and no relationship...kinda lonely place to be...but this useful thread illustrates so many scenarios all with their own mix of contingencies and so much pain, emotions and viewpoints.

erdd2

FireyFaerie wrote: »

But purple is single, she does not know his wife and kids..

but purple knows OF them!

Purple I am not having a go as I respect that you are seeking information about your situation and have been subjected to some scathing attacks and I take my hat off to you for taking it on the chin and the opportunity for such a sensitive topic to be explored. :T

VestanPance

erdd2 wrote: »

Scotland does not grant divorce decree until all marital matters are formally agreed between the parties and this can take many years. In some cases one party having access to children and marital assets block and no relationship...kinda lonely place to be...but this useful thread illustrates so many scenarios all with their own mix of contingencies and so much pain, emotions and viewpoints.

This is incorrect or old information. In Scotland after two years of seperation a divorce will be granted, even if contested by the other party.

As for 'till death do us part' being wrong, well if you believe that you should never get married in the first place.

One thing that's interesting is many who argue for divorce, affairs etc seem to come from broken parental relationships and know many other who also divorce and have affairs at will. I grew up without knowing anyone who had divorced, and as I approach 40 I'm the only divorcee in my circle of friends. Strangely enough my ex who had an affair and dumped me had come from parents that split. Looks like she was a chip off her dads block after all.

nickyhutch

VestanPance wrote: »

This is incorrect or old information. In Scotland after two years of seperation a divorce will be granted, even if contested by the other party.

As for 'till death do us part' being wrong, well if you believe that you should never get married in the first place. If you don't include that bit in the vows, then is that different? We don't all have the same view of marriage, due to our experiences, so some of us may not want that bit in there.

One thing that's interesting is many who argue for divorce, affairs etc seem to come from broken parental relationships and know many other who also divorce and have affairs at will. I grew up without knowing anyone who had divorced, and as I approach 40 I'm the only divorcee in my circle of friends. Strangely enough my ex who had an affair and dumped me had come from parents that split. Looks like she was a chip off her dads block after all.

So every daughter of a philanderer turns out to cheat? And every woman who cheats is the daughter of a philanderer? I do see what you're saying, but you are generalising.