Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

pineapple

In my long life I've been all three, the cheater, the cheated on and the other woman. So I've learned that things are not always conveniently black and white. When my partner had an affair for example, I didn't blame the other woman. She wasn't a cause, she was a symptom. If I was going to be angry with anyone, it was the partner. Yet even then I couldn't blame him 100%.
It would be so much easier if everything was black and white - and if cliches like 'once a cheater always a cheater' were true. But they aren't. People are human, they make mistakes, they change... And personally I've known one or two 'cheaters' who've gone on to have successful marriages.
That's not to deny there aren't serial philanderers but that's another issue.
Life is imperfect and so are we.

FatVonD

Pollycat wrote: »

I've not been rude or aggressive to the OP (or anybody else posting on this thread - AFAIK).

I would never dismiss someone's views because of their age or because they have Asperger's.

My point was that until Errata mentioned it, we were pretty much unaware that Radiography had Aspergers.

Maybe if (when people were commenting on the tone of her posts) she'd said that, more posters would have understood.

I personally don't see having Aspergers as being an excuse to post in an aggressive manner.
Or maybe I simply don't understand the condition.

Sorry, Pollycat, that wasn't directed at you, just lazy quoting on my part.

FatVonD

I was pondering this on the bus this morning and many people (not least of all me) have stressed that what he stands to lose financially will have a bearing on his decision as if he was going lose 50% of what is his and his alone. The reality though is that, after 20 years or so of marriage (whether his wife has worked or just brought up his children), he only owns 50% of anything now so the decision is actually whether he wants to stop pooling his assets with his wife. Presumably if he were to leave his wife he could eventually pool his 50% share of the assets with PTN and he would be no worse off than he is now. Of course, if his wife's assets are greater than PTN's (and no, that's not a euphemism!) and he chooses to stay for that reason then he's an even bigger scumbag than I already think he is!

victory

Good point never thought of it that way, very good point.

victory

..........................................

POPPYOSCAR

FatVonD wrote: »

I was pondering this on the bus this morning and many people (not least of all me) have stressed that what he stands to lose financially will have a bearing on his decision as if he was going lose 50% of what is his and his alone. The reality though is that, after 20 years or so of marriage (whether his wife has worked or just brought up his children), he only owns 50% of anything now so the decision is actually whether he wants to stop pooling his assets with his wife. Presumably if he were to leave his wife he could eventually pool his 50% share of the assets with PTN and he would be no worse off than he is now. Of course, if his wife's assets are greater than PTN's (and no, that's not a euphemism!) and he chooses to stay for that reason then he's an even bigger scumbag than I already think he is!

I think if the decision is made on a financial basis then he does not really love either of them, only himself.

victory

But financial is logical and affairs are irrational?

victory

..................................................

lostinrates

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes its a difficult situation.

Thats why, I suppose ,there are those that say married couples should have a financial advantage so this sort of thing does not happen.

IMO, playing a system is not nice either. I can see the temptation, but it doesn't sit right.

I don't think that married couples should necessarily have advantage at all, but shouldn't be disadvantaged.

fwiw, my guess is that if I did have children they'd gain more from eample of loving relationship in the house than they would *some * extra money.

(presuming they had warmth, food and safety in their lives...)

POPPYOSCAR

lostinrates wrote: »

IMO, playing a system is not nice either. I can see the temptation, but it doesn't sit right.

I don't think that married couples should necessarily have advantage at all, but shouldn't be disadvantaged.

fwiw, my guess is that if I did have children they'd gain more from eample of loving relationship in the house than they would *some * extra money.

(presuming they had warmth, food and safety in their lives...)

I understand what you are saying, but if it means struggling, and don't forget he may have maintenance to pay as well,then I can understand why someone would do it.

I don't see it as playing the system in the case quoted, as they do not live together and are boyfriend and girlfriend. I see it as sacrificing part of their relationship perhaps in order to give their family/families
a reasonable standing of living, perhaps not even a good one, perhaps just a sustainable one.