Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

gratefulforhelp_2

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I knew someone would say something like that, that's why I put all the "usually(s)"in there And I didn't say that anyway, so stop putting words in my mouth

To answer your question.
They can like sex, but often have to be forced into having a good time. I find a few metres of rope usually does the trick :rotfl:

edit, OK just read that and it sounds a bit dodgy, so let me say that if I did do that, obviously it would be with both persons consent. Phew, I think I got out of that one

LMAO so clearly I AM having a good time with no need for the (huge quantity, really that much?) rope;)

Lotus-eater

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

LMAO so clearly I AM having a good time with no need for the (huge quantity, really that much?) rope;)

I dunno, hypothetically I suppose depends what you are doing with it. (I guess )

lostinrates

re men v women. I once heard a theory that in general, with exceptions, a man falls in love once, hard. It could be with his mother...so his wife will be like his mother, or a first girlfriend, or a second wife, the unconscious separation between love and lust allows themselves a lot of leeway. But women are more adaptable, and we love hard and true and as strongly each time.

I don't THINK it holds true in many cases, nbut sometimes I sort of see it. e.g. I'd had ''relationships'' before dh, as well as ''fun'' but dh only had ''fun''. He was of the opinion that it looked a lot of ''emotion'' to go through with someone you weren't convinced you had a future with, so he'd rather wait til he met someone he thought it looked potentially good with. He's been very lucky I think, that its worked for him. Similarly, when I talk about him moving on after me he gets very upset, I don't really. I can imagine me loving someone else should something happen to him. I'd always love him too, but....

ceridwen

jw1096 wrote: »

Without being rude - you have to remember that all behaviour is human, and just because some of it is wrong when looked at against your moral code, its not the same for others; therefore, this is your opinion - not a truth.

Im not condoning PTN at all, im just saying that there is such a thing as the various shades of grey. It's wrong to cheat? Well, what about polygamous communities? They feel its right. What about whether god exists? Religious organisations insist on the belief, when others think its a ridiculous idea. What about abortion? And it's illegal to kill someone right? Actually, in my world, its not always the case. As a specific culture in a specific time and place there will always be a common set of values, its what holds societies together. It forms the loose basis of the law and justice in that society. But that set of values will never be identical to everyone in that society, and they will change over time. the values and ideals of our great great grandparents are different to those we have today. Its not that they were wrong, and neither are we.

So, no Moral/Behaviour on this earth is simple black and white, and its not for any of us to say that there is no excuse to adultery.

JO

Hmmm.....:think: it would be possible to get into such a long discussion about that - ie as to whether morality is relative or there are some things that hold true in any time/any place.

So - do I personally think there are things that are always always wrong - whatever country/whatever century? I would have to say theft is always always wrong (with the only exception being if they had stolen from you in the first place - and you were just "repatriating" things - eg an employer/member of aristocracy/etc that had stolen your possessions/land from you in the first place). But ordinary person to ordinary person = its always wrong.

Killing someone - if done because the "killer" is evil/a criminal/etc - is always wrong. Killing someone on the command of your government (ie we're at war with that country right now - so go and kill a totally innocent stranger - because you're a soldier for this country and they are one for that country) is always wrong.

Discriminating against someone on grounds of something they cant help - like their sex/age/state of health is always wrong.

Where adultery is basically wrong - is if the married/living together person committing adultery never said at the start of that marriage that they didnt regard themselves as bound to be faithful to their partner. If it was agreed at the outset that it was an "open marriage" - then fair enough. If they caught their partner out doing it first - then fair enough. But if they went into a marriage etc without saying they didnt feel bound by the "default setting" (ie faithfulness) and then went ahead and were unfaithful to their partner - then they are wrong/always wrong - in any country or century that has a "default setting" of expecting that a partnership will be faithful. In Britain AFAIK it has always been the "default setting" to assume that marriage/living together means faithfulness.

POPPYOSCAR

VestanPance wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the concept of cheating, as that is not cheating.

It may be a lifestyle that is uncommon in the UK, but as long as all involved have an agreement on the relationship type then it doesn't constitute cheating.

You're confusing that act of sex with cheating. I wouldn't even say you need to go that far to cheat. For me sending sexy e-mails or texts would be cheating as it breaks a trust.

Even if both partners are having sex outside of the marriage with agreement, surely that must still technically be classed as adultery?

gratefulforhelp_2

If they are married, then yes.

Emmzi

But adultery is not necessarily cheating.

POPPYOSCAR

Emmzi wrote: »

But adultery is not necessarily cheating.

Yes, so can it be said then that adultery is wrong!

Errata

Plain speaking: shagging someone behind your spouse or partners back is cheating.

Bogof_Babe

Pollycat wrote: »

Bogof_Babe

Your second paragraph sounds like there's still a chance, I thought from something you'd posted a few days ago that it was all over, so fingers crossed for you that it works out - if that is what want and you feel is best for you.

I thought it was all over too, when he told me the weekend before last that he couldn't hug me because he "needs more time" - this being three days after he found out that *she* wasn't going back to work. When it was just an infatuation I was telling myself it was separate from our relationship, but when it appeared to have changed his feelings for me I decided enough was enough.

He text me after four days of silence to say he was sorry and it was all his fault, although he didn't say what was his fault. I had to come back anyway on Wednesday because I needed some stuff, and I admit when I first saw him I thought "what am I throwing away?" He still attracts me (although he's no Adonis, just an ordinary bloke), and I do have 37 years invested in this marriage.

I'm telling myself that it is something that I've got him and she hasn't, at least as it now stands. I hope she feels a damn fool for chasing someone out of her league. He tells me now that he could never have lived with her "because she is dangerous" - anyone else spot the irony in that? (Drat can't get the rolley eyes smiley to work now ).

There was a chap singing in town today - when he started singing a song called Time to Say Goodbye my OH stood rivetted and insisted on listening right to the end, so I know he is still emotionally tangled up. However he has said that at no time in all this did he ever intend it to split us up (naive or what?) so that again is something for me to cling on to.

I'm not sure whether we will get through this in the end, but having looked at random examples of the other blokes around in our sort of age group I decided that it is going to be him or no-one!

I'll keep you all posted!