Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

QuackQuackOops

Welshwoofs wrote: »

It wasn't a comparison. It was two completely different examples of situations where surface appearances sometimes don't tell the full story,




I'm sorry to say that 'vows' mean very little to me. I'm not religious and I don't believe that marriage is necessarily for life - it may have been when we were all pretty much destined to die from some nasty malady before we reached 40, but I don't personally believe it's terribly realistic to think that everyone who gets married is going to remain in love and happy with that person for 40-50 years.

It'd be nice if everyone could extricate themselves from a dead marriage before finding a new relationship but again, realistically, that's not always going to be the case. I'd also add that even if they do the honourable thing and end the marriage before looking elsewhere, it's still going to hurt and devastate the spouse if they didn't also want it to be over.

The only thing there that doesnt tell the full story is the one about the child being run over.
Most people on hearing that news would ask things such as "Was it a hit and run?" "Was the driver drunk". Anyone who might think the driver was a b***** would change their mind when the full story is revealed because a driver who had a massive heart attack would not be responsible for a deliberate act.
Most people would then have compassion and understanding even though the situation would be heart-breaking.

A woman dating a man who she knows to be married no matter how she got there is carrying on with a deliberate act...something she chooses and he chooses too.
How are you unable to see the difference between deliberate, choosen paths and accidents?

Vows may mean little to you but I wasn't referring to any vows you have made. I was talking about vows the man made to another woman. You might not be religious or hold any clout to the vows but the man obviously does because he made them.
The point I made was that HE made vows to love that woman, his wife. HE made vows to always care and love her no matter what.
Yet the other woman can never grasp that he has broken his word to the most important thing in his life (which she was at the time at least)
I was not talking about your views. I was talking about his.

Yes, he could take himself away from the marriage if, as you say, its a dead marriage anyway. Why not? There are no reasons to stay in a dead marriage.
What the other woman doesn't also seem to be able to grasp is that the man stays with his wife when the marriage is dead. And even when someone else (the mistress) comes along and he gets to the point that he loves her, that love is still not enough to tear him away from the bad, dead marriage.

A woman worth her salt would say to the man "You need to know whats right for you and you can't do that while seeing me. We need to be apart and you need to work on your marriage properly and if thats not possible then you need to free yourself before you take on someone else. Us sneaking around is going to do more harm than good"

Which then leads on to the hurt and devestation the wife feels. At least she will be able to look back and know that the marriage had a chance and it was over because of the right reasons. Not just because of another woman who was willing to open her legs now and then and of course, played the part of being the most understanding woman in the world.

Your posts and others like your posts are nothing more than defensive stances against behavious that are seen as wrong by the majority of people. Pretty much like defiant teenagers who know they are in the wrong deep down but never like to lose face.

Affairs are never ok.

The concept is called being considerate of others.

Taadaa

VestanPance wrote: »

Oh look it excuse time. It's not an excellent point at all. People are well aware the ending a relationship will hurt, but then there's doing it with a clear mind and dignity or with no dignity with an affair.

Yeah you are right, it's not particularly dignified. Then again, neither is looking down your nose at others.

All I can say is that my life experiences have made me a more patient, non-judgemental and understanding person.

Best shoot me now...

VestanPance

QuackQuackOops wrote: »

How are you unable to see the difference between deliberate, choosen paths and accidents?

That would be because it doesn't suit their argument.

The phrase Thatchers children springs to mind. Selfish at the expense of others. I think the old phrase for it was 'they'd sell their granny'.

VestanPance

Taadaa wrote: »

Yeah you are right, it's not particularly dignified. Then again, neither is looking down your nose at others.

All I can say is that my life experiences have made me a more patient, non-judgemental and understanding person.

Best shoot me now...

No you just like excuses for your own actions.

Welshwoofs

VestanPance wrote: »

You should never get married if that's your attitude. The length of time has nothing to do with it. The success depends on both putting the effort in, not running away.

I have never been married and never will; I have no need to say vows and sign a piece of paper to commit to someone. I can commit, but I simply can't guarantee that I can commit to them for life, nor do I expect them to guarantee that they can commit to me for life.

People change and even if the maximum effort is put in on both sides, it's simply not the case that a couple WILL remain happy and together. There's no shame in calling it a day if things aren't working out; far better that than shambling along in a hollow marriage out of some perverse sense of duty.

Of course some people are happy to be married to the same person for life and all power to them, but divorce statistics would suggest that plenty are not.

Taadaa

VestanPance wrote: »

No you just like excuses for your own actions.

And you just like being inflammatory.

Welshwoofs

VestanPance wrote: »

The phrase Thatchers children springs to mind. Selfish at the expense of others. I think the old phrase for it was 'they'd sell their granny'.

Thatcher's children? That's quite some assumption you've jumped to. I was born in the 60s sweetheart.

Oddly the phrase that's springing to my mind at the moment is pompous git

VestanPance

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Of course some people are happy to be married to the same person for life and all power to them, but divorce statistics would suggest that plenty are not.

And it'll continue to increase as the children of them see that as normal to cut and run, not to work at something to make it better.

I find it interesting that so many see love and marriage as a short term thing. Would they apply the same concept of love to their children?

nickyhutch

VestanPance wrote: »

I find it interesting that so many see love and marriage as a short term thing. Would they apply the same concept of love to their children?

Love for a parter and love for a child are two very different things. What a ridiculous comparison.

whitewing

VP that is the bit that puzzles me. WW has just been on another thread slating a man for 'abandoning' a baby that was unplanned, and yet she can't commit to a partner for life.