I was going to say you should think through the logistics before saying yes, but if the logistics are dinner at your place I guess the rest can work itself out. You sound clear-headed given all that's going on and I think you're leaning toward wanting to try (or at least spend dinner talking more about what that would look like) and so sure, why not? Because you know the why nots and if you found them sufficiently compelling you wouldn't still be asking.

This is so obviously a terrible idea that the fact that you're asking makes it clear you're going to do it.

2 gets it right.

Yes to 2.
"I think we should have an affair!"
"Hmm, why don't you come over to my place for dinner on Tuesday so the two of us can discuss this?"

I mean, if that was an actual pickup line it would be condemned as unsubtle.

"Excuse me. I find I consider moral questions more intelligently once I remove my trousers."

Maybe if you didn't work together you could try it with no repercussions, but the working relationship you describe makes this sound like a very bad idea.

"Excuse me. I find I consider moral questions more intelligently once I remove my trousers."

The Socratic Method.

No.

1. What would the work place ramifications be?
2. Are you ok with being named in a divorce lawsuit that names you, and the dates and places you had sex with this person? Typically, these lawsuits are public, and not sealed.
3. Do you want your emails subpoenaed?
4. Do you want to be deposed?
5. Do you want the data on your phone (pictures, messages, etc) reviewed by a law firm?
6.Do you live in a state that allows alienation of affections lawsuits? (I think Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah - such a ridiculous suit, but still.)
7. How will it feel to when that person's spouse confronts you at your office?

Having said all of those things, I think you should definitely do it. Take lots of pictures too.

7: What? He didn't even own trousers.

Number 2 says it all, but - there is no way you can have an affair without lying. You will lie.

And you're kidding yourself if you think there's not at least a 75% chance this doesn't end in heartbreak and the loss of your friend. You're already emotionally involved with this person; it's not like you're just meeting someone you're attracted to for sex and that's that.

https://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcearticles/alienation-of-affection/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/31/8-8-million-alienation-of-affection-award-another-reason-not-to-have-an-affair-in-north-carolina/?utm_term=.5e48e0beafea

It's got to be at least a little bit flattering to be named as a co-respondent in a divorce suit.

Does your HR dept have an explicit policy here?

Sex is banned if one co-worker has a supervisory relationship with the other. If not, then sex is still banned, but oral is fine.

When I met them the next day to discuss is not what people do when they really regret it and wish they could undo the terrible mistake.

If the asker and the party of the second part are professional colleagues, it's probably unavoidable. If you work with somebody you can't go skulking in corners pretending the other person isn't there. Up to that point I thought they were actually doing the right thing.

Otherwise, will says what needs to be said at 8. But I'd also endorse 10 strongly. Let's face it, if you're old enough to be hanging around here, you know all this anyway.

Ok, first of all, this:

When I met them the next day to discuss
is not what people do when they really regret it and wish they could undo the terrible mistake. So that was vaguely amusing to me and foreshadowed what was to come.

I reached out mid-afternoon and suggested we should clear the air, since the prior evening had ended abruptly. We'd been in the same room most of the morning, sitting at tables (with other colleagues) across from each other, etc. and there was obvious tension. (Tension inside me if nowhere else.) Again, I expected the conversation to be an acknowledgement that the prior evening had been a mistake and basically an agreement to pretend it never happened.

Does your HR dept have an explicit policy here?

I don't know. I think I should maybe try to find this out.

Are you friends indepedently with the spouse or is the betrayal entirely on your colleague?

I've never met the spouse. (Or possibly I did once at a company event years ago.)

Probably the most likely outcome, unfortunately, is that you'd lose them as a friend. But that might be lost already, by virtue of them coming onto you this way.

I definitely do not think it's lost already, although I suppose if they decided at some point they wanted to work on the marriage and our friendship got in the way of that, or something, then maybe. But that seems unlikely.

Finally, it's hard to imagine how this goes where you're not called on to lie at least a little bit.

I do agree this is a risk and I am very bothered by it. Particularly the idea of potentially lying to colleagues, since I'm in a position that requires a lot of trust, and lies could shatter that. (This feels like a much more significant professional risk than any policies HR might have in a file somewhere.)

"I think we should have an affair!"
"Hmm, why don't you come over to my place for dinner on Tuesday so the two of us can discuss this?"

We agreed to a no-pressure meeting outside work to discuss further, with no agenda so no one has anything to feel bad about. It was going to be dinner after work, but my colleague then got nervous about someone potentially seeing us (which I admit really puts the lie to "no one has anything to feel bad about"), so we settled on my house instead.

Question 1 in comment 8 is the question that is haunting me. The rest of it seems somewhat unrealistic. (Not that it couldn't happen, just that I'm untroubled by the theoretical risk.)

2 feels like the most accurate response, unfortunately, but I don't want it to be true. I feel like I'm genuinely open to persuasion.

Don't you kind of already have to lie even if you do nothing more? "We kissed and discussed having an affair, but could make the numbers work," isn't probably something you want to say if somebody asks, "How do you feel about X?"

Anyway, lies of omission to co-workers about off-hours social activities seem essential, regardless of who that social life is with.

17: well I don't think that sort of full disclosure is generally necessary or appropriate. I'm much more concerned about getting a direct question from a suspicious colleague: are you and [X] having an affair? Nothing that's happened to date would prompt that question (and if by chance I got it, the honest answer is "no"). But if we do have an affair, I don't think I am willing to lie in response to that question--I would instead deflect with "why would you ask that?", or if pressed, respond with "that's none of your business" or something similar. Although I think that response would universally be understood to be "yes". So that's one point of conversation for Tuesday -- my colleague obviously needs to be aware of this. I said in our last conversation that I'm not sure I'd be willing to lie about things but I don't think they really heard me on this point.

I'm much more concerned about getting a direct question from a suspicious colleague: are you and [X] having an affair?

Or much worse would be getting this question from our mutual boss.

Nothing that's happened to date would prompt that question

(On reflection, this is not true at all... I've gotten veiled versions of this question from colleagues in the past based on the amount of time we spend together at work, and work-time lunches we find time to spend with just each other, etc. But the question has never troubled me because the honest answer has always been "no".)

"why would you ask that?"

That's not very good because it invites them to reflect back on recent events where H_o is "Are they having an affair?" Better to try "Do you really think s/he likes me?"

That's not technically lying, but still will be seen as a denial, and will make them use "Are they about to start an affair?" as H_o.

I've never met their spouse, but based on many confessional lunches I know it's been a very unhappy marriage for years (at least for my colleague, and, based on the stories, I think for both partners). Colleague says they've never had or ever seriously considered an affair before

You know this is a standard script for spouses who want to cheat, regardless of truth, right?

22 before seeing 21. It took me too long to make the subscripts.

My worst break-up was when I split from a coworker, and it was the worst specifically because we then had to see each other. Every. God. Damn. Day. It sucked and kept sucking until she left for a new job (about six months after the break-up.)

So I vote no, solely on don't-date-a-coworker grounds. Or, as some crude people say (and I kinda hate this expression but anyway), "Don't shit where you eat."

I don't think anyone is going to directly ask if you're having an affair. They're going to ask what you did at the weekend, and you'll lie by omission. They're going to ask why they saw you with your friend last week after work - what were you doing? - and you'll have to be creative with the truth. Unless you're comfortable with your friends and family knowing you're seeing someone married (you might be! I don't know!) you will have to dodge simple questions like, "What are you doing tonight?" If you're not comfortable lying, an affair is not for you.

Not always an available choice.

If you're not comfortable lying, an affair is not for you.

Or marriage.

I think a private dinner at home to decide about having an affair or not seems potentially very tense and awkward. You can fix that with wine.

Silence would be deadly. How about some soft Boys II Men in the background?

I'm realizing this question may not be well posed. (My fault, obviously.) It's framed in terms of the risks in the situation, and I think those maybe have been pretty well laid out. And I may be experiencing terrible judgment, but I think I could probably accept the risks. I'm feeling more uncertain about the morality of the situation, and whether moving forward would be unethical in addition to unwise. I've never knowingly been in a relationship with someone who was cheating on a partner.

I think 29 was meant as a joke, but there is no way I'm having this conversation without wine.

28 was also a joke. I'm pretty sure 30 was serious.

I have no experience in this exact field, but I think you very seriously don't want to be drinking for a conversation with potential consequences like this.

Anyway, I've never had a sober conversation about initiating a sexual relationship, but I hear that it is possible.

That was ridiculously earnest. Fuck it. Wreck homes, burn it all down.

Oh. Well. From the way you've described your job as requiring a great deal of trust, I think it sounds unethical in that specific context. (Look, if you wouldn't want your boss to know, you know it's wrong.) I think it's also obviously on the unethical and immoral side regardless of working together, but in a way that's perfectly human and not something you, as the unmarried person, should be blamed for. If you put a great deal of pride in thinking of yourself as an ethical person I think your self-conception would have to change if you went ahead with it, and that might be very difficult for you.

if you wouldn't want your boss to know, you know it's wrong trouble.

What is the relationship status of the question-asker?

If you work in consulting, see if you could bill sex-time to a client or if you would need to use an internal code.

I generally think that the way you make a decision is that you take the time to understand all the consequences of both options, and then you go with your gut, with your eyes wide open.

It sounds like this affair is a foregone conclusion, but it also sounds like you've got your eyes wide open as to the potentially disastrous consequence, so. The important thing is to report to us all the salacious details.

see if you could bill sex-time to a client or if you would need to use an internal code.

Where do you keep your codes?

On a spread sheet.

A bedspread sheet?

An excel-marital sheet.

Concatenation is a supported function.

You should get your resume in order because one or both of you is going to be looking for a new job, irrespective of whether the relationship itself turns out great or is a disaster. Also, if you have children, be prepared for some blowback from that direction. And for your own ex-spouse, if there is one, to use this as further proof of just what an awful person you are. I recall that my brother's first ex-wife used to refer to his workplace affair partner, who later became his second [now also ex-] wife, as his concubine at family occasions. Fun for all.

I'm intrigued by 37's suggestion that the ethics of the situation are tied in some important way into the working relationship. I'd have put the ethical concerns mainly around the colleagues's marital status and the practical risks mainly around the work relationship.

Actually, 41 is not what I advocate if something is unethical or immoral. But I think this situation is more unadvisable and unwise, and not that unethical.

||
How are you doing, urple? I'd forgotten until this moment.
|>

39: single

50: I'm doing very well, thanks for asking. Life has been pretty crazy this year so I haven't had much time for pseudonymous blog commenting, unfortunately, but maybe things will settle down soon. I hope. Going to retry the trip to NYC for karaoke next weekend! You should all come.

I would, but I hear bad things about LaGuardia.

52 is good to hear.

Indeed.

Yes, urple. Glad to hear it.

I was also wondering yesterday, if anyone knew what was going on with Biohazard. I haven't seen him in a while. I may have an e-mail somewhere and should probably send him a line.

You should definitely have sex Tuesday as a test case. If it's lousy, then it's not worth the risk.

Seriously, you will probably be unable to hide this from coworkers no matter how hard you try. So many hormones! Infatuation is a hell of a drug. Even if you are entirely, completely professional, people will pop into your office in what you thought was a private moment and realize your body language and tone of voice is dramatically different or one of you is going to slip and call the other "hon" at a meeting or something. At the very least, I'd expect to be the subject of some serious gossip and innuendo. I would assume discovery is a foregone conclusion in your risk analysis.

I'd say you're thinking about beginning and end of this affair with reasonable clarity but not much about the middle. Are there kids involved? What if it goes on for years? Would you be bummed not to have an actual partner you get to do fun stuff outdoors on a Saturday afternoon with? You'd either want to date others and leave the coworker as something like a preexisting condition or you'll be awfully lonely falling asleep alone after your late "business dinner" after your coworker goes home to their regular life.

Infatuation is a hell of a drug, and I bet it will be really fun at first, then mostly fun but kind of lonely and a bit isolating, and then, either uncomfortable at best and seriously miserable at worst. (Maybe that's all relationships, if you're a cynic?)

whether moving forward would be unethical

Serious question: Does the married coworker have kids?

Unserious question: Do you have a cute, single friend you could pair up with the married coworker's spouse in order to even out the unethical universe?

57: these are all very good points. I am probably underestimating the risk of discovery. Also, FWIW, I am currently casually dating other people and have no present intention of that stopping as a result of this affair (if an affair happens). I'm not at a point in my life right now where I'm really looking for a life partner. And yes, my coworker has three young kids.

Maybe your optimal strategy is to hook up after this dinner on the understanding that you will both then call it off. You get it out of your system, you end things deliberately, and you don't have to deal with all that much aftermath (just wistfulness) at work. Your colleague will go on to have an affair with a more appropriate person and will whine to you about the downside.

What's your end goal with this? Do you want the person to leave their partner and be with you? Do you want to be a step-parent to three young kids? Or do you just want to have some fun? Because seriously, the more you say about the situation, the more it sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.

You should feel great shame. Not for kissing the person/wanting an affair -- that's shameful, of course, but people want and do self-destructive, immoral things all the time, for whatever reason. But generally speaking, if they're adults, they are aware that what they're doing is stupid/wrong/a mistake. But that's not you. So what you should feel great shame for is this: composing the question publically about what's an obviously bad idea that you should be embarassed about in this incredibly naive, fake-public, and dumbass way, without self-recognition.

I can think of only two reasons why someone would do so -- (1) this post is fake, in which case, weird attention grab by you, but whatever; (2) this post is real, you are an utterly delusional person with roughly the degree of moral intelligence and self-reflection of a narcissitic 14 year old child. And not only that, someone who wants the frisson of semi-publically exposing theor terrible idea as a fake subject of "debate." This is the behavior of a child, and you should fell ashamed because of that. (This might be the product of depression, or deep loneliness, which are terrible make people do crazy things -- but, if so, grow up enough go recognize that's what's going on with you and that's the problem. If not, you're just an idiot). I wouldn't be surprised if this is just the latest in a series of iterations of clueless and basically immature behavior.

So, have the affair, since that's clearly your plan. But, when things go bad (and they will, though no one knows just how bad yet), remember. Things went bad not just because you were a hopeless romantic, or temptation took a wrong turn or because you wanted some balm for whatever brokeness you hope to heal. Things went bad because you are at a deep level a non-aware twit. Your only hope of doing better in the future will be to figure ourt what makes you a non-aware twit, and work on that. And maybe, just maybe, having this deliberately insulting, but accurate, comment say this will have you work on whatever issues are driving you instead of making things worse with this move.

Without wanting to digress from the real issues 62 brings up, I'll just say that non-stable-identity insults are much less desirable, as a matter of blog norms, than non-stable-identity confessions.

I guess I'm more of a prude than heebie; I think some smallish portion of the blame for an affair does belong to the third party (assuming they know it'd be an affair, etc.). Sure, the third party doesn't make the promise, and I don't care about the abstract principle of monogamy, but you'd be engaging in an act that you have every reason to believe will cause harm to at least one other person. If you didn't think it would cause harm, you would inform the spouse, but then it isn't cheating, it's just firming up the boundaries of an open or poly relationship. Kids make everything worse--while two household childhoods are common and people make them work, the transition period could easily be traumatic.

It takes two to tangle tango (thinko caught on edit, but apropos), and I have even worse analogies that I'll be glad to wantonly deploy in violation of the ban if this turns into an argument.

Vast majority of blame still goes to the cheating person in the relationship, though.

Sometimes cheating works out just fine. Look at the New England Patriots.

59: So, have you thought about how your coworker is going to carve out a secret hour or two to fuck you in a way that doesn't take away from their kids? I am kind of a logistics enthusiast, and that sounds kind of an unlikely thing. Little kids to to bed early; would they miss bedtime stories "working late" to fuck you? Or go in for "early meetings" and dump morning routines entirely on their spouse? Are you OK stealing time from little kids? Or would you both slip away over lunch (yikes on getting caught)? I'm also assuming for logistics purposes you plan to sneak away (to your place,always, I imagine?) an hour here or there, never having time for dinner/breakfast, any other somewhat romantic pleasantries on favor of a more pragmatic system. Are you a serious pragmatist? Will the sex be that great?

I know I am sounding like a bit of a monster here since I'm entirely sidestepping the ethics of sleeping with a married person. I think that's not a point there is much broad disagreement on, but everyone thinks their circumstance is the exception, which is human nature and I can't get too upset over generally. Plus, everyone else has said what you already know re: workplace and marriage ethics.

57 seems wise to me.

62 is rude in a way that makes me suspect the author has walked this exact path, regrets it, and is taking out their self-loathing on the ATM-asker.

64: the kids thing does give me pause. Still, if a person is determined to cheat, it's gonna happen.

62 is much meaner than I'd have been comfortable being, but it does have some truth to it. Anyone who has endorsed your self-concept of being clear on the risks is flattering you in a manner you don't deserve. You can intellectually understand the risks without accurately forecasting how shitty it will feel when you're experiencing the consequences. When I've done something this dumb, I've just said, "I'm being self-destructive right now and I'm having trouble controlling myself."

Also, regardless of your later stated intent with your letter, it seems at least possible to me that posting it here was an expression of ambivalence about risks, that the part of you that knows that this is self-destructive is asking to be amplified.

This is a horrendously bad idea! How could it possibly end well? I realize this has already been said.

I'm on team "this sounds like a terrible idea for everyone involved", but I suspect that 2 is correct anyway.

I'm also amused that it took me about 3+1/2 sentences to recognize Former Commenter. Welcome back.

I don't agree with 62 but I appreciate the perspective. I do however think I mostly agree with 69. I also have not thought through any of 66, all of which seems important to consider. 64 is troubling because I feel unresolved on this question, and don't know whether I'm closer to this view or heebie's view. I am appreciating all of this feedback.

66: I am reminded of "amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

68: Hrm. "Somebody is going to do it, so it might as well be me" isn't really a good excuse to me. It's an interesting two-step: I have certain standards, surely someone out there has lower standards and will be benefitting from them, the bad consequences are going to happen anyway, so I'd be a fool if I didn't lower my standards so I could be the one benefitting. Classic race to the bottom. (Not that I don't sometimes think this way, but I consider that a mark against my character.)

Plus side for not going through with it: if the potential cheater does cheat and it's not with you, especially if it's with another coworker, and everything explodes in flames and acrimony--and honestly, you sound pretty UMC and that's how UMC people roll--you get the best ever "there but for the grace of god goes I" feel.

(On that note, reading this I was struck that I instantly knew the gender of everyone involved. Maybe wrong, but I keep on having to double-check my pronouns.)

this adds up oddly --

1. your coworker has reported to you over the course of several years during many "confessional lunches" a miserable marriage that just may not be salvageable (conveniently, an affair with you may "clarify" this last point).

2. your coworker has three young kids.

this marriage is apparently functional enough to support procreation, if not by fucking then by highly-intentional IVF or adoption.

i don't think you are really particularly interested in the "ethics" of an affair with this person, i think you are attracted to the dramatic self image of being interested in the "ethics." stick to casual dating.

I never really thought about it before, but if you're having a relationship with a married person, and the married person has sex with his or her spouse, does that count as cheating on you?

73: It's entirely possible that I'm relying too heavily on the heuristics leftover from when I was in my 20s and mostly wanted to get what I wanted to get, romantically, and so justified the ends accordingly.

(Thank god) but I haven't been tempted to cheat on Jammies in any significant way in the time we've been together, so I'm somewhat reverting to my much younger single brain.

74 is a little naive? Having the stress of three young kids is probably what's causing the marriage to tank.

74: I just came out of a marriage that had been dead and unhappy for years but was sexually active until literally the night before we separated (and on and off again for a bit in the period after that). I don't think that's very uncommon.

my point was that the disjunction between the self-reported unrelenting misery and unsalvageablity of the marriage *over years and years* is in a certain tension with three young children.

i stand by my opinion that the OP is driven by a desire by the OPer to see self as ethically conflicted more than actually being ethically conflicted, this was just one of the more glaring oddities in the account to me. there are lots of others, pointed out by other commenters.

Since the thread was already won in the second comment, let me instead give a somewhat troll-y (but not entirely troll-y) answer.

You shouldn't do this because dating or having affairs with people you work with is wrong, antifeminist, and bad for women. Think about what message this is going to send to everyone else you work with when they find out that both of you are secretly thinking about fucking the people you work closely with. Keep your work life separate from your dating life, not just for supervisors, but for everyone who you have a close working relationship. Otherwise you're perpetuating a world where people think just because someone enjoys working with them they probably also want to fuck them.

In terms of the morality, you're participating in the breakup of a marriage with three small children. Marriages do break up, so your keeping yourself out of the process won't necessarily do any good, but it's sad and damaging for them and ideally you wouldn't be part of the problem.

In terms of cold self-interest, though, everyone who says don't shit where you eat is right. You're already noticeably enmeshed with this guy -- once you're obviously having an affair, everything about your professional life becomes questionable. And if it ends unhappily, or if you want it to end and he doesn't, or if there's anything that makes it hard to work together, you're going to be looking for work.

More specifically -- you're putting yourself in a position where your professional life is completely vulnerable to this dude's actions. And however fond of him you may be, the one thing you know solidly about him is that he is untrustworthy -- if he's cheating on his wife (and mother of his three small children), there's no reason to believe he's going to consider your interests more seriously than he considers hers. Not worth the risk.

I think it's crazy that anyone in this thread is dithering about whether or not it's ethically wrong for you to have an affair with a married colleague. You're (planning to) conspire and participate in the deception and hurt of third parties who have done you no wrong. That's a terrible thing to do, and if you do it, you're being a terrible person.

Also, there is absolutely no way this isn't going to be guessed at and gossiped about by your colleagues. You can't even sit through a morning meeting without feeling "obvious tension," and you have to see this person all the time. If your workplace is anything like 99% of all office environments, your coworkers are bored and restless and would like nothing better than to talk shit about which of their colleagues might be getting into each others' pants. They probably already suspect something is up, and they will be watching you like a bunch of hawks. Given that you are so lacking in emotional control that your tense morning meeting caused you to initiate the preposterously bad plan of inviting this person to spend time with you alone at night with a bottle of wine to "talk," there is approximately a 100% chance that you will give the game away.

this marriage is apparently functional enough to support procreation, if not by fucking then by highly-intentional IVF or adoption.

Exactly how functional is that, though? My guess, based on observation of others' procreation-involving marriages is: barely functional.

(Not to suggest that that has much bearing on the instant question.)

71.2: it took me longer than that, but yes, reasonable certainty.

I realize I have absolutely no intuitions about how prevalent infidelity is. It seems simultaneously more common and less common than I would guess, and I can't form a stable estimate.

83: yeah, I managed to have more than three kids during more than five years with no sex, but I realize that's not the norm. A lot of marriages seem pretty miserable for at least one of the people in them, more than I probably would have guessed. I guess I'm outside the norms on how much these comments make me want to go destroy someone's marriage just on principle, but I won't because I have three kids and am about to be late for a DSA meeting and then have a community picnic after that.

Whoops, I have realized that I was making unsupported gender assumptions. If I've got the genders flipped, and the questioner is male and the coworker is female, or any other combination, the professional risks are probably somewhat different, but it's still a terrible idea.

87: huh, I assumed the questioner was male and the colleague female. On, I now realise, no evidence whatsoever.

In terms of cold self-interest, though, everyone who says don't shit where you eat is right.

That takes us back to John Snow and the foundation of epidemiology as science.

76: I don't mean to shame you, and I'm sorry if I effectively did that--I think that's a supportable position, given that the cheater is the one who is breaking a promise, even if that's not the position I hold. Trying to work out my own intuition here.

(The bannable analogy I was thinking of is that it's like buying stolen goods--even if you neither committed nor instigated the theft, you're profiting from someone else's loss, as well as perpetuating an expectation that there'll be someone to participate in those kinds of transactions.)

Heh, I made the same unsupported assumption LizardBreath did. Good Rorschach test. We should avoid overly close reads of the OP, lest we discover our commenter is Mike Pence.

i stand by my opinion that the OP is driven by a desire by the OPer to see self as ethically conflicted more than actually being ethically conflicted, this was just one of the more glaring oddities in the account to me.

Worked for Graham Greene.

Oh my god! Don't do this! DON'T DO IT! YOU WILL REGRET IT! You have lust sex brain! It is clouding your judgment! MEN ARE NOT WORTH CAREER SACRIFICES ! KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL. Gahhh you are totally going to do this but just please consider not doing it. Okay, rant over. Good luck,.

If you have a bowl haircut and a captive-bolt gun, you can do horrible things without guilt if you flip a coin first.

I find this thread confusing because we have:

"AnonymousAdviceGiver", "a commenter", "FormerCommenter", and then various former (or at least infrequent) commenters who are using their regular pseud (hi!). People shouldn't make me think so much on a weekend.

Loose stools are coming.

This seems like a terrible idea.

Obviously, having this affair would be wrong and self-destructive; obviously, you're going to do it. I only hope for our sake that you won't be too depressed in the aftermath to give us all the dirty deets.

I dunno, you don't think the poster was looking to be talked out of it? The advice they got is predictable, and I usually think that someone asking for predictable advice is leaning towards taking it.

I was not going to comment but I'm off Facebook and have to have opinions somewhere. I have no value to add, though. It's pretty objectively a bad idea as everyone has said. I'm by no means blind adherent to the unquestioned rightness of monogamy but if it's been agreed to, as it certainly seems to have been by Cow Orker and Mrs Cow Orker* (and while the calf workers didn't agree to it they...have a lot at steak?) then blithely deciding it's not a thing is shitty behavior. More on his part than on OP's, but not much more.

*mootatis mootandis any incorrect gender assumptions

TL;DR: there are plenty of people to fuck. You don't work with most of them and lots of them are single.

I'm just glad somebody else's response to requests for advice about relationship problems is to find a way to make horrible puns.

I started making gender assumptions after the disclosure of the kids. I find it more difficult to imagine a woman with a full-time job and three young children jeopardizing her position at work for the sake of a casual fling to test whether or not she wants to stay in her marriage than I do to imagine a man in that situation. But I may just be being old-fashioned.

Second-wave feminists can be assholes too.

That wasn't good, but I'm all out of Medea jokes.

94: Sorry about that. For various reasons I didn't want my normal pseud associated with this thread.

Making the business presidential, for sundry weighty reasons.

More on the "maybe the poster wants to be talked out of it" front. I could see this being a slightly pressury feeling situation. Poster and Coworker are fond of each other and confessedly mutually attracted. C has strong, important reasons not to go forward with it (spouse, kids) but is gung ho to go ahead anyway. P is in a funny position -- C's reasons for not doing it are strong, but not strong enough to be decisive, so how can P's weaker reasons not to do it be sufficient to dissuade P? P can't really say no without implicitly calling C a bad person or a fool, which is hard to do to your good friend who's flatteringly enamoured of you.

Remember, P told the story as assuming the kiss was going nowhere, and being startled to realize C was serious. I think they want arguments to say no with. (Which there are lots of! It's wrong, but it will also very likely screw both of you professionally!)

Let me be the first to say that this is a terrible idea.

The kids really pushes it over the edge for me. You want to be involved in that? If the marriage is destined to break up on its own anyway, fine. Let it run its course on its own.

For clarity, throwing in a random element helps. Anonymous Advice Giver is bad. Helpful Komodo Dragon is much better.

Just be sure to move all P's etchings to the ground floor before dinner.

I'd told the asker that this would be slow because I was posting on a weekend and this place warn't what it useta be. But then all these oldtimers showed up!

Turns out this place has just gotten dull! Look, everyone just want to discuss other people's sex lives, so if you miss the Unfogged of yore, just start telling us your dirty secrets.

Helpful Komodo Dragon gives you insightful advice that makes you stop and think, slowing you down long enough for their venom to take effect.

"Mansplaining Komodo Dragon" would be awesome.

"Well, actually, there's no especially toxic bacteria in my mouth. The water buffalo, who swim where they shit, have toxic bacteria on their skin that become infectious after I break the skin."

P can't really say no without implicitly calling C a bad person or a fool

Not really, because C's motivations might cut against P's reservations; for example, getting caught could be a way for C to blow up an unhappy marriage.

(Which there are lots of! It's wrong, but it will also very likely screw both of you professionally!)

And personally! I mean, moral valence notwithstanding this is a way to make loads of enemies with an upside of maybe keeping the current number of friends.

114 makes a very good point. The two of you might have very different priorities with regard to keeping the affair secret. Coworker might not even realize this is the case! But think about how instrumental it could be.

On the other hand, if you rule out people who are not attractive to you, people who you are not attractive to, and people who you've got no good way of figuring out of they are serial killers or not before you go into a private room with them, there aren't actually that many people you can have sex with.

I do however think I mostly agree with 69
I agree it's a forgone conclusion it's going to happen, if you're already planning details like that.

the other detail that sings to me of "look at meeee being all dramatically torn ethicalllyyyy!" is the insistence on making super duper triple lock certain that the coworker understands how emphatically the OP will not lie.

If the marriage is going to collapse on its own, having the affair might prop it up. New and exciting sex and adoration from one person, domestic front remains the same with no hardship, kids get a two parent household is objectively a great position for the coworker. And if the asker isn't looking for a longterm relationship, how much pressure would there be if the coworker blew up a marriage to be together?

107.1 is very astute.

60 feels like the best advice so far and is the direction I am currently leaning. (Which is not how I felt when this thread started.) But 92 and similar sentiments have me strongly reconsidering even that.

(For what it's worth, I am definitely sort of searching for justification that this would be a perfectly fine and sane thing to do, because it's what I want to do and I am looking to justify that outcome in my mind. But on some level I know that it's not fine or sane. Part of the reason I asked the question here is that I'd asked a few other friends and gotten much more mixed advice than I was expecting, and that was unsettling (despite the fact that I've been seeking justification). The unanimity of opinion here is clarifying.)

I really wouldn't hook up once if you don't want to do it on an ongoing basis. Either it'll suck, in which case you've had bad sex which is no good, or you'll be in an an even weaker rhetorical position to say no if C. wants to keep going. They'll solidly know you want to and that you don't have prohibitive moral qualms, at which point you're getting into discussions about whether once more would do any harm.

60 feels like the best advice so far and is the direction I am currently leaning.

If you ask me, 96 feels like the best advice so far, followed closely by 108, 70, and 2.

Thinking about 107, I'm moving strongly into an anti- position.
I think C, in thinking of the marriage as already broken, is making an implicit argument of, "most of the possible harm has already occurred, so why not allow ourselves the pleasure. "

Phrased that way, it's obvious that the number of people who believe that statement is much larger than the number of cases in which the statement is true, and P is not in a good position to assess the truth.

Just to make it explicit, if you (wisely) decide not to do this, you should cancel dinner plans. Being alone together makes no sense under those circumstances.

Also, like others, I'm struck by the lying thing. I have a hard time understanding how someone who refuses to lie is comfortable being party to ongoing lies.

Meeting at a restaurant might be a better idea. If you don't want to risk being seen by people you know, you can solve that by going to a really shitty restaurant.

I was going to say what jms said. Not to get all legalistic, but there's an extent to which legal norms are an attempt to codify ethical norms, and this is, I think, an example. You are talking about entering into a conspiracy to deceive. That makes you fully jointly morally responsible for every deception, even when it doesn't issue from your own mouth. I don't see any evaluation of this affair that can remotely be called ethical or moral.

I'll also sign on the the folks who say you're wildly underestimating the downside risk at your workplace where trust is important.

That said, I hope you're able to come back in a year and say we were all wrong, that you had the affair, it was great, and your work situation is better than ever.

When I worked as a waiter after I dropped out of graduate school (first time), the restaurant I worked in had a couple who came to dinner there all the time because they were having an affair and didn't want to be seen by people they knew. They were completely open about the affair with everybody who worked there, but less than open about why they picked that restaurant.

I've been the cheated-on spouse with young children, and it was by an order of magnitude the worst thing ever to happen to me emotionally (far outstripping, e.g, the painful death of a parent from cancer). The effects ripple outward through the extended family and down through the years. If you're determined to go ahead, do it in the full knowledge of the pain you're likely to cause.

Poster: don't do this
Everyone else: let's keep this thread going so we can get live updates well into tomorrow night. can someone build in a polling feature.

Live-blogging the dinner, if it happens, is key.

but also, poster, congratulations on being super horny for someone new-ish, that's a nice feeling and if you decide to not go forward I hope you can enjoy it for a while

I really don't think it matters in any important way, but I am man and the colleague is a woman.

121: I'm going to continue to be contrarian and say that I bet you talk yourself out of having any interest in such a hookup before it actually happens.

I also think that the ambivalence you're feeling cannot be separated from the work power relationship, which is obviously very treacherous and volatile. You've already been harmed, and you don't hold all the cards in terms of minimizing future harm. Your colleague is being very unfair to you, and I'm sorry you're in this position no matter what your feelings are. It's discomfitingly black-and-white too: either this person will be understanding and compassionate and apologize, or they'll continue to fuck things up for you. There's no way to split the difference.

Also the gender issues are obviously really salient here. If you don't want to be open with them here [edit: oh I see], at least do a deep dive on your own. And good luck with it all. Try not to apologize too much to your colleague, who owes you more apologies than vice versa.

I had horny commenter as a woman and no clue about angry former commenter. How do you people do this?

133: Yeah, I think you're right that the genders don't matter much -- the biggest difference is how it's going to play out if it turns into an office scandal. Gender's going to play into that, but I wouldn't make any strong predictions about exactly how, other than that it'll probably be lousy for both of you.

132 is lovely.

129 is wrenching.

132 is wrenching.

Lovely Wrench.

133: I don't think it should matter, but to me it seems to. First, it's less of a cliche your. Second, any woman who has three young kids, a job, and time to contemplate an affair is somebody who understand logistics really well (We can rule out child neglect or extremely helpful male spouse because we're all Bayesian now).

your s/b your way

The trick here is to become sexually involved with your co-worker without feeling guilty. You're on the right track.

1. Flirt and talk about what a shitty marriage co-worker has, so that you can establish that you're not messing up anything important.
2. Kiss bit, but back off because it's a bad idea.
3. Meet up the next day to make sure that neither of you is sorry about it, and establish that both of you would like to take things further.
4. Make a date for Tuesday, but make sure it's not to get laid. You're just going to talk. With wine. Anything else that happens will be completely unplanned. (But don't forget the condom!) The two of you might get carried away in the moment, but that's not really your fault.

In order to maintain your self-esteem, you're going to need to make a firm commitment not to lie. Then, when circumstances require you to lie, it will have been unforeseeable, and not your fault.

That's why 60 is so brilliant. It was going to be tricky having sex with this person without finally admitting that you were engaging in ethically dodgy behavior. This way, the first boink is a freebie. In fact, when you think about it, it's really necessary to hook up so that you can get it out of your system. You'll be doing everyone a favor.

And hey, after the first one, are subsequent liaisons really doing that much incremental damage? Might as well go ahead.

The spouse, kids and co-workers aren't traveling with you on this rationalization journey, so it will be difficult for them to see this from your point of view. Fortunately, that's not your problem, except for any legal or professional repercussions.

Those repercussions will be mitigated, at least morally, by the fact that there was no way for you to know in advance how it would turn out. All the risks seemed acceptable. If things turn out worse than you anticipated, then maybe you could have been smarter about it all, but it's not like you're a bad person or anything.

That's too Bayesian.

I would request that A Commenter set a calendar item for one year from today to tell us what actually happened.

You have more patience than I do. 60 days.

Dude, I want an update Tuesday night.

That's going to be liveblogged as noted above.

135: I'm pretty sure I know who angry Former Commenter is, but I too thought that Horny Commenter was a woman. There are also regular commenters here who I thought were the wrong gender for years until some detail they dropped gave it away.

Lesson: recognizing individuals from there commenting voice is (sometimes) easy, but guessing an individual's gender from their commenting voice is hard.

I'm now trying to decide if, ethically speaking, I think I should be banned for 60.

I thought 60 was fine, but maybe just suggesting they text nudes back and forth would work better.

150: I checked. There's no analogy in 60. You're okay.

Bah, okay. I'll impose time management discipline on myself the hard way... again.

"Number 2 says it all, but--there is no way you can have an affair without lying. You will lie.
And you're kidding yourself if you think there's not at least a 75% chance this doesn't end in heartbreak and the loss of your friend..."

"These are all very good points. I am probably underestimating the risk of discovery. Also, FWIW, I am currently casually dating other people and have no present intention of that stopping as a result of this affair (if an affair happens). I'm not at a point in my life right now where I'm really looking for a life partner. And yes, my coworker has three young kids."

Then the only moral thing to do is to call the wife and say: "I think your husband is really hott. Do you do threesomes? If you do--or if you start--please put me first on your list..."

133 to 154.

I was very impressed by the complete erasure of gender evidence in the OP and up through 132. So much so that I was actually disappointed to discover that it was a het pairing; usually it seems to take more practice at concealing gender of the parties involved to do that.

66 is the most wise thing said so far. I'm in a relationship where hooking up with other people is permitted, but the logistics of making it happen (esp. with kids around, for one or both parties) are prohibitive.

I am completely on team don't fucking do it. As someone far more practised at the art of self-deception than I would like to admit, you have a very bad case of it and your scruples about lying show this clearly.

It is perfectly obvious that this will end horribly for all of you and cow-orker's children. The "just one bonk" theory is ludicrous, as has been pointed out. The least worst outcome is that it's terrible for both of you but even then you'll think that you ought to do it again to see if you could get it right next time. All other outcomes also end up with the affair continuing to disaster.

I don't even think it's terribly funny to urge you to liveblog or whatever. That makes us all complicit in the misery of three small children

I can't be bothered to change my pseud to opinionated miserable angry puritan. That's what I think.

go for it.

Reading the OP, I thought, "Boy, this script seems familiar." That's because I lived something pretty close to it many years ago, years before I started dating my wife.

One of the questions I've asked myself since is "If I could go back in time with the benefit of what I know now, would I do it over?" My answer to that is yes, because that experience became such an important part of the person I am now. I was incredibly naive about relationships going into it, and learned a lot over the course of a few months that has stayed with me the rest of my life. But I wouldn't do it *again*. Not for a million dollars.

Things wound up working out sort of ok in the end for everyone involved, with the help of some painful choices. But there's no way I would want to take those kinds of chances again, either with my marriage or someone else's.

So unless you need the kind of learning experience that has that kind of result as one of the better possible outcomes, I'd suggest staying clear.

Helpful Komodo Dragon is much better.

Komodo dragons are monogamous and would therefore also be on the side of "Don't do it". The kids would be less of a factor, though, as (like other reptiles) they don't really devote much attention to their offspring, except to eat them when they can (adult dragons' diet is 10% juvenile dragon), to prevent which the juveniles spend most of their time in trees, rolling themselves in dung when they come down to the forest floor.

the juveniles spend most of their time in trees, rolling themselves in dung when they come down to the forest floor

And I thought...that's like Jesus Unfogged.

THE DUNG-SPATTERED MAN-EATING LIZARDS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL.

That makes us all complicit in the misery of three small children.

Like the producers of that last couple of Air Bud movies.

80's point about the antifeminist implications seems right to me whether the commenter is a woman OR a man.

Refreshing now, I see that I'm even further behind the comments than I was when I wrote 164.

Oh, BG, Biohazard is around regularly at the Other Place. No need to worry, although I'm sure he'd appreciate a hello note.

The "just one bonk" theory is ludicrous

I posit a second bonk, possibly on a grassy knoll.

On the grassy knoll, don't forget your birth control.

To clarify one small and overall relatively unimportant point, my resistance to lying isn't an attempt to pretend I'm preserving some moral purity in the situation. It's that I'm generally very uncomfortable lying. And, being uncomfortable, am very bad at it. And, being bad at it, am generally unwilling to do it. (And, going full circle, being generally unwilling to do it, am very uncomfortable when asked to.) I'm well aware that I would be a full participant in deception regardless. My point about making sure colleague knows that I would likely be unwilling to lie is not that I want to make sure she knows I'm morally superior, it's that I want to make sure she knows I'm an exposure risk. She stated that's she's very comfortable lying to keep things quiet. I think (if this went forward) it's important for her to know that I'm not.

That on its own is a really important reason not to do it.

169: Well, you should probably do it then, so you can get practice lying. It's an important skill.

Myself, I've always found subterfuge superfluous.

I was trying to figure out why I was so lukewarm in my condemnation in the OP, compared to everyone in this thread.

My best rationalization is that I was thinking that the end of the colleague's marriage was a fait accompli.

This is all to say I'd like to back away from my tepid response and join the chorus of more forceful condemnation.

Weak.

This is obviously a terrible idea. The more interesting conversation is this:

"And not only that, someone who wants the frisson of semi-publically exposing theor terrible idea as a fake subject of "debate." "

is this sort of thing really terrible? it seems like it is a a benign form of trolling. I am also thinking back on how I would frequently, as a child, make conversation with my father by asking questions (of the 5 year old 'Why...' variety) that i mostly knew the answer to, and feeling puzzled i was asking without really needing information.

Life is frequently miserable, even with the basics taken care of, and for married people that can express itself as a problem with marriage, without meaning the marriage is the problem.

Further to 66, cheating takes an inordinate amount of telephoning. You can't see each other but there are both practical and emotional developments every couple of days that must be shared.

I'm pretty sure that the only stable arrangements are mutually unhappy marrieds, or not too intense get-togethers between a married cheater and a single person unintersested in deeper commitment, ideally with geographical separation and no mutual anything; not a fabulous arrangement for the single person, all other things equal.

The workplace complication makes the OP suggestion a complete disaster. Discovery, ruin. Offer kind words but nothing more to the person stuck in an unhappy marriage with three kids. Splitting up with multiple kids is expensive and difficult, not just "oh well this is over now." Since you work together with the spouse, you will not have the option of disengaging from that horrible process. How old are the kids and how expensive are two places suitable for single parents and multiple kids where you live? Both of those places will have to come out of their current incomes; if they can't agree about everything without lawyers, so will expensive legal fees at the same time. The reduced circumstances will be your fault, and all five angry people will notice that.

As others have written, your tone in writing doesn't offer much hope that you'll become perceptive. Good luck, don't do this.

Don't become perceptive?

66 seems like it cuts against dating *any* parent you're not very strongly considering marrying.

not too intense get-togethers between a married cheater and a single person unintersested in deeper commitment, ideally with geographical separation

This is right. If you're going to cheat with someone, it should be with a sailor, traveling salesperson, or carney. If you're going to cheat with someone else, you should ask yourself "will this relationship fulfill my emotional needs at least as well as cheating with a carney would?"

179. Keeping a relationship secret from kids is different from not doing that. You may find the US documentaries "One Day at A Time" to be instructive sources for dating practices in America.

175: I don't think this is going to go anywhere productive at all, but since several people have asked this same question, I'm going to try to answer it. Part of the answer is in 121.3. But there is something beyond that. Here's where I'm still getting hung up. Nothing anyone has said in this thread has been a surprise. There has been some very helpful perspective but for the most part it is all sort of obvious advice that I could have given myself. And that I have already given myself in this situation. And that I would give to anyone else asking the question. And I know that, and yet I'm still feeling a huge amount of ambivalence, because despite knowing all that, my gut is still saying "go for it", and I usually try to follow my gut. And I'm having a hard time getting at what's driving that gut reaction. Obviously I've thought about the very obvious answer suggested a few times in this thread (I'm horny and it's completely clouding my judgment), and I don't know what to say except that I really, really don't think that's what's going on. (My sex life is fine.) And although I think coworker is a very smart, funny, attractive person that I like to be around, I don't actually feel any sense of infatuation whatsoever. And I don't have any illusion that we'd do well together in an actual relationship -- we're very different people. I do get the sense that *she* may be suffering a bit of infatuation, but in my mind that's a strike against the situation, not a point in its favor. So, if this is a disastrous idea on its face, and I'm not just horny and I'm not infatuated, why am I fighting something in my gut that is telling me it's the "right" thing to do? ("Right" in that sentence obviously doesn't necessarily mean the ethical thing, or the smart thing.) That's the question I'm still hung up on. And I've got some ideas, but none of them are completely satisfactory. (Basically: I think it's primarily that I can identify with a lot of what she's shared with me about her situation.) Regardless, I don't think this thread is going to be able to provide any deep insight into that, so yes, upon reflection, it was probably stupid to submit this as an ATM. Sorry.

(For what it's worth, I do believe 173.2 is correct.)

FWIW: the commenter initially was not sure if this was worth an ATM, and I totally encouraged it because it would be a fun and lively conversation. So if you're judging the commenter for bringing the question forward for mass discussion, you should take note that I had an ulterior motive and role in pushing it forward.

181: but hang on, 66 is arguing that you should feel bad about the relationship not because it's secret but because it would be "stealing time from little kids". If you're perfectly openly dating someone with little kids - they're divorced or widowed or whatever - then you're still "stealing time from the kids" when you take their parent out to dinner or whatever. They're still not going to be there for bedtime stories, etc if they're out with you.

Agree with 170. Putting aside moral/ethical concerns, 169 is a great practical reason for not doing it. You'll be forced to invent impromptu lies in response to simple questions like "Any plans for the three day weekend coming up?" and then keep track of which lie you told and who you told it to.

As 26 noted, if you're not a natural at that sort of thing, there's likely to be trouble.

169: I take your point. I'll add that I see a similar issue in this from earlier:

I do agree this is a risk and I am very bothered by it. Particularly the idea of potentially lying to colleagues, since I'm in a position that requires a lot of trust, and lies could shatter that. (This feels like a much more significant professional risk than any policies HR might have in a file somewhere.)

Note your addendum here:

I'm well aware that I would be a full participant in deception regardless.

Two observations: If you're backed into a corner, you're going to lie (I predict). That prediction, though, is strongly based on my view that you probably should lie if that happens - regardless of whatever disclaimer you have made to your colleague. You might not see it that way.

In any event, if your co-workers find out, they would know, as you claim to know, that you would be "a full participant in deception regardless."

Is that a breach of their trust? Maybe not! It depends on the sort of trust your position requires.

I just don't see that honesty about personal relationships is something you owe co-workers that you aren't having sex with.

184. In addition to the source I mentioned, the recent "Girlfriends Guide to Divorce" might help "Murphy Brown" was also pretty good. Perhaps there are Australian or I guess Scandinavian treatments that might be more relevant to your location. Briefly, the need for secrecy takes away the option of open communication about child-minders, who might be relatives or friends with kids.

181 and 188 are not quite as witty as you seem to think.

why am I fighting something in my gut that is telling me it's the "right" thing to do?

Do you generally find transgression exciting or compelling in some way? Maybe this is about some internal bullshit of your own!

179: Not really. I think you need to be a bit more flexible, but I think the secrecy increases the degree of difficulty significantly. You can't have the person over after the kids are in bed; you can't hire a babysitter (or, I guess you could, but logistics would be weird - send your spouse out for a night with their friends and then arrange a sitter so you can step out and pray the sitter doesn't call spouse with a question?). You couldn't take advantage of shared custody where the ex has the kids. After many months of dating, you couldn't go things together with the kids early and then have adult time (IYKWIM) later. You couldn't even make phone calls from home to set up a rendezvous unless you had a very private office or something. Or text? I don't know how most couples handle phone privacy, but I don't treat my text messages as especially private. I don't think an occasional babysitter is bad for kids, but I figure even if you're sort of OK with the added burden on the spouse, I'd feel pretty guilty about monopolizing a parent in their few hours a day to hang out with their kids. And that is pretty much the only option I can imagine working here. I mean, are they going to get together for a monthly fuck? Unlikely.

I'm extrapolating here from how much I see my married friends with small children and don't see their spouse or children. It often requires some extra planning, when the easy option is, "Hey, I'll bring takeout and we can hang out after the kids are asleep." And that is with a spouse willing and able to solo parent for an evening.

190: I'm sure on some level it probably is at least partly about some internal bullshit of my own, but the answer to your question is no.

Perhaps there is a small but powerful imp living in your gut?

Obviously I've thought about the very obvious answer suggested a few times in this thread (I'm horny and it's completely clouding my judgment), and I don't know what to say except that I really, really don't think that's what's going on. (My sex life is fine.)

I don't think sex drive is like a video game health bar necessarily. It's conceivable that someone could be mind-cloudingly horny for one person simultaneously with getting it regularly with another.

On the "let's keep the thread going" side:

I am on Team Don't Do It. But you people are wildly overestimating the logistical difficulty of these two co-workers having sex and getting away with it.

People do it all the time and don't get caught. If they are careful and discrete, it is entirely possible to get away with it for years. Getting away with it does depend a little on luck and a cheated-on spouse who isnt too hot on the trail. But, if you don't text too much, and don't get too greedy, it can be done. Don't leave a paper trail. Don't get emotionally attached.

"I dont have time to cheat." is weak sauce.

They can certainly do this without ever impacting the kids. If they are careful, discrete, and her husband isn't too suspicious.
[Insert my comment 8, plus everything everyone else has rightfully said about it being a bad idea, and potentially super impactful on spouse and kids, and commenter.]

I don't at all disagree with 194, I'm just saying that I don't believe that's the case here.

169:

Wait. You aren't willing to lie?!?!? That won't work.

If you aren't willing to lie, there is no way this works.

189. Probably true, my sense of humor is pretty feeble. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure the straight-man setups of 179 and 181 would pair well with funny answers. Consider those a first attempt, I'd be happy to enjoy someone else's better execution.

198 is hilariously earnest. Guys! Guys. I have an idea for a joke. Could we workshop it to really make it snap?

I believe the children are our future.
Hold them close, but fuck when they're away.
Have the sense to hide,
To make it easier to play.

A good question to ask yourself is "What would a person whose murder Chief Inspector Barnaby has just been asked to solve have done?"

In terms of having sex, that is. Don't look to them for advice on things like who to open the door for when home alone or should you try to cheat somebody out of an inheritance.

You should always live your life as though you were in the pre-credits opening sequence of a British TV detective series. Look at the people around you and ask "Which of these people is obviously going to be murdered in the next 3.5 minutes?" If the answer is "none of them", consider the possibility that it may be you.

Obviously it's a bad idea. Like, obviously. The question is, how bad an idea is it?

As for the effects on the coworker's family, I share the hive mind's opinion that the married party is 90 percent culpable for any harm done, but there's still that 10 percent. A commenter says they have "three young kids." Like, ages one, three, and five? Or 11, 13, and 15? If the former, a commenter really could be involved in screwing up four people (the kids plus the coworker's spouse) psychologically for life. If the latter, eh, it would be messy but realistically any damage probably really is already done.

As for the effects on a commenter's career, there are a fair number of jobs/industries where an office affair genuinely impacts their ability to do their job. Beyond that, there are lots of jobs where a supervisor has no logical reason to care, but it's fairly likely that they would anyways. There are probably some workplaces that just care about getting the job done, and that would be less worrisome. Beyond that, a commenter says "it's not impossible that one of us could supervise the other at some point in the future" - an affair should fatally compromise that, in theory.

And what about a commenter's own mental health and social life? They say they're single, casually dating, and don't want to change either part of that any time soon. A workplace affair seems difficult to keep casual, when you see so much of them. Assuming for a minute that their workplace just cares about getting the job done, what happens if another hot coworker comes along in a year or two and they're unmarried, but a commenter now has a reputation?

The best outcome is a happy affair that stays discreet as long as they're coworkers, and ultimately isn't the only cause of the end of the marriage. Bad outcomes are much more likely. They range from a brief fling with a few fond memories and a lot of stress but ultimately no more than that, to a life-shattering catastrophe for six people. There are lots of variables.

You couldn't take advantage of shared custody where the ex has the kids.

Maybe they can soon!

Thanks to Columbo, I will never make the mistake of telling someone in private that I've assembled ruinous information on their misdeeds and will go public the next day.

To belabor the obvious, if you want to hide a workplace affair but are not willing to lie about it, you can always resort to murdering the curious.

"Aunt Abby, Aunt Martha, there are twelve dead men in the cellar and you admit that you murdered them!"
"Well, of course, dear. But you don't think we'd stoop to telling a fib."

207: But murder is also on the list of things not recommended for those unable to lie.

Fine. Back to the drawing board.

My sister got around the single-with-small-child issue by having abnormally high tolerance for insomnia and a Skype-based romance with a guy in Spain (she was in the US). This worked well until it didn't, but she did get a very cute second small child out of it. Maybe I'll leave mysterious the question of how the Atlantic Ocean failed as birth control.

2 sums it up. I don't think there's a general obligation to not start affairs with married people, or at least not a straightforward one. But you're going to lie, and odds are pretty good you're going to seriously mess up his life.

I realize this is just a pile-on at this point, but sometimes there are small angles of the situation that someone really hits on and deserve to be amplified:

Life is frequently miserable, even with the basics taken care of, and for married people that can express itself as a problem with marriage, without meaning the marriage is the problem.

This, and: the level of misery at the "three young children" stage is not necessarily predictive of the level of misery later. Maybe C's marriage is fundamentally unsalvageable but even C isn't willing to make that call right now. An affair is not clarifying in the sense of allowing unbiased observation; it changes the underlying facts. I don't think you can assume C will cheat regardless; if she has a demanding job and three young children she doesn't have limitless opportunities outside of her job. Short of reports of actual abuse, no testimony of hers, especially to you, during this stressful period is reliably informative as to what her bond wth her spouse (husband?) would be like if she gets through this. Neither you nor she knows.

Two questions and two thoughts for A Commenter

?1 Is there a signficant age difference between the two of you, since the other person already has 3 children while you're still single?
?2 Have you always been single, or more importantly, do you have children from a previous relationship?

Thought 1: Re your gut feeling, I totally understand. For years I was moth to the flame. Being stupid and irresponsible, while also holding down responsible jobs, was what I thought made me Me. Like the Matt Dillon character in Drugstore Cowboy, I loved it but it was exhausting. So I eventually spent 325 years being responsible and now in my old age I'm free to go back to enjoying being stupid and irresponsible, though at a less exhausting pace than when I was in my 20s and 30s.

Thought 2: How do you feel about possibly being the focus of someone's probably long-term animosity and bitterness? Because if this blows up spectacularly -- fireball encompassing both end of other person's marriage and employment for the both of you -- there's a reasonable likelihood that other person, even if their marriage is already dead, is going to blame someone along with herself for the disaster that has occurred to her life. It's conceivable that she might feel (at some point) that you took advantage of her in a moment of vulnerability? Yeah, I know that's antiquated (though I don't think sexist since lots of guys do like to blame their problems on former partners) but it's no less real. Carrying that with you for the next 40 years will not make those years better.

I know this is long and late in the game. But it comes from some experience in this area.

Call me a mindless contrarian, but I think having an affair, even at work, is less risky than robbing drug stores to get high.

Though I have done neither personally.

215: So your advice to skip the affair and go straight to robbing drug stores to get high? That is contrarian!

Although for myself all I can say after this many years is, What's one more regret? I won't even feel the weight.

You did it your way.

211 reminds me of the final punchline of The Truth about Cats and Dogs which in turn makes me wonder if that movie has not aged well because nobody mentions it ever and it was kind of a thing, I'd have said, when it came out.

I realize this is just a pile-on at this point

For what it's worth, I'm still finding all of this feedback very helpful.

Letter writer, are you feeling ennui, such that any change is intriguing? Is that some of the driver behind your gut feeling?

Feeling ennui won't make a baby, but it's hardly not cheating.

Re: why does your gut find this tempting, despite it being morally wrong and an obviously terrible idea to boot?

Horniness is weird. Cheating can feel way sexier than regular sex even if you're not risk-loving generally. Plus, in this case you're looking over at cow-orker who is staring down the barrel of the obviously bad consequences of an affair with your can't-tell-a-lie ass that will obviously blow up right away, and she's still enthusiastic. She must have a really high expectation of how hot this is going to be. Like, it would have to be transcendently hott to be worth it. And so you think she must know something you don't. And that makes you, deep in your gut, want a shot at that transcendent hotness.

But like people say above, being married with small kids is miserable, especially if you actually care about the kids and don't try to maximize time you pawn them off on other caregivers. Sometimes people in that situation just want to blow everything up, and an affair seems preferable to suicide.

||

Mobes, following up on your subthread above, here's a little story. I've come to believe that a distant cousin of mine married a guy who rose to become a mid level bureaucrat in Winnipeg. But he always dreamed of something better, so, unbeknownst to family and friends, he started going periodically to Seattle, where he pretended to be a rich Irish guy, IRA veteran, ready to help a local gal get her events planning business off the ground. Problem was that keeping up the rich guy cover in Seattle required more money that his buy out from the City of Winnipeg could cover, so he started robbing banks. Got caught when he slid into a ditch during a winter-time high speed chase after robbing a bank in Winnipeg.

Google Klaus Burlakow.

Lesson from this story: if you're going to rob banks, do so (a) in the summer and (b) in Canada (because light sentencing).

|>

Noted. Thanks for the legal advice.

225: His first mistake was trying to pretend to be Irish with a name like Klaus.

I googled that for you. Fascinating.

"The Fat Bandit" is an achievable goal.

A Commenter, if you want an exercise to try to understand what manner of bullshit of your own this is, here is something to try:

Start a diary entry with the title "Why do I want to have this affair?" Write 2-4 sentences. Or whatever increment seems to work well upon experimenting. Read the sentences you just wrote. Then write 2-4 more sentences on the question "What does this mean about me?" Read the sentences you just wrote. Then write 2-4 more sentences on the question, "What does *that* mean about me?" Und so weiter, until you get to something that provokes an intense emotion and is difficult to write. That will probably be something useful to understand.

Maybe I'll try that before robbing banks also.

227 Called himself Patrick Burke

228. The 2018 conviction article omits that he was CAUGHT IN 2009, got off with a reprimand then.

225: That really read like a tale from the 1930's or something.

That was also my thought. I had no inkling it was recent before googling.

Match made in heaven? The guy's in prison, so has time on his hands. I bet he would be ready to serve as a relationship advice columnist via Canadia's prison mail system!

OP: So is the Tuesday dinner still going to happen, or has everyone talked you out of that?

Let me be the first to suggest Taco Tuesday.

211.last sounds like a good premise for a FedEx ad.
I worked with two people who were married and it took me about three years to realize they were married. Granted I am not the most perceptive person about relationships, but that suggests work relationships can be done discretely. But maybe only once you're married and don't care much about seeing the other person all the time.
As a child of the 80s let me offer you this wisdom.

195, 239: FFS, "discreet."

Speak for yourself, I choose to have my affairs in whole numbers only.

The real question is, what do will and SP have against amputees?

being married with small kids is miserable, especially if you actually care about the kids and don't try to maximize time you pawn them off on other caregivers. Sometimes people in that situation just want to blow everything up, and an affair seems preferable to suicide.

And to be honest, I envy the worldview where an affair seems preferable to suicide, since I have never shared it.

Much about this story makes no sense but I think I have found one perspective which does make it coherent.

Suppose the driver in this situation is not the unhappily married cow-orker who wishes to break out into the delicious freedom of an affair: it is A commenter who is at present deliciously unanchored - has plenty of sex, a good job, and all his freedom. Yet, inside, in a place he hardly even recognises as part of his heart, he longs for more. He longs for broken nights caring for yowling children. He wants the yoke of responsibility and of duty. He would welcome its galling, and the shape and direction it would give his life. He wants a narrative arc of guilt and redemption. He is even prepared to have teenagers with her.

In short, he loves his cow-orker, not with the quick flare of infatuation, but with a steady deepening longing. He wants their conversations and the intimacy to go on and on, further and further. He does not want to inflict a disaster on her, but to share it.

But how can a man admit such unmanly feelings? In the depths of his anti-romanticism, love has to present itself as lust, perhaps for both of them.

What else can explain the determination to do something so obviously crazy. One question then is whether she wants it too. Nothing in this thread has presented the cow-orker as a remotely plausible character.

====

Of course, if he really wants to break it off, he need only show her this thread and, while she's reading, climb out through the bathroom window and run to the nearest motel.

Climbing out a window to end a relationship seems like a lot of work.

Everyone knows relationships take work, Mobes. Just climbing out a window to end a good relationship won't FEEL like work, apparently.

I have been on dates where I considered simply plunging through the window without first opening it.

"Probably the most likely outcome, unfortunately, is that you'd lose them as a friend."

Consider also the possibility, even in this Enlightened age, that your political opponents, overcome by the spirit of Faction and succumbing to their naked Ambition, will hazard a meeting with you for the purpose of recounting the peccadilloes that this course of events of necessity engenders. If that should transpire, you may think that a full recounting and accounting of the events will reveal your blamelessness before a discerning public, and even before those in the mob who are not fully in thrall to their base and partisan Notions. Believing in the power of explication, you may decide to write of the full Course of event and publish that with illustrative commentary. If your thoughts & considerations are as water venturing to flow through these Channels, I implore you with all the benefits that hindsight and retrospection have to offer: Say no to this. For it may transpire that your beloved firstborn will, years hence, feel Compelled to defend your good name upon the field of Honor, and undertake a course of action such as will lead to an irreparable Loss.

Dude can you scan when you plan? Imma help, don't yelp, read your 'graph there's no laugh, one good line make it mine right on time

I really can't climb very well. I can walk a very long way.

Windows are for cheaters, chimneys for the poor
Oh, closets are for hangers, winners use the door

251 is wonderful.

Then again, I would totally have an affair with Bruce Springsteen.

Why would you inflict that pain on Patti Scialfa?

237: no one has cancelled the dinner yet.

Seriously, I hear good things about tacos. And all adore alliteration.

Turkey Tetrazzini Tuesday might not taste as good, but probably would result in less gassiness, if that's a concern.

So, if this is a disastrous idea on its face, and I'm not just horny and I'm not infatuated, why am I fighting something in my gut that is telling me it's the "right" thing to do?

because unbeknownst to yourself you are horny and infatuated. now, obviously this is a bad idea, and obviously you are going to do it anyway, so my thought was, if a woman with three young children thinks she has the energy to carry on with you, then the sex really will be nuclear hott. at least at first and if that palls you will still have lots of good reasons to break it off before disaster strikes.

Even if Taco Tuesday doesn't strike your fancy, you should probably try to avoid any food that codes as "kid". No chicken tenders, mac and cheese, corn dogs, that kind of thing.

If they're in California dried seaweed codes "kid" also.

My son gets those in his lunches.

Gogurt seems kid-oriented, but really who doesn't want yogurt on the go?

Do it or don't. I've got blog posts to read.

Do or do not. There is no have no dinner and just talk about it.

Slipping your syntax is.

No liveblogging, I guess.

Obvious deduction: OP in his ice-filled tub about to come to and read the note to call 911.

Nobody can afford college for three and a divorce without a little time in the organ resale business.

268: Does the quality of the advertising reflect on the quality of the product?

Don't advertise stolen kidneys.

264: Don't take romantic relationship advice from a jedi. They're famously bad at making those work.

They're great at getting rid of children. Or at least the one was.

Do we get an update?

They've been porking for the last 20 hours. No time to comment on blogs.

Maybe they're Jewish and atoning for what they did yesterday?

I'd say the lack of update suggests they did, in fact, boink. If they hadn't boinked, A Commenter would have been eager to come tell us about the not-boinking.

Another reason, another season, for making boink.

And, truly, there's no shame in boinking. The only real shame would be failing to share the story with a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Maybe we should have made that point more forcefully.

On an intellectual level, I appreciate that people who comment here have priorities that are more important than satisfying my curiosity. But it's really hard to be intellectual when you're curious.

279: I thought being an intellectual was about curiosity.

280: I intended to write "was all about curiousity", but I guess it works the way I wrote it too.

Nope. It's all about getting grants.

They boinked. And then they were dead.

283: The epitaph for humanity.

Also my Romeo and Juliet plot summary.

And the content of the sex ed class I had.

There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must boink one another or die.

286: Never take a sex ed class taught by salmon.

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave everyone hanging in suspense--I've just been very busy over the last few days. And also the update is the most boring update of all possible updates to the story. But I don't mind sharing so no one thinks I've been murdered. Colleague came over for dinner. We had a lot of wine and talked for a long time. She's convinced that her marriage is absolutely dead and is months away from formally ending (meaning her formally ending it). Right now is bad timing because her husband is in the middle of a political campaign (local office, nothing big), and she doesn't want to create an issue. But she says she's resolved to leave once the campaign wraps up. She said for years it's been a dead relationship that is really just a logistical childcare arrangement. We spent about three hours talking through why us having an affair is not a smart idea, and seemed to be in general agreement on that. She indicated that she understood the risks but wanted to have an affair anyway (assuming I do--she was genuinely not pressuring, although she was very strongly requesting, if that makes sense). She seemed more interested in talking through all this at tedious length than in actually going upstairs to my bedroom, and just talking was fine with me. (Preferable really.) But as her window of time expired and she had to get home, she asked if she could have a kiss on her way out the door. I stupidly said ok, which turned into fairly extensive making out, with a lot of clothing removed. Which made her very late, and would probably have progressed further if she didn't genuinely need to leave. I felt ok letting all of this happen (I would have let her stay if she hadn't insisted she needed to leave), despite knowing it was dumb. But I woke up the next day more strongly resolved that this really is a terrible idea and we shouldn't do that again. I told her that (by text). To my surprise she replied that she had reconsidered and that she was now in agreement with that. We had lunch today and discussed further and really do seem to be on the same page: not doing that again. We can potentially revisit the issue if/when she's divorced/divorcing, although we obviously would still then have the colleague issue which is problematic in its own right. Although she absolutely swears she's not making any life decisions about her marriage (or anything else) based on any hope or expectation that we might end up together, and I made very clear that I'm not offering any assurances around that at all. I may not even be single then. If there even is a 'then'. We seemed to be in total agreement and both willing/able to continue to be good friends and colleagues, with no one making any more passes at anyone. The end. Thanks everyone again for the advice.

Hey, that sounds overall positive. Glad to hear it.

Sounds positive, which is the kind of thing a kidney-theft ring would write to cover their tracks.

If you'd have said something interesting, we would have expected an update. Creating interesting fiction is just unnecessary overhead from an organ-theft industry view.

I told her that (by text).

This was not smart. We all know text is not the most reliable or mentally stable of commenters here.