people always want both things at once, it's impossible, one has to choose between two possibilities
Ummm... isn't it possible that the wife doesn't know many people in the new city and just wants a friend?
one dates the other's ex-husband and wants stay friends with the ex-wife
emotionally greedy and self-deceiving i'd say
"I'm not sure if you know, but Ralph and I are kind of involved now. It started after you guys had split up -- nothing to do with your marriage ending."
Two months? This seems unlikely.
"I'm not sure if you know, but Ralph and I are kind of involved now.
The thing to do is arrange for her to walk in on you and Ralph while you're having sex. That avoids awkward conversations, she'll figure it out by herself.
How good is IB at compartmentalising her life? How big is the city (really)? Elephant traps everywhere here. Also, if she really wants a serious relationship with the ex-bloke, she needs to discuss the situation with him. It might even clarify how much she does want one.
5 is definitely the way to go.
That said, I think 2 is probably accurate. Unless the wife's move is all part of an elaborate ruse, there doesn't need to be any additional motivation for contacting/leaning on IB.
Which, I suppose, isn't to say that there may not be subtler motivations going on. I just don't think there's strong evidence for them.
Does Ralph's wife likely know anyone else in New City?
#5. Obviously, the solution is to suggest a threesome. She'll either say yes, which breaks the ice immediately, or she'll get mad and never talk to you again.
Also, no point psychoanalyzing word choice and such, because the word choice is mine, not hers.
You say, as if we were not at all interested in your psychological state.
Information lacking that I find necessary to make even the most rudimentary attempt at speculating at the motives of the wife: How far apart are these cities? (I'm guessing not too far.) What is the purported motivation for the wife's move? Is it plausible?
Oh she does not want to be friends, the ex-wife contacted her, so it's just tell the truth and see her reaction
the ex-wife was already discarded as a friend I see and now is a disturbance
she'll like fall off the radars naturally if not a masochist I guess
I suspect that LB is right and that she'll either get mad right away or slowly-then-right-away, but either way the mature thing to do is to tell her the truth and give her the choice of when to get pissed off. I don't think she'll buy that the new relationship had nothing to do with the end of her old one, no matter how amicable it was, because that is the kind of thing that can really fester. However, she's her own person and she deserves a chance to form her own reaction from the facts on hand.
I'm with
Also, if she really wants a serious relationship with the ex-bloke, she needs to discuss the situation with him. It might even clarify how much she does want one.
and
That said, I think 2 is probably accurate. Unless the wife's move is all part of an elaborate ruse, there doesn't need to be any additional motivation for contacting/leaning on IB.
and
I suspect that LB is right and that she'll either get mad right away or slowly-then-right-away, but either way the mature thing to do is to tell her the truth and give her the choice of when to get pissed off. I don't think she'll buy that the new relationship had nothing to do with the end of her old one, no matter how amicable it was, because that is the kind of thing that can really fester. However, she's her own person and she deserves a chance to form her own reaction from the facts on hand.
I'm more of a synthesis type than an original research type, you see.
Ok, so this one's solved. Move along.
M/tch is completely right in every particular.
Also, an "Ask Read" advice column would be hilarious.
but maybe the ex-wife could be the one who initiated the divorce, then it should be indifferent to her that the two date
After going to lunch with her a few times, say something like "I'm going to level with you. I heard you used to be involved...with my boyfriend? And I just wanted to say, that's okay with me, I'm not suspicious that you're trying to win him back or anything..."
16.1: It's because I stole heebie's mojo.
Well, actually, HP took it from heebie, and then I took it from HP (substituting in its place some candy. I'm not a monster).
20: You monster. Don't give candy to someone that young.
WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON, MOBY-GEEBIE?
Is lunch necessary? isn't this the kind of thing best handled via email or on the phone? Or is that just me being avoidant and antisocial? Lunch could be very uncomfortable and provides opportunities for the flinging of liquids and such.
22: I'm coming out of it now that we've got a bruising toddler instead of a baby, but I was a very protective daddy. Candy can choke.
Are you trying to give HP type 2 diabetes M/tch, you monster?!
23: I think dinner would be better than lunch. Everybody should have at least 4 drinks in them and should all be in a public place when the news is delivered.
4: Whether the husband ended the marriage because of his attraction to the Asker is not the right question. The question is, was there cheating? And it seems everything was on the up and up. Not that that will prevent the wife from being upset, but she has less cause.
27: Yes, and make sure someone of the bystanders have a good phone, so the video makes it to Youtube. Furthermore arrange for Ralph to meat meet you after dinner.
I know! Cleverly forge an e-mail or letter from the ex-husband to his former wife, announcing that he's moved on to Asker.
Forging email is fun and easy! Everyone should try it.
Not that that will prevent the wife from being upset, but she has less cause.
The heart hates what it hates.
29: Who's Ralph?
Ralph is the former husband, whom LB not-so-accidentally named in her below the fold reply. He has a magazine named after him. When you see the magazine you'll understand why they split up.
still she wants to guilt freely date the other's ex, so i would have sympathized with her more if she (LB) displayed a bit of guilt/fear to meet the ex-wife or something not this i'm a bystander, innocent
ATM maybe is the sign of it then though
and husbands dating friends after only two months are generally repulsive
36: Where does it say she wants it to be guilt-free?
38: Fair enough. She's innocent of adultery, but not of crimes against Sisterhood.
just the word, maybe she's innocent whatever
i'm just explaining my initial reaction how i all got riled up
Innocent is my word, not hers. I'll paste the actual email into a comment now that I'm at work.
Actual email from asker (who didn't call herself Innocent Bystander, that was me calling her that) follows:
A couple I know is amicably divorcing after more than a decade together. Two months after their separation, the guy confirmed our never-acted-on mutual attraction. We're occasionally sleeping together now, a couple months later. I'm hoping for more of a relationship when he isn't a newly divorcing mess.
Since their separation, his wife has taken a job in my city (not the one they lived in together). She moving here, and looking for a new social circle and a place to live. In fact, she just wrote me, asking if I want to rent a room in my house to her or get lunch with her. That sounds like a bad idea.
Mineshaft, what and how much should I tell her? Suggestions of gentle phrasing are particularly appreciated. Factors: 1. I've always been much more his friend than hers. 2. I don't care if I keep her friendship (she and I weren't close and I have enough friends), but I do like and respect her and don't want to do her any additional hurt beyond fucking her ex. 3. I'm not going to rent a room to her. 4. The husband should solve this, but I'm sure he'd rather not. I'm fine with being the one to handle this situation, but what should I say?
"After only two months" may be misleading. Two months from when the couple decided to split, or from when the. Divorce was final? UNG had been with the current gf. A year and a half *before* our divorce was legally final. She obviously had nothing to do with the split.
I've now posted the original email -- the conversation confirming the attraction was two months after the separation.
The husband should solve this, but I'm sure he'd rather not.
Yeah, but he really should be the one to solve this. Make him do it.
Two months + a few month later still after a divorce might be a little quick, although the Asker appears to realize that it's too soon to expect a serious relationship with him.
But then it depends on a lot of factors, particularly how long the couple had been contemplating divorce before it became official. The fact that the divorce was amicable, at least reportedly, is a decent sign, but even then the end of a ten-year relationship takes a while to get over, regardless of the circumstances.
We've discussed this here before, but from the ex's point of view, how long does the clock have to run before it's unreasonable of him/her to feel wronged by the former partner dating someone who was a mutual friend? I'm inclined to think not long, but I know there's quite a difference of opinion on that, ranging from "it's never okay" to "eh, the old relationship is over, carry on".
The email was from Sarah Palin, right?
Ah, 43 mooted by 42. Either the pre-existing mutual attraction is related or he is using it as an emotional safety net. Either way, danger lies ahead!
Wouldn't it have to come from someone who's attracted to Todd (which is not an image I wish to entertain)?
I don't know that I agree that it's the husband's problem at this point. Taking the facts as given, the incipient relationship didn't have anything significant to do with the end of the marriage -- it's not part of the history of the marital relationship. At that point, the only active? current? personal relationship that the wife (call her Alice) is a party to is the friendship with Bystander, and figuring out what's going to happen with that is in Bystander's lap.
Danger lies ahead,
Terror marches behind,
If you jump in bed
with the recently entwined.
47, 49: I haven't been paying attention -- was the Palin divorce thing a hoax, or is that still an active story?
someone who's attracted to Todd
That homewrecking Greta van Susteren!
Divorce not yet final, separation still quite new. I'm putting money on "emotional safety net" and must. Urge. Caution. This sort of thing can ruin friendships -- and I'm not talking about the one with the wife.
At that point, the only active? current? personal relationship that the wife (call her Alice) is a party to is the friendship with Bystander, and figuring out what's going to happen with that is in Bystander's lap.
The separation is labeled "amicable", so Alice and Ralph still have a relationship too.
I think Di's 54 is probably correct, although Bystander does seem to at least be somewhat aware of this ("I'm hoping for more of a relationship when he isn't a newly divorcing mess.
"). I wonder who initiated the split.
okay seeing the omitted is is like some kind of elixir for me
if they are amicably divorced so the wife wouldn't care that the two date maybe
but becoming roommates with her would be of course, eh, perverse
LB's initial phrasing of the answer is the best maybe
or if the ex-wife really needs a room and/or cheaper than the market which happens if you are an immigrant for example, maybe one could just help with that and remain friends with the full knowledge of the situation until the ex-wife finds a job and other room, otherwise it would be like as if one would double the wrong
so depends on the ex-wife friend's situation maybe
Dear Mineshaft,
Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.
So if my daughter is a total slut, is it possible I did something wrong, or is she being punished for her own sins?
Yours in rockin' Christ,
Sensual Oil Pariah
And in 56, by "split" I mean "unwanted carriage return".
55: Huh. My image of an amicable divorce with no kids is "I don't hate you, and I'll be polite and catch up with old times when we happen to meet for some reason, but we're not going to interact with each other unnecessarily pretty much ever." Maybe I'm wrong -- do people go straight from married to being friends?
do people go straight from married to being friends?
People do all kinds of things. Mileage varies.
Also, do we know there are no kids involved? Even without kids, there are mutual friends, and the respective families or portions of them may have become friends, and all that doesn't necessarily just go away.
and the ex-wife of course should not accept the help, coz it would be too humiliating for her to stand it
but the knowledge that the other was ready to help counts maybe too, so it would be like less karma burden for the asker
do people go straight from married to being friends?
IMLE, only when their social environment requires them to be so cool it hurts. And then they not infrequently crack up under the pressure.
60, 61: I worked with a guy who had been married to a woman. Divorced her. Married her again. Then divorced her. And was now living in sin with her.
64: One of them probably has a lawyer fetish.
re: 60
Sure, I did. Not an actual marriage but we'd been together longer than many marriages (about 5 years). The friendship had a few awkward moments, but, yeah, she moved out and we were out having a drink together a few days later. We socialised together pretty regularly until we moved to different cities.
I did overstate saying that there is no relationship between Alice and Ralph any more -- I guess what I was thinking is that part of what it means to end marriage is that you're not responsible for your ex-partner's relationships going forward. Decent people don't hurt each other unnecessarily, but starting something new with a friend isn't something Ralph should have to actively broker with his ex. Bystander is responsible for handling it, because she's either got a friendship with Alice she wants to maintain, or wants to end that friendship in a decently respectful and non-hurtful manner.
Dear Bystander:
Fake your own death. Leave town. Nuke it from orbit. Congratulations. You are David Janssen.
Also, I am in favor of the threesome option. On general principle.
Decent people don't hurt each other unnecessarily, but starting something new with a friend isn't something Ralph should have to actively broker with his ex.
If it were just his friend that he was starting something new with, I'd agree, but he's starting something new with someone who is also Alice's friend.
Maybe I'm wrong -- do people go straight from married to being friends?
I probably shouldn't weigh in on this one...
So as between Asker and Alice. Sharing a home is definitely a bad idea. Launching straight into, "Hey, how've you been? Oh, I'm fucking Ralph occasionally!" not recommended. But maybe have lunch and delicately say something like, "So, Ralph and I have known each other for a long time and I feel like maybe I should acknowledge that there's some attraction there. I'm sort of wondering how you'd feel about me pursuing something." Don't promise that you won't of course. But if she says, "Oh, hey, go for it. He's not for me, but I wouldn't begrudge you!" then, problem solved. If it really would bother her, well, you know what you're dealing with.
Whatever Ralph's obligations are or aren't to the wife are not the Asker's problem.
61: Also, do we know there are no kids involved?
If there are, Bystander was being really weird by leaving them out of the question. If Alice is talking about renting a room, and there are kids, then it looks as if she's not expecting them to stay with her ever, which would be unusual enough to complicate the situation. My guess is that there are no kids.
M/tch is right, people do all sorts of things.
This:
Not that that will prevent the wife from being upset, but she has less cause.
is usually a dodge, I think. Talking about `less cause' in these sorts of things is often code for giving oneself permission to not feel guilty for hurting the other person. As such it may not have much to do with guilt and innocence or whatever. Looking for some way to describe a moral high road and claim it is often just a way of making yourself feel better about the things you could have done better....
Of course this isn't universally true, but I suspect it's a fairly rare relationship failure that is truly the fault of only one person. People get hurt in breakups. How it manifests is often pretty random, but fundamentally people are upset about the relationships end more that the particular target.
The trick is to combine honesty with flattery. One good phrase is "you're ruined him for other women".
72 makes sense.
Whatever Ralph's obligations are or aren't to the wife are not the Asker's problem.
They are of concern to her if she's interested in a serious relationship with Ralph.
"So, Ralph and I have known each other for a long time and I feel like maybe I should acknowledge that there's some attraction there. I'm sort of wondering how you'd feel about me pursuing something."
I read this as a lie by omission, and think it is really a bad idea in general. Perhaps justifiable as a way to start the conversation so long as you're actually going to be honest about what's already been going on, or at least straightforward about this being a friendship ending problem for you, if you'd rather break off all contact while sparing the person details.
Assuming you care about what the person thinks and/or their friendship; getting caught out on this sort of manipulation can be very damaging.
It sounds like Alice was more a friend-in-law than a friend ("I don't care if I keep her friendship (she and I weren't close").
Am I the only person who thinks that, while it may be nice to have that lunch, Asker does not at this point owe an explanation of her current sex life to Alice? Her description of the status quo: "We're occasionally sleeping together now, a couple months later." doesn't really sound like a relationship (and frankly, having seen "the newly divorced mess" in person, I'm not hopeful -- let's just say that this is a breed prone to pronouncing their love for pre-existing female friends). If Asker feels like being passingly nice and helpful to Alice, that's great. I just don't think she needs to spell anything out to her currently -- it seems hurtful without reason.
My last significant other (before BR) and I went from engaged to friends immediately. In fact, she had a fast romance, and got married ten months after we split up.
Br and I brought my ex's kids to the wedding and BR helped my ex and her sisters get ready.
78: But LB was asking about people, Will.
Asker does not at this point owe an explanation of her current sex life to Alice?
Of course not. Asker doesn't really owe anything --- but how she handles it can affect Alice's relationship with both Asker and ex.
If she wants to blow off Alice's friendship (as an friend-in-law, as you put it) completely, that's easy, and perfectly fair.
If she maintains any sort of relationship with her though, hiding the fact of their sleeping together (it will probably come out at some point) is a lot more potentially hurtful than being up front about it, I suspect.
lawyer fetish
Isn't that the SWPL version of sleeping with your drug dealer, with similar conclusions on how much of the product you're likely to consume?
77: You're right, I think. Depending, of course, on different people's definitions of "friendship," Alice and Asker aren't really friends. If you don't care whether you keep someone's friendship, they are already not really your friend. It sounds, however, like Alice may believe they have a friendship. Which is another whole bucket of hurt ready to be dumped on this woman's head. There's probably no good way to tell someone, "Hey, I don't actually care about your friendship and I am sleeping with your ex."
Now I feel really bad for Alice. If she's moving to Chicago, I have a room.
76: Yep. Asking how Alice would feel about Bystander's fucking Ralph, when that's already happening, seems to me to be a bad idea. I'd explain the current situation, or, as Oudemia says in 77, not say anything at all.
I don't think Bystander owes Alice an explanation, but she's in a bit of a corner: her options are (1) explain (2) lie, either actively or by omission or (3) avoid talking to Alice. Lying seems like a poor idea, and avoiding Alice without explanation seems a little cruel -- having friends cut you off without knowing exactly why after a divorce is a lousy thing to happen.
having friends cut you off without knowing exactly why after a divorce is a lousy thing to happen
Knowing exactly why doesn't necessarily make it any better. I would think, in this case, it would make it decidedly worse.
77 makes good points.
Politely brush her off. Or send her to Di. Let Di explain the situation.
It all depends whether the getting-it-on is going to become serious.
If it is, then eventually Alice will find out.
If it is, say nothing.
Since she doesnt know at this point, say nothing and brush her off.
I keep trying to envision a way of handling this that won't hurt Alice. I don't see one. The more I think about it, the "sleeping with Ralph" part strikes me as almost less hurtful than the "I don't care if I keep her friendship" part. That kind of thing happens -- one person is more invested in the friendship than the other. And you can't force a friendship just to protect someone's feelings. But it sucks nevertheless.
Don't worry Di. If anyone inexplicably cut off their relationship with you, I'm sure it's because she was sleeping with UNG, not because she didn't care about you.
I don't know why people are ignoring my 45, as it's obviously the right answer. Ralph and Alice's relationship is richer and more important than Bystander's relationship with Alice. If the split is amicable enough that Ralph can tell Alice about sleeping with Bystander, then Ralph needs to do that. If Ralph thinks that his telling Alice would cause problems, then Bystander should stay the hell away from saying anything to Alice herself.
83/84: Certainly lying is out of the question, but I do think that she can have a friendly lunch with Alice without saying whom she's fucking, even if it is Alice's soon-to-be ex. Now, if she and Alice become boon companions or if Asker and Ralph become a real item, it's a different story.
88: Oh, that would serve them right!
“ Hi ex-wife,
I got your message. Ralph and I are kinda *moan* involved at the moment. So the spare bedroom is in use. Actually, so is the *ooooohhh* kitchen and the *groan* dining room table.
*Long groan*
So, how about lunch on Wednesday?”
That kind of thing happens -- one person is more invested in the friendship than the other. And you can't force a friendship just to protect someone's feelings.
If Bystander is right that she's always been more of a friend-in-law than a direct friend to Alice, I'd guess that Alice knows something about Bystander and Ralph, and is investigating/nudging more than simply trying to be Bystander's friend. That's not wrong of Alice, it's the kind of thing people do after breakups, but it makes me worry about her feelings a little less.
it makes me worry about her feelings a little less.
Why?
Certainly lying is out of the question....
What? I'm not following you.
If Bystander is right that she's always been more of a friend-in-law than a direct friend to Alice,
It's entirely possible that Bystander has always been more of a friend-in-law to Alice, but that Alice has been a direct friend to Bystander. I also can't help but read "I don't care about the friendship, we were never close" as at least potentially analogous to "I don't love you, and I don't know if I ever did."
I'd guess that Alice knows something about Bystander and Ralph, and is investigating/nudging more than simply trying to be Bystander's friend.
I think the "can I rent a room in your house?" part argues against your hypothesis. I still vote for 2.
say nothing and brush off or lie and then suffer the guilt for that brushing off/lie?
horrible
explain the situation but be ready to help if needed, then the ex-wife has to make her choice and it's not your problem anymore
Why?
I suspect because if Alice is actually probing Bystander (because Alice suspects Ralph is probing Bystander, as it were), then it's impossible for Bystander to surprise her with this -- there is no unexpected blow if she finds out, just confirmation.
94: Because if I'm right (that she wouldn't have been particularly interested in re-establishing contact with Bystander without knowledge or at least suspicion of Bystander's 'relationship' with Ralph), she's actively picking at something she knows is going to hurt her, and she's doing it more to fuck with Ralph and Bystander than to keep an old friendship going.
I could be dead square wrong about that -- it's a guess. But if that's what's going on, I don't think she's a bad person for it at all, but I do think that the pain she suffers as a result is mostly self-inflicted.
I'm with Flippanter. What is wrong with the kind of lying that is just not telling the whole truth? That's why somebody invented the term 'white lie.' What's wrong with Bystanding expressing an interest in Ralph (not asking permission) while avoiding mentioning exactly how far the relationship with Ralph has progressed.
It's entirely possible that Bystander has always been more of a friend-in-law to Alice, but that Alice has been a direct friend to Bystander.
This is true. On the other hand, there is a lot of difference between "I never cared about your friendship" and "I'm sad about this, but I have to choose between you".
The latter does happen a lot, too.
I think the "can I rent a room in your house?" part argues against your hypothesis.
Huh, and I was taking that as part of my evidence -- it's such an effective guilt-trip, and there's no good way to refuse (if you do have a room to rent, which Bystander seems to) without either fessing up or lying, either of which gives Alice the emotional/moral high-ground.
Alice is clearly in pain and reaching out for friends. This is not uncommon. She wants and needs companionship/friendship/sex.
Surely, some Chicago-based Unfoggeder could help her out.
I think W. Breeze's 92 should be given some serious consideration.
What's wrong with Bystanding expressing an interest in Ralph (not asking permission) while avoiding mentioning exactly how far the relationship with Ralph has progressed.
What is wrong is wording things in such a way as to encourage the other person to form an erroneous conclusion. This is manipulation, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with "white lies".
Go ask Alice.
Alice doesn't live here anymore.
To the moon...
There. I feel better.
I'm with Soup on that one. In Alice's shoes, I would feel very lied to if I found out the facts after a conversation like that.
103: Man, remind me never to sleep with Buck, LB.
Alice is starting a new job in a new city with a new life sans husband. I really do think the most likely explanation is that she's reaching out for friendship and support.
On the other hand, there is a lot of difference between "I never cared about your friendship" and "I'm sad about this, but I have to choose between you".
Sure. That's why the "we were never close" line strikes me as a potential bit of after-the-fact rationalization.
Surely, some Chicago-based Unfoggeder could help her out.
We don't know where Alice is, but I wouldn't count on the Chicago-based Unfoggetariat.
This points out the need for a line of divorce cards to assist with these issues.
Perhaps someone can help me design this cards?
This one would be for friends of the divorced couple to send out indicating which one will remain their friend.
"I've always enjoyed chatting with you, but I intend on pursuing a sexual relationship with your soon-to-be-ex-spouse." (Alternatively, "We can remain friends as long as you are ok with me screwing him/her."
Bleh, 111.1 doesn't make any sense. Strike that.
I really do think the most likely explanation is that she's reaching out for friendship and support.
Certainly could be, I'm not even close to sure about my guess.
So I've been away for a bit. What thread did read make her triumphant return in?
113: I had a friend who would regularly state early on in friendships "You should know that there's a reasonable chance I'll screw your exe's."
116: Shurely you mean "Ack, barf"?
New City and Old City must be very near one another, yes? (I'm assuming something along the lines of SF to Oakland, or maybe Evanston to Chicago.) Because if New City is far away and Ralph has moved to New City and now Alice is following, that is potentially odd.
I think it was the one where she was arguing that battered women would have a better chance of stopping the battering if they hit back.
What IB should do is take Alice out to lunch and explain that she has gotten involved with Ralph and therefore needs to know all his darkest secrets.
I really don't think of Evanston and Chicago as different cities.
123: Well, me either. But I was trying to think of two places that both technically count as cities and from which one might reasonably move to the other following a divorce.
106: How many volumes is this projected to be? I've got a abortive start on the Peanuts collection on my shelf. I decided I couldn't devote two whole shelves to it. I've also got the Complete Calvin and Hobbes, which is too big to actually haul off the shelf.
Putting on my divorce lawyer hat, I am guessing that Bystander has been screwing Ralph for years.
This:
Two months after that, the husband and I talked about a longstanding but previously unmentioned or acted-upon mutual attraction, and now, a few months later still, we're sleeping together occasionally
means:
"We've been screwing occassionally for the last 4 years.
126: Dallas & Fort Worth.
Baltimore and DC? Or a number of northern VA places and DC?
Or a number of northern NJ places and NYC?
San Marcos and Austin?
Lots of possibilities
130: Could also mean, we've been carrying on an emotional-affair, but have convinced ourselves that it was all okay since we never fucked.
Further translation:
a longstanding but previously unmentioned or acted-upon mutual attraction
She intends to confuse you by using the words "two months after that" but those phrases are not really connected to each other.
The not-acted on attraction was in the first 6 or 7 years of the marriage. Then, they started having sex, and continued for the last 3 or 4 years of the marriage.
132:
It could but "we never fucked" is probably defined as "We never fucked while he wasnt married" or "we were fucking, but neither thought he would leave his wife."
130:
Meeting a friend in a corridor, Wittgenstein said: "Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men to assume that the sun went round the earth, rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend said, "Well, obviously, because it looks as if the sun is going round the earth." To which the philosopher replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?"
So, what would Bystander have said if she'd really only started screwing Ralph after the separation?
133: You know, will, it's Asker that's asking the mineshaft, not Alice.
IB should disclose to Alice that she and Ralph are dating and that makes the rental arrangement impossible. She and Ralph should get their stories straight and Ralph should disclose to Alice at the level of detail appropriate to their current relationship. It's important that Alice get consistent stories from both Ralph and IB, because the timing is such that suspicion of infidelity is reasonable, and suspicion would damage the amicable nature of the split, which is presumably important to Ralph. IB and Ralph need to have an explicit discussion of the story they will be telling Alice, because it's really easy and common for people to misremember things, and in that gap between the memories of IB and Ralph is room for real confusion on the part of Alice, who really doesn't need additional drama in her life, and Ralph at least owes her a bit of due diligence in minimizing her potential distress.
This, however, is problematic: I'm hoping for more of a relationship when he isn't a newly divorcing mess.
Starting a relationship with someone right out of a major breakup makes you the rebound partner, and there's no way around that. People have successfully built stable and loving relationships out of a rebound situation, but the rebound dynamic is going to be there for a quite a while. It can be shifted into something more focused on the new partner over time, but that's not the most likely outcome, and the echoes of the previous relationship will be there for a very long time, potentially the whole of the relationship.
Will, if you're going to parse the words that finely, you might want to look at 42 instead of LB's paraphrase.
So, what would Bystander have said if she'd really only started screwing Ralph after the separation?
I wouldnt know. Ive never had to deal with that situation.
137.1 sounds right to me.
137.2, sadly, does as well.
130: Speaking as a woman whose every recently divorced male friend has hit on her ("I've always looooved you!") that ain't necessarily so.
Recently divorced mid-30s gentilhommes who find themselves with a newly empty spot in their life, like a piece popped out of an otherwise finished jigsaw puzzle, think immediately to find something they can pop right in there, rather than rebuild all the surrounding pieces. Often this is an old friend or someone they dated in college whom they convince themselves they've always loved. (I've never taken any of the fellas up on this, but it is a real and real crazy phenomenon.)
Let me be the first to say that 137 sounds right and makes sense.
Speaking as a woman whose every recently divorced male friend has hit on her ("I've always looooved you!") that ain't necessarily so.
The marriage counselor confirmed that this was SOP. Guys, apparently, feel the need to fill the hole (as it were... ) as soon as humanly possible.
Will is so cynical! Isn't it perfectly ordinary for a married couple to simply separate in a friendly manner after a ten-year marriage, followed by one of their friends sliding into the husbands bed after a brief but polite interregnum?
Also, adding to the chorus, togolosh is very smart.
I dont believe you, oudemia. Hussy.
OT: Last night, my son attempted to shame me by disclosing that I was born in NJ. Silly boy didnt realize that since I was born at Fort Dix on federal property(!) that I was not technically born in NJ.
My brother introduced me to his current wife over lunch a month before he separated from his then-wife and asked me not to mention it to then-wife, because she was a suspicious type. After the separation, he waited six months for the divorce to be final, then immediately moved in with current-wife. And, all the while, he swore that his divorce had nothing to do whatsoever with current-wife.
I've always found that amusing. I suppose it's a pretty common psychological crutch/convenient fiction.
141: For what it's worth, this is equally common of recently divorced women, ime.
makes you the rebound partner
I always give the same advice on these things, so I'll just say "Danger, Will Robinson!" and leave it at that.
Also, IB doesn't owe anybody an explanation of her sex life. Especially not to any given partner's ex. Maybe in a few months you both have moved on to other people, and then what was gained by having said anything to the ex?
147: I'll bet you were sleeping with every servicemember on that base, Will.
148: Your brother's firsts wife doesn't sound suspicious, just 'non-oblivious'.
re 149: the hitting on friend, old boyfriends, whatever thing at least. I don't know if the `missing jigsaw piece' is quite accurate though.
re 137.1 , even given perfectly matching and plausible and true stories, if the dynamic is such that Alice is looking for a reason to latch onto, it really won't matter.
152: He said "suspicious." He didn't tack on "with good reason."
They don't have kids.
Didn't fuck him before the marriage ended. When I thought we were veering close to an emotional relationship, I stopped hanging out with him for several months. I was conscientious and so was he.
Togolosh is smart and probably right, but I also lean toward oudemia's and Apo's "don't owe anyone an explanation of my sex life, including his ex."
Loved 19, Cryptic Ned.
i would have sympathized with her more if she (LB) displayed a bit of guilt/fear to meet the ex-wife or something
As a nonspecialist, you may not be aware that our earliest, best manuscripts of Grice omit the "Maxim of Contrition".
"don't owe anyone an explanation of my sex life, including his ex." And the surprised window washer.
I also lean toward oudemia's and Apo's "don't owe anyone an explanation of my sex life, including his ex."
Reasonable to the extent you don't intend to maintain any kind of relationship with ex-wife. A more difficult question if you do.
so i was right in 11, why people need to atm even then i don't understand
159 is exactly right. We none of us owe this sort of explanation to anyone, except in the context of relationships we have chosen to enter into or maintain, whose parameters may in honesty oblige it.
161: Because, alas, not all of us are blessed with your absolute moral certainty and must sometimes look to the insights of others for enlightenment.
And the surprised window washer. tellers, clerks, lifeguards, stewards/esses, servers, priests, rangers, security people, etc., etc., etc.
it's already decided for the asker and pretty self-righteously, no need to ask further anyone else it seems
let's just say that this is a breed prone to pronouncing their love for pre-existing female friends
Stop looking at me. It was just one kiss, later described as "sad."
162, 165: And Jesus, of course.*
* Jesus: "I don't want to know. Leave me alone."
it's already decided for the asker
It is?
And if so, by who?
I also asked because I was hoping for help drafting an email to Alice, replying to her question about the room in my house.
go ahead 'i fuck your ex and please don't bother us again'
154: Sadly, yes.
156: You don't owe anyone an explanation of your sex life. The issue is how to keep things fairly smooth and not cause needless pain. That's above and beyond the basic minimum level of decency required, but minimizing drama is generally a good move, IMO. Good luck with this thing. It's not an easy situation, but it sounds like you have behaved very decently so far, which really does bode well for a longer term thing with Ralph.
172: I'm beginning to doubt the truth of 16.2.
Loved 19
Oh, thanks.
"Actually...we were married for the entire time you've known me. Wait, what? Did you not know..."
"What?!? I *thought* you were hanging out together a lot! Oh, that makes so much sense now. No wonder you seem awkward."
There should be some rule that requires a follow-up thread to ATM threads.
How did it turn out?
Are you happily married/seeing each other/hating each other's guts?
Did you become friends with Alice when you realized how horrible Ralph was?
etc.
Dear Alice,
Congratulations on the new job! I'm sure you'll enjoy [New City] -- it's a fun town.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to rent out a room to you. Ralph and I have recently begun seeing each other. I know things are amicable with you guys, and I don't really know at this point where things are going between him and me, but all things told, I suspect it would just be too awkward for all of us for you and I to share living space. If I hear of other places for rent, though, I will definitely pass that along!
I hope you are doing well. Give me a holler if you want any tips for things to do in [New City].
Bystander
177: You can write all of my painful correspondence if you want.
Let me join in the chorus of all those praising 157.
177:
Great letter.
"seeing" could be "casually hanging out" or "chatting" or "spending some time together"
178: There should be career opportunities in such a field. The name of my company will be "Don't Shoot the Messenger!"
177 looks good to me, except that I'd say "Ralph and I started seeing each other [two months -- whatever's accurate] ago." Making the post-marital nature of it unambiguous. (She may not believe you anyway, but leaving a gap that could be interpreted as purposeful ambiguity seems like a bad idea to me.)
My life is none of your business version:
Thanks for getting in touch. I'm afraid the room is not available right now, but I'll see if anyone I know has anything that might work for you. Life is crazy right now, so let's hold off on lunch.
My sex life is none of your business but I want to be honest version:
Given my friendship with Ralph, it wouldn't be right of me to share a living space with you right now. I hope that I can help you in some other way -- I'll look around to see if anyone I know has anything available.
Someone has to do this version:
I feel obligated to let you know that Ralph and I have begun seeing each other in the last few weeks. I hope you understand that I don't feel capable of maintaining a relationship with both of you. I'll pass the word around that you're looking for a place to live, and maybe I can send something your way.
Anything useful?
171: In re the room, it seems to me a white lie is called for. Luckily, the bar for denying an acquaintance long-term lodging is relatively low.
"Divorce Eqitiquette: how to tell your friend that you are sleeping with her ex-husband"
Guys, apparently, feel the need to fill the hole (as it were... ) as soon as humanly possible.
This general topic came up semi-recently. I suspect there are 2 distinct dynamics that result in the same move - one is the basic needs-a-female-partner male, and the other is the guy who's been emotionally out of the relationship for some length of time prior to the split, and is therefore moving as soon as decency allows. IOW, 6 months or a year before the split, he started looking around and getting ready to date again. Hence, no apparent cooling-off period (it occurred before the split was official) and a target in his already-existing milieu (because he started looking while that milieu was intact).
Note that, as in oud's examples, going back to a college GF represents an attempt to move away from the marriage life/circle of friends, if not an attempt to move forward with life.
"seeing" could be "casually hanging out" or "chatting" or "spending some time together"
Oh will, you're losing your touch. It definitely means "fucking".
183 written before 177, which is vastly better and friendlier than 183.3
181: Maybe that's what BD and AWB are starting.
187:
I've been trying to lose that bad touch for months.
Not sure why 183.1-3 all presume a community of room-renters, each one's vacancies known to the others.
191: So it's one of the new multi-resistant strains, huh? Bummer.
I like some combination of 177 and 183. The overall tone of 177 is trying too hard to be friendy, I think. It ends up sounding defensive.
2 distinct dynamics that result in the same move - one is the basic needs-a-female-partner male, and the other is the guy who's been emotionally out of the relationship for some length of time prior to the split
add "not emotionally capable of handling his separated wife getting laid without getting laid himself"
189: Do you think they'd hire me?
195: Also 183 uses blockquote. I'm surprised no one's praised that yet.
Luckily, the bar for denying an acquaintance long-term lodging is relatively low.
What? Really?
Ned! Soup! Apo! Get the hell out of my spare room!
Not yet caught up on the thread, I'd like to note that I think I agree with Bave. If it's Alice's business at all then I think I think it's the job of Ralph - since he's the one with more of a relationship to her - to tell her.
165
And the surprised... rangers,
Yes, we all read teo's story.
193: I often find myself saying, to acquaintances who need a job or an apartment, "I'll ask around." Only later does it occur to me that there's nobody to ask.
203: I mean nobody who's likely to help.
The overall tone of 177 is trying too hard to be friendly, I think. It ends up sounding defensive.
Heh. I get this alot.
I'm in the "you don't owe anyone an explanation" camp, and just be unavailable.
(If you were her primary friend, I'd feel you needed to be honest because you'd kind of be switching loyalties.)
Ned! Soup! Apo! Get the hell out of my spare room!
Damn. Well, that was good while it lasted.
177 is good, but Bave's approach is also good.
183
My sex life is none of your business but I want to be honest version:
Given my friendship with Ralph, it wouldn't be right of me to share a living space with you right now. I hope that I can help you in some other way -- I'll look around to see if anyone I know has anything available.
And I agree with 203, I wouldn't read anything specific into an offer to "see if anyone I know has anything."
205: "Ms. Kotimy, I'm afraid this plaintiff's brief is going to need a lot more work."
re: finding a room to rent. Someone less lazy than me should set up a variant of lmgtfy for craigslist.
I'd be really interested to hear specifics of what comes across as defensive in 177. To me it reads as a nearly perfect balance of honesty, forthrightness, and amicability.
211: At least in Austin, craigslist has become near useless for finding an apartment because it's full, as in 98% full, of bogus bait-and-switch offers from real estate brokers. "Oh, I'm sorry, the $450/month seven bedroom from the ad has already been let, but I do have some other properties I could show you."
212: To me parts of it sound forced, too breezy and cheerful given the subject matter.
212: I'm guessing it's the sense that friendliness is overemphasized in a situation where actual friendship is apparently not going to be pursued. Which is my response to never wanting to hurt anyone's feelings ever, though it probably does by making the other person expect more friendliness than is genuinely on the table.
213: Annoying. That would tempt me to set up multiple meetings at various far flung properties under assumed names and neglect to show up.
215: That's probably right. I'm not clear what makes 'defensiveness' an indictment, though. It's a situation where although IB hasn't done anything wrong, Alice is likely to be angry at her -- writing in such a way as to minimize that predictable anger may be 'defensive', but it's very reasonable.
213: The main problem is that there are, literally, over a thousand such ads posted per day, and the search function on craigslist is pretty crappy, so searching for the wheat amidst all that chaff takes forever.
I think I heard that in some places craigslist has started charging for apartment listings, which would be a big help.
209: On the broader question of offering, or feeling that one should offer, lodging/job/whatever help, I've tried to become ruthlessly honest about these things.
Instead of my typical "I'll see what I can do" or "I'll ask around" magnanimity, unless I have the specific intent to be pro-active, I now try to say, "I can't think of anyone/anything that would be helpful, but I'll let you know if I do" or "I'll keep my ears out; check back with me in a week/month or two if you're still looking," or even the decisive, "I'm afraid I don't have any leads to offer." This has resulted in a measurable decrease in my guilt and my dread of running into/hearing from the other person.
214, 215: I sort of see, but I just don't parse friendly as defensive. I can see an excess of friendliness in 177 (depending on details of their prior relationship), but to me defensiveness would require something like overemphasizing the fact that the relationship started after the divorce.
217: By "defensive," I mean it reads like Bystander is trying to make sure Alice still! likes! her! (The exclamation points and words like "fun" and "holler" do some of the work.)
214 and 215 explain what I meant better than I did.
Not a criticism of Di, BTW. It's the sort of message I might be tempted to write (see 219).
Even if she believes that it started post-separation, Alice is likely to think "He always had a thing for you."
He probably did. Men are flexible.
222: If you look at 156, that's straight up true.
Even if she believes that it started post-separation, Alice is likely to think "He always had a thing for you."
Which, apparently, is true. Also, if Alice isn't back "out there" yet, it's going to sting no matter who it is.
Without reading the thread, I would just like to say that I think the post title is most excellent.
221 seems very muddled. I'll try again.
Agreed that Bystander has nothing to apologize for. Writing an overfriendly (to my ear) message sounds defensive/apologetic:
"I'm schtupping your ex! Please don't hate me! Look, I'm still a nice person!"
How about: I'm schtupping your ex! Please don't hate me! Here's a list of all my exes that are not currently in prison or a relationship. If you pick Steve, be sure to believe him when he says he can't go back to the Olive Garden.
229: She'd probably prefer a list of Ralph's friends.
Why did they divorce?
Who wanted the divorce?
If the answers are 1. they grew apart and 2. he initiated it, then his thoughts of Bystander were likely the thing that gave him the gumption to end it.
231 doesnt mean that Bystander is evil or a bad person, but just that dynamic impacts how Bystander should respond.
230: Di is just speculating, of course.
I would also like to note that 122 is genuinely funny.
230: She probably has a list of Ralph's friends.
Also, if Alice isn't back "out there" yet, it's going to sting no matter who it is.
I felt a small sense of triumph when BOGF revealed to me that she had started having post-breakup sex before I did, because we both knew that, if she hadn't, she would have been a complete bitch about it. Instead, she had to acknowledge that, yes, she had wanted the relationship over as much as I had.
If it stings, you should probably slow down.
She probably has a list of Ralph's friends.
Then let the schtupping begin!
237: Or get that yeast infection treated.
234 is correct. It's kind of scary.
BOGF revealed to me that she had started having post-breakup sex before I did
Unless you are still getting it on with the ex, I dont think these conversations are very productive.
Also, it has been proven that post-break-up sex with your ex is a very fertile time.
Unless you are still getting it on with the ex, I dont think these conversations are very productive.
Selection bias may play a role here.
I dont think these conversations are very productive.
Plumbing my memory, I'm not sure I ever had a productive conversation with BOGF, so....
I wish to note for the record that read and Shearer are both correct in this thread.
I wish to note for the record that B is half correct in this thread.
Let the record reflect that M/tch has been on a roll today.
I didn't say "polite," I said correct.
Also, Bave; I think it was he who said look, it's Ralph's job to tell his ex, not the person who is writing. Which is of course correct.
My sense is that the writer is (understandably, but still) trying to deal with his/her guilt, rather than Alice's actual potential feelings. As M/tch said, if writer really wants a relationship with Ralph, then the fact (?) that Ralph is too much of a chickenshit to tell Alice what's going on doesn't bode well--but okay, that's up to writer to worry about. Still, though, think about being in Alice's position: do you *really* want your ex's new partner, who used to be a friend of yours--however casual--telling you "kindly" that he/she is now sleeping with Ralph because he/she feels you "should know"?
So you're suggesting she *not* tell the ex-wife, right? I thought read's conclusion was exactly the opposite.
But yes, Bave deserves some love here for his sound input. And I'm not *just* saying that so he'll hire me when his secret but soon-to-be wildly successful venture gets off the ground!
No, you don't want your ex's new partner telling you that she is sleeping with Ralph, because you don't want your ex to have any new partners.
But since it is happening, surely there's something slightly mortifying about ignorantly approaching the new partner for help and friendship. Shouldn't she know the situation so she can choose whether to interact with the new partner?
Still, though, think about being in Alice's position: do you *really* want your ex's new partner, who used to be a friend of yours--however casual--telling you "kindly" that he/she is now sleeping with Ralph because he/she feels you "should know"?
I think I'd be relieved no longer to be sleeping with somebody named Ralph, honestly.
No. It's no longer any of her business who her ex-husband is bedding.
Right -- as long as Bystander isn't planning to maintain a friendship with her.
248 it's b/c i was being that, sarcastic and B got it straightforwardly
luckily the joke was victimless coz the asker already reached the direct conclusion by herself
i was agreeing with you, a little extremely of course and there you attack me, who should be closer to you, me or some anon asker?
/well. kidding
No attack intended, read. I am genuinely confused.
I realized that read was being sarcastic. (And belaboring dead horses.) She was right, however, in her general sense of the situation, which is basically that the person asking is behaving badly and seemingly knows it and wants to somehow let him/herself off the hook.
I'm curious which part, exactly, is the bad behavior, B. I was more than scrupulous while they were married and now I'm fucking a single guy.
I'm in an awkward situation with a woman who has no claim on him or me, but trying to resolve it with minimal harm. So I don't understand what I should change to act better.
I'm in agreement with 257 and with read.*
* in a fairly non-judgemental way, I hope. I've been on both sides of a similar situation myself, but still, 257 is right.
But what is the bad behavior?
262: I hit post too soon. I'm with Bystander and honestly don't see what the bad behavior is.
Can a horse no longer living truly be belabored? Or is labor solely a provine of the living?
Agreed on the seeking absolution to ease a guilty conscience -- totally how I construed the "we were never really friends" bit. But, in fairness to Bystander,I think she wasn't purely looking to be validated, but for genuine input into which course of action would make her less of a horrible degenerate. Telling or not telling both threaten to hurt ex-wife. Not fucking Ralph would pose the least harm, but that dead horse can't be unrung -- both because what's been done can't be undone and because her own emotional state is such that she would like to pursue further doing and being done. Matters of the heart are complicated, as are matters originating further south.
I don't really either. The only thing I could come up with are: a) the slight to the Alice who will find out that her ex has a new girlfriend and that Bystander doesn't consider her to be a friend or b) the offense to the sisterhood done by being with a friend's (ex) man.
A) is of course unpleasant for Alice, and it sucks, but, well....life seems to be full of those moments, and there seems to be no reason for Bystander to honor an imagined relationship or create one that she does not feel.
B) seems silly and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it, but it did come to mind.
I don't think there is any bad behavior, either, but people have a tendency to think that any behavior with respect to their past, present or future spouses/lovers is bad, and that may be tendency that some of the comments above are alluding to: i.e., not standing in moral judgment, but accepting that Alice or whoever may take a different tack.
Not seeing the bad behavior either. More the opposite.
Bad is perhaps too strong a word: we aren't talking about a heinous moral offence or anything, but moving in on someone a couple of months after they've ended a long term relationship with someone you know is kind of hasty and leads to messy/shitty situations a lot of the time. I say this as someone who's done it [and also been in the reverse situation] so I'm not being judgemental about it but it's still true.
I've seen a friend totally fucked up when his long-term partner -- someone he'd been with for years -- hooked up with a high-school friend of his a _very_short time after they'd broken up. He was kind of obsessed by whether something had been going on while they were together, had she secretly been attracted to the guy, etc. and he found it really hurtful that someone he thought he could trust could do that. In fact, nothing had been going on before he and his girlfriend broke up, but they had been 'aware of a mutual attraction'.
Of course he didn't have any ownership of his ex, but still, I can totally see why he felt that his friend's behaviour was questionable and why it cast an uncomfortable light on their own past as friends and on his past with his ex.
and there seems to be no reason for Bystander to honor an imagined relationship or create one that she does not feel.
And actually, now that I put this into words for a totally unrelated situation, this seems to be what I've been dealing with recently when it comes to some friendships of mine. I seem to be stuck in a few (old) friendships where I don't actually have the requisite feeling of friendliness towards the person anymore,* but care enough about them that I don't want to hurt them by saying, hey, you know what, I don't really want to put effort into this anymore? My current strategy of slowly disengaging leaves me feeling dishonest but also like it's the least hurtful method.
*This isn't quite right, but essentially these are friendships that were created at a time in my life where I was very willing to hide important parts of me (hell, I was going to church!) and I am unwilling to change myself anymore around them.
261-63: As has been observed, it's not "bad behavior" so much as involvement in something presumably likely to cause another pain. Alice seems to see Bystander as a friend, and from her perspective the rejection of that friendship coupled with what to her will surely seem a betrayal are going to look like "bad behavior.". You are indeed in a very difficult situation which would be easier if you didn't have some empathy for ex-wife's feelings.
Did you think that your totally fucked up friend should forgive the high school friend?
re: 271
No. I thought the high school friend behaved pretty shittily in the whole situation. The relationship hadn't come to a clean end, he _knew_ his friend didn't have the kind of emotional distance that would mean he was ready for his ex to start dating the friend, etc. He came out with some of the same stuff that Bystander did [and sorry Bystander, I am not trying to tar you with the same brush]: that he didn't owe his friend anything, that they weren't as close as they once had been, that the ex had the right to choose to be with someone new if that's what she wanted, etc. But that was all shite. He knew it was hurting his friend and he ultimately didn't care.
In time, sure, my friend could and did forgive but at the time I could see why he was angry.
269: Having been in that situation, or something like it, for awhile now, I wonder if there's a good solution at all. In my case, he chose to disengage from a rather meaningful friendship but wanted to maintain it as a very casual, chummy friendship. I, in turn, would have liked to maintain the meaningful friendship, but had no desire to play casual pal. His not having articulated a desire to pull back but just doing it and acting like 'twas ever thus caused me to feel rejected. My resulting anger and lack of chumminess was inexplicable to him. Finally talking the whole damn thing through... I don't know. I appreciate, at least, the acknowledgment that the friendship really did once mean something, but I won't get the friend I wanted back and he won't get the lighthearted pal he'd hoped for.
Does that add anything? Probably not.
In my reading on forgiveness, the researcher said unforgiving feelings (hostility, bitterness, hatred, anger) generally ease by:
1. passage of time or fatigue from the emotions, or
2. an intervening justice event (like a court trial and sentencing), or
3. successful revenge.
Actual forgiveness (replacing unforgiving feelings with compassion) generally requires a decision, usually an intellectual decision, then empathy and emotional change.
Do you have any guesses about how your friend approached it?
What ttaM said. I don't mean "bad" in the sense of "Letter Writer Has Commited a Cardinal Sin," but rather in the sense that "Letter Writer has done something that he/she suspects will make someone else feel shitty, and feels a little guilty."
I mean, look, l.w admits that husband and he/she had a "thing" before the marriage ended. Whether or not they acted on it, that kind of situation is generally considered a "bad" one, as in, undesireable. L.w. and husband started up two months after the marriage ended, which isn't long at all. L.w. was friendly with ex-wife, and suspects that ex-wife is likely to feel doubly betrayed--which is bad, assuming that L.w. isn't a mean bastard.
It's one of those things where one's feelings trump other people's feelings. Everyone does it, but most of us feel like we're being a little selfish when we do, and try to construct scenarios to absolve the guilt. I don't think that talking to ex-wife is really going to accomplish anything that will be helpful to ex-wife, whatsoever; I think that the wanting-to-talk-to-ex-wife thing is more about wanting to absolve letter-writer's sense of guilt.
Not that it does any good to ask you lightweights who can't hold a grudge and think that forgiveness is the easy default.
269 is my current situation with a lot of people right now as well. I have often gotten sucked in very deeply into friendships that were immediately extremely intimate and then later discovered that I don't really have the emotional resources to pour into it anymore. It's usually that the person courted me hard as a friend out of some need they thought I could fill, and I guess I have been pretty deeply gratified by the sense that I am needed or wanted, so I do what I can to fill that need. But when we both discover that there's little or nothing that I need or want from them, the friendship sort of fizzles. It's awkward.
259: I'm in an awkward situation with a woman who has no claim on him
Bystander, per what Soup and a couple of other people have suggested, Alice does have a 'claim' on Ralph: they were married for over 10 years. Her still-existing claim, if you want to call it that, on him is that she presumably -- given that the divorce is amicable -- assumes she can trust him to minimize hurt to her where possible.
But switch it around: I'm with Bave. You (Bystander) should talk to Ralph about this before doing anything. He too has an important interest in this. Having been married to Alice for quite a while, he's presumably concerned about her emotional well-being.
I don't necessarily think it's on Ralph to talk to Alice about the new relationship, but he should absolutely be consulted. He may even feel more of an emotional obligation toward Alice -- not to hurt her unnecessarily -- than he does toward you (Bystander). He surely knows Alice better than anyone.
It's surprisingly tough to construct a morality around not doing things that make other people feel bad.
274, 278: Indeed, awkward is the name of the game. There is substantial geographical distance between me and most of them now, which takes the pressure off somewhat. But I know that they're probably less than happy with me about the disengagement and I'm avoiding that, too.
The obvious solution to a lot of these issues is to not have any friends. It's like the Emerson no-relationship policy, but even better.
But given that we intend to keep sleeping together, what was the decision about what constitutes minimal harm?
Telling her, so she can decide whether to approach me for friendship and a place to live?
Not telling her, because it will suck to find out?
Or rather, that's not quite right. I think that Ralph should tell ex-wife. Given that l.w. is concerned about ex-wife's feelings, l.w. needs to pressure Ralph to do that.
If he refuses, then l.w. needs to write back to ex-wife and say something along the lines of "it's nice to hear from you. (Blah blah dealing with the content of her email: no, I don't have a room, I would/would not like to get together once you're in town, I would/would not be willing to be helpful in your move.) (new paragraph). All that said, I want to be sure you realize that I've been seeing Ralph? I asked him if he's told you and he says he hasn't. Which sucks, b/c it puts one or the other (or both) of us in an awkward position, for which I am genuinely sorry. (new paragraph). So. With that on the table, if you want to get together, that would be great. If not, I completely understand and am very sorry to have had to break the news. Sincerely, l.w."
The other two options are, just ignore the email (which makes l.w. look like an asshole, but sometimes being willing to like an asshole is the decent thing to do) or else write back saying briefly, "um, I think you should talk to Ralph...." Which will make it clear. Or should, assuming e-w is stupid.
283: "Ignore the problem until it goes away" is not a bad policy, at least for those of us who heal fast.
Yeah, Alice should be told, and preferably by Ralph. If Ralph (oddly) doesn't want to do it, and puts it on Bystander to do so, well, that's weird, and I wouldn't like it myself, but it's what Bystander has to deal with.
Bystander/l.w., I'm a little surprised that you're so on the fence about whether Alice should be told rather than who should do the telling. Of course she should, given that she's approached you for friendship.
There were arguments against telling her, based mostly on my privacy. Telling her does seem more respectful to her.
288: Sure, pars, but since Bystander is rejecting the friendship, does telling ex-wife why just add insult to injury?
Does IB really want to continue a relationship with Alice while seeing Ralph? If not it may not be sufficient to just tell Alice that IB is seeing Ralph.
And I am not sure why Ralph is supposed to be the one to tell Alice (although it might be sensible to check whether he has already told Alice and Alice is just messing with IB).
I just asked my recently-divorced, cheated-on-after-separated friend what she thought about all this. She was unequivocal about the idea that Ralph should do the telling no matter what. Bystander, she said, should (a) avoid contact as much as possible and (b) encourage Ralph strongly very strongly to disclose all. She felt that any announcement by Bystander would sound like "ha ha, you lost him and I got him", regardless of context or tone.
This is kind of opposite to my own advice on the subject, but I'm willing to believe that people who have experienced divorce etc have a different and probably more relevant perspective than my own.
289: Arguments where? Here? What's said here doesn't matter as much as what Ralph has to say. It would be really weird not to talk to him about it. I'm surprised you haven't already -- or maybe you have. I can't tell.
This isn't just your problem, or situation (it's not about you; it's about them).
289 makes no sense at all to me. Based on your privacy?? You're dating this guy openly, right, given that he's no longer married? Is this relationship supposed to be a secret?
290: That's why I feel Ralph should do it. It effectively takes Bystander out of the equation, and she seems to want to be out of it anyway, at least as long as she feels herself to be an unwilling middle person.
I am not sure why Ralph is supposed to be the one to tell Alice
Because Ralph was *married* to Alice.
Yes, they are divorced now, but they do have a relationship, a long-standing one, nonetheless. And it's reasonable to believe that Alice will have some kind of emotional reaction to the news that he's dating again (so soon) and that he's dating someone she knows and considers a friend.
By lw's account, her friendship with Alice is not such a strong one that it's comparable to Alice's relationship with Ralph.
And even if it were, Ralph, not lw, is clearly the person whose sexual involvement Alice has a "claim" to. I mean, she doesn't, obviously, "really" have a claim to it, but clearly her feelings that on some level she might are the possible concern here. And again, whether or not she has the "right" to have those feelings, it's quite likely that she will.
So the decent thing to do is for Ralph to fucking tell her.
I think that the conclusion is that Ralph is being a cad.
275: I can hold my own with the best of the best at holding a grudge. But I can't offer much on achieving forgiveness. My approach has been mostly to hope for/fantasize idly about bringing about 2. an intervening justice event (like a court trial and sentencing), or 3. successful revenge.
I'm with Bystander, and I'm all for telling (gently). But part of that is that in Alice's position, with the sexes reversed, I think I'd want to know, and I wouldn't care too much who told me as long as protocol didn't get in the way of letting me know before I made a fool of myself. There's no guarantee that Alice will be hurt by the news, though it's certainly possible/likely, depending on the dynamics of the divorce. I once knew a woman who was thinking about leaving her husband who very much wanted him to find himself a girlfriend so she wouldn't feel so guilty about abandoning him. Now admittedly, there seem to be indications here that Ralph was the one pushing for divorce, so that dynamic is less likely, but we don't really know how Alice feels.
On the other hand, I was mystified by Megan's reaction to her ex and best friend getting together, so I'm not sure I'm the best one to predict how women are likely to react to this kind of news.
I am now completely mystified as to whether Bystander/l.w. has told Ralph that Alice has contacted her. Ralph can't be a cad if he doesn't even know this is going down.
Bystander, you're welcomed to let us know.
I was mystified by Megan's reaction to her ex and best friend getting together, so I'm not sure I'm the best one to predict how women are likely to react to this kind of news.
Dude. Megan is *one* woman.
How did the forgiveness thing come into this? Is lw's goal to be "forgiven"? B/c that's *really* weird.
296
So the decent thing to do is for Ralph to fucking tell her.
Maybe he has. There is a lot we don't know.
301: Bystander didn't bring the forgiveness thing up.
277
Not that it does any good to ask you lightweights who can't hold a grudge and think that forgiveness is the easy default.
Holding a grudge is kind of stupid if it is hurting you more than them.
The forgiveness thing is my ongoing obsession. I just now saw a new angle on an old conversation with ttaM and asked again.
304: You are totally right. Sometimes it's not entirely volitional.
recently-divorced, cheated-on-after-separated friend
What does this mean, Cecily?
Not all separations are "let's see other people" separations.
Well, you wouldnt see people together...
310; When I was trying to talk UNG into a separation, I was not trying to suggest either of us would be free to date other people but only wished to physically separate, retire to our separate corners to get a break. Had he agreed to my proposal and had I gone and fucked someone else, he's have rightly felt cheated on.
Man, I'm going to be pissed if we never find out whether Bystander has told Ralph about Alice's email. It's like cancelling a series after 4 episodes.
Dude. Megan is *one* woman.
I think you meant:
Dude. Megan is one *vengeful* woman.
311: I would say that any separation, trial or otherwise, should be explicit about the terms, and not just the sexual ones. I have mentioned here that I have two friends whose partners have recently told them they're "moving out for a few months to get some perspective." And my friends have both come to me asking whether that means they (or their partners) could date/fuck other people, or whether they will continue to see/date/fuck one another, or whatever, and I'm all, dudes, you actually have to talk to your partner about this. There's no standard, and no telling what is going to piss them off.
I'm with those who think it's on Ralph to let Alice know the situation. If time since amicable divorce is still measured in months, and you're fucking a mutual friend, it's your responsibility to let your ex-wife know that precisely so she doesn't get blindsided by that fact. Also, if Ralph hasn't told Alice about it after two months, it looks like he has something to hide.
Anyway, yes, step zero is for Letterwriter and Ralph to get together and decide what to do.
A recently divorced friend of mine, at the point when she moved out, made an agreement with her husband that neither of them would fuck mutual friends for six months. Of course, two months later he was fucking one of her friends.
(In 317, I'm not making a significant distinction between 'friends' and 'mutual friends'; that is, he didn't find a loophole, he just broke the agreement)
The other problem is that, even when making such an agreement, people don't necessarily know what's going to be upsetting until it happens.
There's no standard, and no telling what is going to piss them off.
This applies even if there is an agreement in place.
If time since amicable divorce is still measured in months, and you're fucking a mutual friend, it's your responsibility to let your ex-wife know that precisely so she doesn't get blindsided by that fact.
I suppose it also bears noting that, given that the divorce does not seem to be final here, if wife gets blindsided, "amicable divorce" can become "bitter divorce" quickly.
Have we not gotten around to asking the "what-would-you-think-if-the-genders-were-reversed" question yet?
Because just off the top of my head I can think of several female friends who fit into the serial monogamist stereotype (which is fine with me and I still consider them great people) who rarely let a month pass between relationships. Including long-term serious romantic dating relationships and even marriage(s). For the most part, this is all as above: a clear end to the relationship, a short period of singleness, and then on to another relationship, sometimes with someone known to the ex, sometimes not. I haven't heard anyone say that's particularly fucked up. And I don't know why they would. If it's over, it's over. 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years -- if that was the duration, that was the duration.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend (male), split up with his multi-year girlfriend and in the following 7 days slept with 6 women and 2 men. Two of the women were cow orkers and wound up getting fired after they each found out about the other's dalliance and got into a knock-down, drag-out fight at work. Besides thinking "some guys have all the luck", hearing that story made me wonder if this guy didn't have some more serious emotional problems than just post-breakup depression.
Some people try, by God.
Geez, all we said was "hang out with us!"
Perhaps this is like the exclusivity in dating question. I think the default on a separation is that the other person is probably going to be dating and/or sexing other people. Unless, you agree otherwise.
I think it's exactly like the exclusivity in dating question. If it matters to you one way or the other, be up front and explicit. You can't assume the other person shares your assumptions.
So on the subject of "default assumptions." Post-divorce, is your mother allowed to hug your ex-husband's girlfriend? I say no.
324:
Thank you. I appreciate you recognizing that I was right and you were wrong.
I think it takes time. If your child really likes the woman, then yes.
My ex's parents hug BR.
326: Sorry will. I did no such thing.
You cannot humor me, can you?? Is it so much to ask after a long day???
329: hey, I had a long day, too! I want to be the right one!
I'm with EDguy in that if I were Alice, I would want to know. I can deal with facts, even if they're facts I would rather not want to face, much better than sneaking suspicions or a feeling of something being not quite right without a definite act/thing to pinpoint. The latter sends me into overdrive on the hypothetical frontier, which is not good for my mental or physical health.
I'm not sure who I'd want to hear it from, but I kinda think I'd want to hear it from Ralph.
321
I suppose it also bears noting that, given that the divorce does not seem to be final here, if wife gets blindsided, "amicable divorce" can become "bitter divorce" quickly.
This is a good point. There may be legal considerations here. Perhaps Ralph's lawyer has told him not to see other women until the divorce is final. In which case he is not going to want to tell Alice.
300, 314: Well, it wasn't just Megan, but the number of women from here who agreed with her that mystified me. And given ttaM's 268-273, it's not just women.
Maybe I'm too rationalistic about what can be pretty primal emotions, but it seems to me that it's only natural that the newly-single will look to hook up with their existing friends with whom they may have some underlying feelings of attraction, so why get upset about it? But that's from an emotional perspective that feels it takes years to develop enough relationships with strangers to have a good chance of hooking up with one (or more). Those who find it easier to connect with strangers might find it easier to rule existing friends off limits. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily explain how people line up here based on what they've shared about their lives, so maybe I just underestimate the power of the lizard brain.
332: Indeed. Perhaps if Ralph sees other women before the divorce is final, he will turn into a flying pumpkin, only to be dashed -- smashed! -- to the ground, so it's only natural for him to be concerned about the legal aspects of the matter, and to want the torrid affair to remain a secret.
the number of women from here who agreed with her
IIRC, there were a lot of people affirming that her feelings are valid and important, not saying they'd had the same experience. (That is, I'm not sure what "agreed with" means here.)
Perhaps if Ralph sees other women before the divorce is final, he will turn into a flying pumpkin, only to be dashed -- smashed! -- to the ground
Huh?
it seems to me that it's only natural that the newly-single will look to hook up with their existing friends with whom they may have some underlying feelings of attraction, so why get upset about it
I believe in Megan's case, the issue wasn't that her hooked up with *an* existing friend, but that he hooked up with *her* **best** friend. There are expectations of loyalty that were violated.
parsimon: Perhaps if Ralph sees other women before the divorce is final, he will turn into a flying pumpkin, only to be dashed -- smashed! -- to the ground
DK: Huh?
The divorce courts in the Land of Oz can be pretty harsh.
Also, I'm not sure where people are getting the "divorce may not be final" thing - if it's from the original message, I read it much more as "he's still getting over it emotionally".
337: Divorces can get ugly. There's no law against dating while separated, of course. But dating a mutual friend shortly after separating has potential for upsetting the wife, and and upset wife can find all sorts of legal issues to take it out on. Pumpkins do get smashed, sometimes for reasons that would have seemed utterly ridiculous to anyone not in the middle of it. It is something to think about.
338: Tom, see comment 42, the actual letter. Alice is still referred to the wife and the relationship began 2 months post separation.
339: I understand. It just seemed to me that Shearer's 332 was jumping from more obvious human concerns to legal ones in a way that seemed ... cold, shall we say. Calculating.
If marriage and divorce turn people into calculating machines, I'll be glad I've not experienced either.
338: ah, yes, the "ing" words do make that pretty clear, actually.
341:
The weight loss is fabulous though.
If marriage and divorce turn people into calculating machines, I'll be glad I've not experienced either.
It's one step towards essear's enhancement of the Emerson relationship-free life.
341.2 I'd say volatile rather than calculating. It's not limited to marriage or divorce, though -- strong emotions lead to messy situations.
343: Yeah. I could really use another divorce. Contentment is rough on the figure.
341
I understand. It just seemed to me that Shearer's 332 was jumping from more obvious human concerns to legal ones in a way that seemed ... cold, shall we say. Calculating.
If telling Alice is going to cost Ralph big bucks I think this is a consideration yes.
Maybe I'm too rationalistic about what can be pretty primal emotions, but it seems to me that it's only natural that the newly-single will look to hook up with their existing friends with whom they may have some underlying feelings of attraction, so why get upset about it?
There are a lot of things that are easy and natural that most people would be upset over. I don't know that that is a very useful rule of thumb.
Ralph knew Alice intended to ask me about the room; she had mentioned her plans to do that to him. (I guess he chickened out of telling her then.) He doesn't know specifically about her recent email doing so.
346: I never thought I'd say this here, but an ex of mine (5 years total, broke up after four years living together, a year apart seeing other people, a year back together before the final split) later told me: I could always tell when you were thinking of breaking up: you started losing weight. !!
He did not mean that I did this intentionally; rather, I'd begun to fret.
350: So basically he chose to put you in an unnecessarily difficult position...
289 makes no sense at all to me. Based on your privacy??
The "I don't owe anyone an explanation of my sex life" theme, supported by oudemia and Apostropher.
Ralph is a newly divorcing mess who is dodging fights with his ex. It isn't his best work, but he's not at his best.
Ralph is a newly divorcing mess who is dodging fights with his ex.
That doesn't sound "amicable."
308: my friend recently got divorced. Before she was divorced she was separated from her then-husband. While they were separated, the husband claimed not to be having any relationships with other women, but in fact was. I'm labeling this "cheating" (and she considers herself to have been cheated on) even though they were not living together at the time of occurrence.
I brought it up because prior to the husband's interaction, the separation had been amicable, but the interaction plus the way it was dealt with (via MySpace! classy.) resulted in worse hurt than would have been optimal.
Is Ralph really such a prize that you're willing to shove yourself into the middle of this clusterfuck?
Maybe instead you could foster a pitt bull rescued from a vicious dogfighting ring?
JM, your help with dirty french is requested in the "speaking of" thread.
That doesn't sound "amicable."
Sure it does! See—they aren't fighting!
I sent some attempts at dirty French by email, but I'll look into the thread.
355: Well said.
Okay. So that's the situation. Thanks for clarifying. It actually changes a lot.
Uh. In that situation, I think I'd go for telling Alice that given her and Ralph's impending divorce, you're uncomfortable in the third party position (which I'm sure she can understand, say various things not insulting her intelligence in order to explain this, she is aware that you knew Ralph better than you knew her, etc. etc.), and you can't offer her a room, are happy to have lunch -- or just talk on the phone? -- and talk about her new job, but want to be clear that you'd not want to talk about Ralph or their divorce.
In other words, for the moment, avoid, and make clear to Alice that you need to avoid.
This is really fucking uncomfortable. It's too bad Ralph is such a mess at the moment.
The Dirty French support me in e-mail.
365: In e-mail, Dirty French support you.
275: Actual forgiveness (replacing unforgiving feelings with compassion)
I don't see where compassion is a necessary part of forgiveness.
I think forgiveness is the emotional analog of forgiving a loan/debt in the financial sense. You stop expecting the other person to make it, whatever it is, all better again, and start moving on yourself. You do it for yourself, not the other person. There's nothing in forgiving that requires another loan, trust, or friendship.
355: Ugh. Been there, for 2.5 years solid. I hope Ralph gets through this phase faster than my ex did. [Advice here deleted.]
358 is willing to say what I wasn't willing to say.
Bystander appears to want to stand by Ralph in his woe. The "fucking" language is weird to me, and sounds vaguely disengaged, but that might be a generational difference.
Speaking of dirty support, I'm amazed at how the evidence for this has been hushed up by Big Bra.
According to the guy I read, cessation of unforgiveness gets you to neutral, moving on and abandoning expectations of the other person. Forgiveness goes further, into a state of understanding and some variant of lovingkindness towards the transgressor.
Neither of those require extending another loan, trust or friendship. Continuing the relationship is reconciliation, which is another process altogether. You can conduct the entire forgiveness process internally, without the transgressor even knowing about it. I didn't read about reconciliation, because I don't intend to reconcile.
371: To the extent that I've been following this subthread, what makes sense is that any forgiveness process that may be needed doesn't necessarily have to involve the apparent transgressor. It's just getting over it, a subjective matter. This may, and probably will, involve compassion for the transgressor, since you wouldn't have felt so betrayed if you hadn't already felt a close connection with the person to begin with.
Compassion should be distinguished from empathy. This is fine parsing, though.
According to the stuff I read, empathy is a necessary pre-condition to compassion/lovingkindness. Whether forgiveness gets completed generally depends on whether the victim can empathize with the transgressor.
It also depends on whether the victim has had the experience of being forgiven, or believes in a spiritual tradition of forgiveness.
374: That makes a great deal of sense to me. Sounds like you're walking though this as a newbie, Megan. Would you ever consider going to grief counseling? (I don't mean 'being aggrieved', but rather, being in grief over loss.) I did that when I had a great romantically related loss/betrayal situation, at the end of a seven year relationship. No, it didn't fix things magically, but I wasn't reading books and trying to process intellectually all by myself.
but I wasn't reading books and trying to process intellectually
I'm not following you. Is there some other way? Oh! You mean that I should go to the original journal articles, rather than read a synthesis of the research in a book?
376: I think she's saying that she found grief counseling helpful, but acknowledges that your method of reading books and thinking about the process might be just as helpful, and she did not try it herself.
re: 275
He had -- pretty much as a direct result of this episode -- a fairly catastrophic breakdown complete with psychosis. For a while he (literally) thought he was the devil.* When he came out the other side of that (and he did come out the other side) he was quite a changed person and I don't think he really cared much about the situation any more. So, at that stage forgiveness wasn't that hard for him, I don't think.
That said, I don't think he ever became good friends with his friend or his ex. It's possible, though, I haven't spoken to any of the people involved for a few years.
* which led to some very interesting conversations
376 377
Actually I think she is suggesting some human contact (support) is sometimes helpful when trying to get through things.
A somewhat heretical thought to people like me (and perhaps Megan) who prefer to suffer in private.
re: 380
Yes, and had a fairly sophisticated rationale for why this was true.
What was it? Did it line up with a biblical description or was it guilt over actions he thought only the devil could do?
Actually I think she is suggesting some human contact (support) is sometimes helpful when trying to get through things.
Yes, roughly this is what I was suggesting.
I found that no matter how much I thought through things, seeing someone to whom I could just say, flatly: I feel like I'm in grief. I feel like someone died. I don't know who died, me, or him, or them, or what. ...
I may have gotten lucky with a therapist who seemed to understand all this. This was a good 20 years ago, mind; I was quite a bit younger and probably more resilient myself anyway, though it didn't feel so at the time. I only saw that therapist for a few months, and we mostly talked about things like the need to be loved, feeling like you weren't worthy to be loved, what all that does to you, stuff like that. The usual stuff.
In any case, yes, all I was suggesting was that if you're seriously trying to understand forgiveness to the point of reading books about it, it might not be a bad idea to give a therapist a try. It does not mean there's something wrong with you.
He had this whole thing about how the devil wasn't a single token flesh-and-blood/supernatural being but rather a state of mind or way of acting that at various times became embodied in particular individuals. While someone was instantiating this way of being they were, literally, Satanic. Something like the notion of divine inspiration (in the 'breathed into' sense), only evil.
Thank you for offering a suggestion to help me, parsimon. I knew what you meant. I was joking about being such a nerd. This last book, the one I'm quoting, helped a great deal (although to some extent it just confirmed the reasons I haven't forgiven). It was a nice methodical read. The faith-based discussions of forgiveness didn't reach me at all. I've been working hard on the concept of forgiveness for a couple months now, and more to your point, I am well supported by people who can help me with the emotional side. I've involved them; I'm not really trying to do this alone. I'm touched at your thoughts to help me.
***
You're right, ttaM. Your friend's rational is actually pretty impressive. Poor guy.
385.1: Okay. I feared I was engaging in an outpouring. Good luck to you.
re: 385
He and I had fairly long philosophical conversations about the nature of responsibility, emotional states, and evil at this time. He seemed to find this -- and both he and one of his family told me this -- pretty helpful. That is, having someone take his 'psychosis' fairly seriously and actually talk through the implications of it seemed to be something he found useful even if it was just at the level of having someone to talk to who wasn't trying to cure him or make his problems go away. He also found Sartre, or rather my half-arsed precis of Sartre, pretty interesting as another way of approaching some of the same things he was thinking about.
He did eventually stop believing he was the devil (and dropped the bits of religious mania/bible reading that had gone along with it).
my friend recently got divorced. Before she was divorced she was separated from her then-husband. While they were separated, the husband claimed not to be having any relationships with other women, but in fact was. I'm labeling this "cheating" (and she considers herself to have been cheated on) even though they were not living together at the time of occurrence.
I brought it up because prior to the husband's interaction, the separation had been amicable, but the interaction plus the way it was dealt with (via MySpace! classy.) resulted in worse hurt than would have been optimal.
I guess I see this playing out as emotional blackmail. As several people have mentioned, a lot of drama an hurt results when one person starts dating or having sex.
But, you no longer have ownership over that person. Attempts to control that person post-separation are emotional blackmail.
Is it better to say "I am going to start having sex with other people?"
Do you really want the other person to tell you that?
Should the notification be by twitter, email, or blog post?
Jeez Will, we addressed that at length in this post. The notification should be by invitation to a threesome.
(Seriously, I'm moderately shocked by the people who suggest just blanking the ex-wife. To me that is both extremely rude, immature, and unethical.)
invitation to a threesome.
The book of our times.
But, you no longer have ownership over that person. Attempts to control that person post-separation are emotional blackmail
Having your own emotions is not attempting to control the other person. Particularly in the circumstance Cecily described, where the marriage hs not been finally severed and intentions have not been made clear. Expecting someone to stop feeling because you have moved on and the other person's feelings are now inconvenient for you is, in my book, closer to "emotional blackmail" than the having of feelings is.
Having your own emotions is perfectly appropriate.
I am speaking about when you communicate those emotions in an effort to control another person's conduct.
I am interested in what people think the proper rule is.
Do you have to give notification or get permission?
Is it not ok in the first three months, frowned upon in months 3-6, and then katie-bar-the-door after that?
389: Yes. I want to know that before I feel made a fool of. I want to know that the other person has changed the parameters of our relationship. Once it's clear that we are *both* out there, I want to know if it's someone I had considered a friend and with whom I will feel humiliated to have interacted with in ignorance. Relaying that in person is best.
Ralph is a newly divorcing mess
Chances of this ending badly: 95%. Ralph isn't being a cad, people; he's going through the worst time in his life and people make lots of bad decisions in that state. Seriously, anything happening in the wake of divorce should get a lot of slack cut. Moreover, *he's no longer married to Alice*. He doesn't owe her fidelity. There isn't any need to identify a villain and a hero in this, just to figure out the best way to land the plane without it hitting a building and bursting into flames.
IB, my advice is to tell Ralph you need to put things on hold for a few months while he gets his head and his heart sorted out. There's nothing to be gained by telling Alice about it right now. Not for you, Ralph, or Alice. It's just going to create a giant mess. And it's not your responsibility to paper anything over between a divorced couple.
Everybody can now commence calling me horrible and degenerate.
Regarding the term "Separated":
A woman asked me out on a date. On the date, I asked her how long she had been divorced. She said, "Well, we are not divorced, but I've considered us separated for about 6 months."
"considered"?!!!?!?
I asked, "Does he think you are separated??"
"He has been deployed for 6 months and I think he knows that we arent in a good place" she said.
WHAT??!?!?!? The guy was a Navy Seal.
Check please.
Di:
So you sat UNG down and told him that you were going to date/sleep with other people?
Ralph isn't being a cad, people; he's going through the worst time in his life and people make lots of bad decisions in that state. Seriously, anything happening in the wake of divorce should get a lot of slack cut.
Excellent comment, Apo. So true.
I am speaking about when you communicate those emotions in an effort to control another person's conduct.
This is because the other person's feelings are inconvenient to you. But you've had a long-term emotional attachment to that person and you just have to accept that your conduct continues to have an impact. It's no more fun to be hurt than to have to face someone's hurt, but that is an inevitable consequence of the dissolution that both parties have to deal with.
399:
So how much information to you give them? When should this take place?
Moving out isnt enough? You should still say "And I am going to date other people!"?
(I am not talking about the situations where you are in therapy together and actively working on the marriage.)
Or what if you are sad and lonely one day and have sex with someone in a one time fling?
Tell your separated spouse? "I had sex last night. It was stupid, but I was so lonely and messed you."?
395: I stand beside apo, my degenerate brother.
403:
Mainly because you are dancing to Unfunkked 11, right?
396: this, it turns out, was the Libertarian's deal. "We're getting divorced" became "well, we're seaparated, but my lawyer wants to wait until she goes back to work before I file" became "we have 'an understanding' -- well, no, we haven't discussed it *explicitly*.". Bastard. (At some point, I am guilty of willful cluelessness -- but, newly-divorced mess, so I get slack!)
397: I totally plan to tell him when that happens! More seriously, I think we are talking past each other. You seem to be talking about the case where "We are through, permanently," has already been established. I'm talking about the murkier "we're separated" status.
I just dont think that "We're separated" is that murky, unless you are actively in marriage counselling.
As a practical matter, "we're separated" means "we are through permanently," except for the occassional sex when you exchange the kids.
Separated and divorced are distinct terms for a reason.
407:
Yes. Bc the right-wingers want to make divorce harder. Didnt you know that divorce is too easy now?
408: why, just this weekend UNG told me all about the conversation with his Catholic parents about how, technically, we're still married!
Di, don't pay Catholic parents any mind. That reminds me of the time Mrs OFE's mother's third husband died, and her (Mrs OFE's) paternal grandmother said, "Ah, the poor woman! Two husband's she's buried, and her own still alive."
Didnt you know that divorce is too easy now?
Also, too affordable.
395 is horrible and degenerate and true.
In my newly-divorced mess phase I behaved abominably towards not one, but two women. NDMs are not necessarily deserving of additional slack, but people involved with them need to be aware that "mess" is the operative word, not "newly divorced."
I think apo, horrible and degenerate though he be, is right in 395, the only caveat being if for some reason IB and Alice are going to do any significant amount of communicating with and/or spending time with each other, it's better that Alice knows, for the reasons Di sets out in 394.
Anyway, good luck IB.
"...except for the occassional sex when you exchange the kids."
Somebody is either very quick or has some kids that will have issues.
Also, where is this new Unfunkked mix that keeps getting mentioned? (I really want to see what the cover art.)
413: if for some reason IB and Alice are going to do any significant amount of communicating with and/or spending time with each other, it's better that Alice knows, for the reasons Di sets out in 394 because, you know, like it's supposed to be *communication*!
I just dont think that "We're separated" is that murky, unless you are actively in marriage counselling.
You don't think it's murky to the people involved?
416: (I really want to see what the cover art.)
And What the Cover Art really wants to see you. Coffeemaker on the fritz this morning M/tcha?
417 needs an exclamation point or two at the end so it can be voiced similarly to "say my name, b/tch!".
And thanks. I had checked your blog, as I do most days, but for some reason it wasn't showing the updated page, so I thought you were still on vacation.
Great cover, as usual, and the liner notes are very nice. Is the artist on track 8 the same guy who drummed for the Jimi Hendrix Experience? Great name, anyway.
420(heh): Why art thou harassing me, Stormcrowa?
to put things on hold for a few months while he gets his head and his heart sorted out.
i think then what's the meaning to the new relationship, if one can't be together through the difficult times, if it's not just only for sex, if it was not for that, but something real what should have begun until after the formal divorce why didn't they wait until the given date then
i don't think the two dating people in this situation are doing something particularly wrong and blameful, they just move on if only too soon, though their non-existent affair was maybe the cause of the divorce however they deny it, if not the main cause then just that, subconscious/ ephemeral, but actual
but doing so they should be honest with their former mutual friend, ex-wife and friend who would rightfully feel betrayed by both and doubly if not told the truth
if the divorcing people were dating new people, not mutual friends, then no problem with informing perhaps, though again it's kinda too soon
as if the former marriage/relationship was of so little value for them to not have any heartbreak period
and which again tells about some pre-existing condition
but depends on people's temperament so whatever works for them
if the asker chose LB's response i'd think that's understandable reaction, but if from the beginning she discards the ex-wife's friendship and guiltlessly and treats her former friend's request for help as like a nuisanse something, 'why she would bother me now? go away and die for me? never bother us again?' her wording in the actual email does not sound better then this, awful
and the nuisance is happening to you because you or better of course Ralph, did not inform the former friend what you are doing to her
if you could avoid not telling her b/c your paths never crossed again, then maybe it's okay too
but if she reached you for help and you won't tell her or tell her that you don't care for her friendship now that you are in a more meaningful relationship with the friend's ex-husband, that's horrible and degenerate imo
but hopefully, for the ex-wife everything is over too and she wouldn't care whether you two are dating or not, still better to find out about that from you both, not rumors
one'd choose to tell just to avoid rumors
You don't think it's murky to the people involved?
Maybe.
Separated means you are going to get divorced. (90 percent of the time)
I think people would agree that the longer you are separated, the more likely the one of you is having sex with someone else. At what point does that become ok? At what point should you be disclosing that to the other person?
I dont see a lot of good in disclosure unless there is a need to know: ie working on the marriage or still having sex
as if the former marriage/relationship was of so little value for them to not have any heartbreak period
Different people deal with heartbreak in different ways. One way some people deal with it is to quickly get into another relationship. Another way some people deal with it is by having sex with other people.
There are many other ways different people deal with heartbreak. None of them necessarily mean that the former relationship wasn't valued or that there's no heartbreak.
422: Because in the smallness of my spirit, I am reduced to taking my pleasure in the troubles of others and do so at every opportunity. Because I woke up at 5:00 this morning to get my stuff ready at the last minute for a freaking 2-hour call starting at 7:00 and now I need a nap. Because I can.
Separated means you are going to get divorced. (90 percent of the time)
Whether that's true or not in ultimate result, it doesn't mean that 90% of people who enter a separation do so with the intention of getting divorced. If they did, then I fail to see the point of a "separation" at all.
For the segment of people who separate in hopes that the marriage can ultimately be salvaged, then it is only fair to disclose and agree on the terms of the separation. It "becomes OK" at the point where both of you are aware that the status of the relationship has changed from one in which fidelity is expected. If your partner still thinks you are being faithful to one another, then fucking someone else without advising the partner that the fidelity thing is off the table is not very nice or fair. If you want the freedom to move on, you owe it to your partner to let them know that is what you are going to be doing.
426:
excellent points, m/tch
Plus, once it is over, there isnt typically a lot that can be said productively.
"But WHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYY??????"
The point of a separation is that the crazy people make you wait before you can get divorced.
And, as I said, if you are actively working on salvaging the marriage, you should be talking about these things.
If you are separated and not discussing these things, assume that the other person is having lots of awesome, post-separation booty grabbing.
If they start taking care of their feet, you know they are having sex with other people:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/fashion/06SKIN.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
I fail to see the point of a "separation" at all.
State of North Carolina requires a one year separation before you can file for divorce. On the other hand, their standard of proof is both parties saying they've been separated for a year, so.
430: The point of a separation is that the crazy people make you wait before you can get divorced.
I would distinguish "separation," "in the process of divorcing" and "divorced." If by "separation" you mean that miserable stage after someone has filed but before the honorable judge has file-stamped a final decree, then we are using the term differently.
assume that the other person is having lots of awesome, post-separation booty grabbing.
Right, I didn't mention above that a common way some people deal with heartbreak is to turn to piracy.
So, how does a magazine called Newly Divorced Mess sound?
"Has Your Bender Gone on Long Enough? Seven Easy Ways to Tell Whether You've Hit Bottom"
"Quick Tips for Repairing Plaster Walls"
"Rebound or the Real Thing? Three Experts Explain How to Know the Difference"
431: I thought that was strange also. I consider my foot-related duties complete after washing them and trimming toe nails.
434: "Plugs or Rugs: We ask barmaids which looks most real."
432: Illinois has a separation period (not before you can file, but before it can be finalized), but the parties can waive that and it doesn't apply in cases of mental cruelty. It's something like two years, and UNG threatened to insist upon it.
It's something like two years, and UNG threatened to insist upon it.
But that would have been mental cruelty, so they could have waived it.
Has anybody tried to argue that insisting on dragging things out for two years is mental cruelty?
434: "Sleeping in the Wet Spot: When It's Okay to Cry After Sex."
The fact that there's no legal document or proceeding establishing the beginning of a separation here means that couples can effectively waive it, though IIRC you have to sign an affidavit saying that you have actually maintained separate residences for a full year. It was a long time ago, though, and my memory of it all is a bit fuzzy.
Different people deal with heartbreak in different ways
sure, i didn't say there they're doing something wrong
their exes are likely to take the news like that, the former relationship was of little value like
though the length of the period, the shorter could mean that the separation was too painful to bear alone even, depends on the personality acting out
whether one thinks you( the ex) is expendable or one is desperate for any substitution
just the new partners being mutual friends is difficult and there best to be honest, though of course trying to be as less hurting as possible
I am using the term separated to mean, living separate and apart without cohabitation where one party has the intent to be permanently apart.
So, staying at your sister's for a couple weeks doesnt count.
442:
People try all the time. But, the courts require some evidence by way of deposition/affidavit.
I guess some people lie to their lawyers, but I dont proceed if they tell me they intend on fudging the separation date.
"So, staying at your sister's for a couple weeks doesnt count."
Unless it does count. In which case, yuck.
you have to sign an affidavit saying that you have actually maintained separate residences for a full year
In Illinois, you can meet the "separation" requirement while living in the same house. In think UNG figured he was going to really make life hard with me -- "We need to be separated for two years and I refuse to move out!!" He was stunned when I just went ahead and filed under mental cruelty.
but I dont proceed if they tell me they intend on fudging the separation date.
Oh, cruel...
where one party has the intent to be permanently apart.
There's the rub. If one party has that intent, it had better be explicitly communicated.
425
I dont see a lot of good in disclosure ...
Disclosure could encourage the other party to move on as well.
You know, I'm beginning to get the idea that maybe Ugly Naked Guy is kind of a jerk.
Shearer should do all the relationship ATMs. 450 is spot on.
451: He is a deeply insecure man with a fragile sense of self-worth and a near paralyzing fear of being controlled, which leaves him desperately flailing in attempts to seize and exercise control in an attempt to assert his masculinity. It's sad, really.
Maybe a "read & Shearer ATM", modelled on the old Dan Akroyd / Jane Curtin Weekend Update.
"shearer, you ignorant slut . . . ."
453: But other than that, how did you enjoy the marriage, Ms. Kotimy?
455: I told you about the resulting child, right? AWESOME!
...a deeply insecure man with a fragile sense of self-worth and a near paralyzing fear of being controlled....
I'd like to note that I have never been married.
445: We didn't have any lawyers involved in our divorce, because it was friendly enough (though we did actually wait the twelve months). In fact, Roberta and my ex and the three kids are all up in a cabin on Kerr Lake as I type this. I've been driving back and forth each evening/morning because things got crazy at work and the other person who does my job just had a baby.
and the other person who does my job just had a baby.
FROZ JUST HAD A BABY??!!??
Oh wait. You weren't talking about your blog, were you?
"deeply insecure man with a fragile sense of self-worth"
That's why I always remind my wife of how great I am. To keep our marriage strong.
In fact, Roberta and my ex and the three kids are all up in a cabin on Kerr Lake as I type this.
I can't even begin to imagine such a thing. You are, indeed, fortunate.
In fact, Roberta and my ex and the three kids are all up in a cabin on Kerr Lake as I type this.
Looks like Roberta took Shearer's excellent advice from 122.
So did any of the divorced Unfoggers tell their separated-spouse before they had sex or started dating other people?
464: Whoa! Yes, Buggs Island. Have you been to The Little Retreat?
464: Rah and I used to go to Buggs Island Lake for a week every summer with some friends but then our accommodations arrangements fell apart. I love that place, though.
463: I didn't date or have sex until the divorce was nearly final and UNG had been banging the replacement chick for over a year. I didn't feel obligated to tell him at that point, but just figured the dopey smile on my face as I sauntered in the door said enough.
I have discovered over the past few days that the drive from my house to the cabins is almost exactly 80 minutes long, so I start the summer driving Unfunkked mix and it works incredibly well as the travel music. Especially once I get off 85 and start going through Oxford, Bullock, Stovall, Clarksville, etc.
463: Safe to assume you resumed dating without mentioning that to your then-wife?
469: We used to always make "going up" and "coming back" mixes and then trade them around amongst the group of us who were all there. It is the perfect distance for a low-intensity vacation and the Virginia Avenue Mall is usually a pleasantly horrifying distraction.
"First! Surefire Strategies for Beating Your Ex in the Sex Race"
"Turn Your Separation into a SEXaration! We'll Show You How!"
"Making it Obvious: Ways to Rub Your Ex's Face in the Fact that you're Back in the Sack!"
Ive never been to the Litte Retreat. We had friends with a house near Palmer's point.
Resumed??
My then-wife and I never had that discussion. She didnt have it with me. I didnt have it with her.
If you have to buy gas there, buy it from South Hill Citgo! The owner is a friend.
"Making it Obvious: Ways to Rub Your Ex's Face in the Fact that you're Back in the Sack!"
First ask your ex if they want a Hertz Donut ...
"Twisting the Knife: Make Your Ex Squirm by Faking Joy"
"Cry, Cry, Masturbate, Cry: Surefire Strategies for Handling Loneliness"
Di @ 144: The marriage counselor confirmed that this was SOP. Guys, apparently, feel the need to fill the hole (as it were... ) as soon as humanly possible.
Minne @ 322: Because just off the top of my head I can think of several female friends who fit into the serial monogamist stereotype (which is fine with me and I still consider them great people) who rarely let a month pass between relationships. Including long-term serious romantic dating relationships and even marriage(s).
Having glanced over this thread, I see this and I say, outside of pretend internet friends, and by that, I mean the Unfogged circuit, I can't think of any women I know who aren't serial monogamists. More specifically (since what the hell is a serial monogamist except someone who has had more than one relationship?), I don't know any women who do not immediately start dating someone else immediately, often before they are split up with the previous person. OK, that's not true; I know somebody online who is not part of the Unfogged circuit who doesn't date much if at all. Outside of that... enh.
Ex-person was dating this guy she had had some kind of thing with previously (some years) and then that blew up in her face and she immediately turned around and starting dated this other guy she had been eyeballing for six years. I think, in seven or eight months, she had seriously dated two or three different people and was engaged, and then was moved in with the guy in nine months.
That seems pretty bog standard for most people, certainly women.
max
['Four months is a long time on that scale.']
475: Heh.
Now that I think about it. "The Sack Race" would be a good term for the first-to-sex-another-after-a-breakup competition.
"Low Self Esteem: If the Enzyte commericals start to make sense, seek therapy."
Oh wait. You weren't talking about your blog, were you?
Froz doesn't do that job.
I don't know any women who do not immediately start dating someone else immediately, often before they are split up with the previous person.
This just so foreign to me. It took nearly a year after filing before I attempted to date -- and even then I wasn't so much "ready" as "forcing myself out of the rut." I haven't dated since the Libertarian, and that was a year ago now. I realize I'm a little on the extreme side here, but how can you go from one serious emotional involvement straight into another? Just let a knew person into a heart already in ruins from the last? Craziness!
Froz doesn't do that job.
Neither one of us does anymore, to be honest.
483: Perhaps you aren't human, but a CIA-created simulacrum slowly becoming self-aware?
Froz doesn't do that job.
There's more to a blog than just putting up posts, neb.
I think you're supposed to let an unknew person in.
And, when it comes right down to it, it's the having babies part that killed our blog.
That didn't help the couch any either.
Unknown person, nosflow. You barely know me at all, Di. I'm almost perfect.
485: Perhaps you aren't human, but a CIA-created simulacrum slowly becoming self-aware?
Or perhaps she's become a calculating machine (per 341.2).
491: Let's test her and find out!
Quick, Di: what's 4,389 * 628?
Of course, the topic is not just dating, but sex. One is not necessarily related to the other.
Lots of people are ready for sex, but not dating.
We have a question about your billable hours.
495 was to 493, but 494 might work.
495: Will charges different rates for sex and dating.
He also offers a full Divorce Lawyer Experience, but the price is pretty steep.
497: I'm one of the few who charges less if you kiss me on the lips.
Lots of people are ready for sex, but not dating.
But if you're ready for carbon dating, you've almost certainly missed your chance for sex.
That comment was not worthy of a 500. Mea culpa.
Forgiveness sex, anybody?
I met my wife a couple of months after a long term relationship I was in ended, and only about a few weeks after the ex and I had stopped living together. However, my wife and I weren't living in the same city at the time and it was quite a while before we were seeing each other regularly.
The previous long-term relationship there was a gap of about 9 months before I started dating someone else.
501:
Sorry. No time. I am VERY busy here at Buggs Island.
By the way, Roberta and I need to talk with you.....
Forgiveness sex, anybody?
Would that work by proxy, do you think? Say I have a long-standing grudge against someone else. Is there a way to use sex with apo to achieve forgiveness of that other person?
So, basically, nobody told their ex before they started having sex with someone else.
Just as I suspected.
504: It's certainly worth a try.
505: Uh, the general absence of a response is not a tacit admission here. But you're still missing the distinction between a separation and a permanent break.
505: A Honda Civic is so small formal notice seemed unnecessary.
507:
No. I am not.
Unless you are actively working on the relationship, a separation is a permanent break.
505: My ex-wife told me before she started to have sex with someone else.
At that time we were still married though.
re: 510
Yup, been there. An ex g/friend told me she'd decided she was attracted to someone at work and they were going to sleep together. This was while we were still living together at the time. That did end the relationship, of course.
509: Define "actively." And, again, whether or not the intention remains to "actively work" on the marriage is a fact which requires explicit communication. If you have explicitly discussed the fact that the relationship is permanently over, and you will not continue to work on it, then you have effectively addressed the point that both are free to fuck whoever will have them.
483: Didn't you have a date like a month or a little more ago? I'm asking because I don't really understand what 'dating' means in this context, having never really done anything much that fits what people seem to mean by that word. Does it have to be a series of dates to count? My utter lack of experience in this area is going to become an issue when I decide to get off my ass and start dating. It'd be helpful to know a bit about what people's expectations are.
Living in different places and not talking = not actively working on the marriage.
If you are simply sleeping in different bedrooms of the same house, it is a little different.
516: Okay, yeah, technically I went on that one date. And then I decided I wasn't attracted to the guy and that this was probably largely because conceiving of it as "a date" triggered much anxiety. A collection of single, failed dates would suffice for me to say I had resumed "dating." One date-that-went-nowhere doesn't seem like "dating."
One date-that-went-nowhere doesn't seem like "dating."
An excellent lawyer's response.
togolish:
Dont believe her. Di is probably a dating goddess, prancing around like she belongs on Gossip Girl.
An excellent lawyer's response.
I often wonder if there is any way to de-program lawyer-thinking. I am fully aware that I am incapable of seeing the world the way normal people do.
521: Being married to a lawyer, the son of another lawyer, and the brother of two more, I often wonder the same thing. Heavy drinking is only a temporary fix.
I often wonder if there is any way to de-program lawyer-thinking. I am fully aware that I am incapable of seeing the world the way normal people do.
There is a way. Follow the instructions in 506.
522:
You married a lawyer? I always thought you were smart, Moby.
My condolences, Moby. Given that lawyers as a class engage in a disproportionate amount of heavy-drinking, engaging in such only exacerbates the problem.
There really should be some kind of LawAnon for adult children of lawyers.
(Not than any of the wonderful children of the Unfoggetariat's legal team would need that sort of thing.)
518: Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes when people talk about dating I get the impression that there is a consensus notion of exactly what that means, but nobody ever really articulates the parameters, which confuses the hell out of me. I'm beginning to suspect that there really isn't a consensus, and people's vigorous assertion that behavior X violates the rules is just a way of expressing their own disappointment or irritation.
I took the GRE. How smart could I be?
re: 528
Dating has been the subject of many Unfogged threads past. There exists some disagreement!
Togolosh, when you get back to dating, people expect that you will approach devastatingly beautiful strangers, chat with them until you deliver your line and smoothly ask her out to dinner. Then, everyone knows that you will know the perfect restaurant, where you get your usual favored service. Once you're immaculately groomed (don't forget the feet!), in stylish but not ostentatious clothes that convey a personal style, you can pick her up in her clean car.
You'll be chatting effortlessly with her the whole time, of course, supplying all sorts of topics that have nothing to do with blogs. She should start to get a little flushed and smile-y. Look to see if her pupils dilate and notice if she touches your arm. You're in! But of course that's how everyone else's dates go. After dinner at the mid-level but not-too trendy restaurant that serves local food and the barkeep hands you your drink as you walk in, you should take her on that walk to one of the many local points of interest you know. Something unique but accessible, a view, a bar, a play, a park. Not where most people go, mind you, but something that she specifically brings to mind.
It won't last long there, 'cause you'll be making out as soon as you initiate that with a fantastic first kiss. Home to your fully decorated apartment with a view, plants and art and a long night of sex. Make her breakfast, crepes with a couple fillings, or something easy like that.
That's what everyone expects dating to be like, Togolosh. Don't worry about it. You can handle it.
As far as lawyers dating, I wouldn't know (we got married during her law school). My strong hunch is that the best advice for lawyers who wish to date is "Turn-off the Fucking Blackberry".
Look to see if her pupils dilate and notice if she touches your arm. You're in!
My pupils are eight miles wide.
Ophthantic! Ophthantic! A big, big love.
So Alice/Ralph are not yet divorced and are still talking, Ralph and IB are occasionally fucking but not dating, IB wants a relationship with Ralph, Alice said she was going to ask Ralph if LB had a room to rent, and Ralph nodded sagely and said "oh, that sounds like a good idea" but did not say "oh, you know we've been doing it off and on for a while?"
Reply to Alice with "oh, I'm not sure if I'm looking for a roommate right this second, but if I hear of anyone who is, I'll let you know." And then if you do hear of anyone who is, let her know. And in the meantime, forward Alice's email to Ralph, asking "anything you want me to say or not to say in my reply?"
532: Incisive advice like that is why I treasure the opportunity this blog offers me to bask in the glow of your incomparable awesomeness.
537: She forgot to mention the etchings.
What? Oh no, hon. That isn't awesomeness. That's just how everyone dates.
What does it mean to "work" on a marriage or other relationship? In some contexts it seems to mean "pay attention to one's wife's [or husband's, but come on] feelings"; in others, it means "stifle one's desire to have sex with other people." Not to indulge too deeply in cynicism, but aren't those supposed to be part of the deal from the outset?
Alice/Ralph are not yet divorced
Wait, I think I misinterpreted a detail. They aren't actually divorced yet? I don't *think* that would really change anything I've said, but I'd have to go back and re-read my comments.
539: That's just how everyone dates.
Everyone who isn't a looser that is.
What does it mean to "work" on a marriage or other relationship?
Tighten the screws, check for leaks or weird noises, slap a new coat of paint on her, the normal stuff.
539: Really? I'll follow your script to the letter and let you now how it goes.
Also, I just discovered this, and am learning a great deal from it. Those guys have some moves, laydeez.
||
If Halford or any other L.A. commenters are around, do you guys have any comments on Brattons resignation as chief of the LAPD?
|>
||
If Halford or any other L.A. commenters are around, do you guys have any comments on Brattons resignation as chief of the LAPD?
|>
541: I think it does make a bit of a difference in how sensitive Ralph should be toward Alice (and not for legal reasons) -- whether he should tell her about his involvement with Bystander so that Alice doesn't feel played for a fool. But I actually see the reasoning behind both positions with respect to that.
Everyone who isn't a looser that is.
Yeah, we just don't date.
532 is great. The last date-like thing I went on was structured roughly like that (my arrangements, not difficult, no particular pressure), and my date fussed and resisted throughout, finally saying after dinner that he was uncomfortable with "this dating thing."
Right, sorry.
||
A columnist in the Washington Post feels that not filing for unemployment compensaion is "selfless".
I applauded the couple for relying on their own resources: It's why you establish an emergency fund. However, if you need unemployment compensation, by all means take it. But also recognize this isn't "free money."
I guess she has the same arguments about using health insurance: it is not compensation and we should realize what a burden this places on employers.
Feh.
|>
550: The misperception that unemployment insurance is just a gift that the government gives layabouts is distressingly widespread.
I just ate a whole pizza. That'll help me write.
553: I don't buy it.
Alternatively:
553: Repulsive.
A whole 6-slice pie cost the same as three slices. So, if I just eat half and save the other half for tomorrow....
Re: Ralph and Alice: Who initiated the divorce? If Alice decided to ditch Ralph, she's probably less inclined to pitch a fit if he "dates" someone else. Unless, of course, she's a deeply neurotic control freak. If he left her, she's likely to blame the letter writer for the break-up - it's often difficult for people to admit to themselves that they were left for reasons involving themselves alone. [BH's ex was convinced that I'd lured him away with my bimbo wiles - he'd been out the door for some time before he met me, but she couldn't see it.]
I agree with Apo's 395 - when the marriage is over [and filing for divorce is a pretty good indicator...], neither party owes the other fidelity or explanation. It really isn't anyone's business who is swiving whom.
Re: Ex partners, forgiveness and comity: BH's ex was in town last week and we spent a lovely day together watching our children decimate the stock of trendy boutiques at the Santa Monica Promenade. She admits to hating me and BH for a few years, until she realised that the only person being hurt by that was herself, and we now get along quite well. Personally, I'm relieved by this, as it makes it a lot easier when there are family functions or visits and it's a hell of a lot easier on the kids. [BH's mother once introduced us as "this is my DIL BHX and this is my DIL DE", which marginally confused the person being addressed.]
Re: Serial monogamy: My relationship with BH is the first I've had that involved monogamy. The Ex and I had an open marriage; the Boyfriend-Who-Hated-Me was pretty much banging both sexes, tho' he denied it. [Hint: Don't have your secretary type your love notes if she was hired because she is a friend of your girlfirend. Your girlfriend will become annoyed and fly to Boston to have wild sex with someone else...] But I spent several years between Husband #1 and Husband #2 casually dating/fucking/FWBing rather than attaching myself to one person. We [women] aren't all SMs.
483: This just so foreign to me. It took nearly a year after filing before I attempted to date -- and even then I wasn't so much "ready" as "forcing myself out of the rut." I haven't dated since the Libertarian, and that was a year ago now. I realize I'm a little on the extreme side here, but how can you go from one serious emotional involvement straight into another? Just let a knew person into a heart already in ruins from the last? Craziness!
Well, look at it this way: people are committing to a life-long marriage, like people did back in the 50's... just not to the same person. A divorce then, from that point of view, merely amounts to a service interruption, just like when the cable goes out.
'I will love you forever and ever and all eternity and.... Hrmmm. Hello, Nurse! Say, lemme get back to you on that forever thing.'
Don't look at me, I don't get it.
max
['I just work here.']
532 had me laughing. Out loud, even.
A locution that amuses me in the same way that "work on the relationship" does is "serious relationship". I like to imagine that when Jenny says her relationship with Tom has become more a serious one, she means that they have started spending all their time together in solemn-faced discussions of genocide, famine, and the existential horrors that keep them up at night. It brings a lot of Bergmanesque imagery to mind.
If he left her, she's likely to blame the letter writer for the break-up - it's often difficult for people to admit to themselves that they were left for reasons involving themselves alone.
Heh. To this day UNG is probably convinced I left him for someone else. "No, seriously dear. I don't like someone else more than you. I like *everyone else* more!"
556: I agree with Apo's 395 - when the marriage is over [and filing for divorce is a pretty good indicator...], neither party owes the other fidelity or explanation. It really isn't anyone's business who is swiving whom.
Seconded! That's aside from any issues involving waiting a decent interval before committing to a marriage-type relationship.
556: We [women] aren't all SMs.
I am generalizing from anecdata. Women mostly talk about this stuff, men do not. In practice serial monogamy seems to have become the norm for both sexes, rather than polygamy/polyamory of some sort. I suppose jealousy is probably the big thing here. At any rate, I wouldn't say all women are X or all men are X, just bunches and bunches of them. (This may also be a flyover country vs. coastal thing; if you gotta be married to get any, I supposed getting married repeatedly makes sense if you've got no choice about divorce.)
max
['{shrug}']
558: Now, now. I don't know about "serious relationship," but "is it serious?" does mean something for a lot of people. Certainly, if someone says that a given dating relationship isn't serious, I know what they mean: they will not be discussing the existential horrors that keep them up at night. Got it.
I wouldn't say all women are X or all men are X
More like XX and XY. Still not 100%, but close.
the existential horrors that keep them up at night
You mean my children?
561: Oh, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to have a term for, and I do know what people actually mean by "serious" in that context; the word just leads my mind to other places at the same time, and I tend to find it amusing to go those places at the same time as I am being told some happy news. I simply thought I might share a source of my amusement with others, on the off chance that my doing so would provide those others with amusement of their own. I'm generous like that.
when the marriage is over [and filing for divorce is a pretty good indicator...], neither party owes the other fidelity or explanation. It really isn't anyone's business who is swiving whom.
I get this perspective. But it strikes me that most discussions of what someone is justified in feeling/demanding, and which speak in terms of who owes whom what, are working with a very particular sense of the notion of owing.
No, technically, divorced persons don't owe each other a thing. Emotional connections don't work that way, though: they work in terms of balance and imbalance, not in terms of debts owed and paid, or cancelled out. The monetary metaphor for speaking of relationships doesn't serve us well, I don't think.
Two people generally know perfectly well when something is out of balance between them, whether or not they owe each other a thing, explanation-wise. There's no right answer about whether people out of balance should correct the imbalance. (Sometimes you just walk away.) All this talk of whether one party technically owes the other an explanation seems at times like so much rationalization.
I was amused, Otto. In those situations, I tend to picture them as the American Gothic couple. Those expressions? That's really serious.
I am fully aware that I am incapable of seeing the world the way normal people do.
OTOH, my legal training did clue me in that marking something "proprietary and confidential" doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to look at it if I accidentally put it on the interwebs, so I'm ahead of at least one "normal person" for the day.
564: Of course. My "now, now" was teasing.
The monetary metaphor for speaking of relationships doesn't serve us well, I don't think.
I rather like it, in some senses. Not just a balance sheet, but credit-worthiness, too. Okay, so you've been treating me poorly lately and are running up a debt. On the other hand, you have a substantial history of treating me and other people well, so your overall credit rating remains high. I'll extend you some credit and assume you'll make good on the debt.
Or, in contrast, you've been a dick to me in 97 out of every 100 interactions and every interaction I've observed between you and anyone ever has been equally self-interested and hurtful. The fact that you did on nice thing out of the blue yesterday does not entitle you to any extension of credit.
I have to figure out a system for running interpersonal credit checks on people. "Hi new person I just met! I'm just going to need you to fill out this application and provide me with three references so I can determine whether to invest any time with you!"
566: Whoo-hoo! Even if nothing else good happens today, I will be able to go to bed knowing that *I amused someone*.
568: Oh. Alles Klar.
The credit analogy metaphor isn't bad, but it's tricky to keep a reasonably accurate tally without getting all little-black-bookish about the whole thing.
558 amused me too.
I thought of Alvy Singer dragging Annie Hall to see The Sorrow and the Pity again and again.
I don't think talk of what is owed in relationships is necessarily a monetary metaphor though.
It really isn't anyone's business who is swiving whom.
That about wraps it up for arts and literature, then.
That about wraps it up for arts and literature, then.
Oh, is that what you call that filth you've been watching?
So, basically, nobody told their ex before they started having sex with someone else.
Ahem.
"Ex," bitch. Not your current husband.
It doesnt count when you keep both.
On the serial monogamist question. Are the people who are bouncing from one relationship to the next the ones who are breaking things off? That would make some sense to me from the perspective that it can be hard to leave something without a safety net in place. On the other hand, if you got left and crashed violently to the ground, a new relationship looks less like a safety net and more like the next guy to push you off the ledge. Or something.
577: Don't be insensitive Will. Maybe Bitch was trying to tell us something.
579:
Damn it! Is she sleeping with BR!>?!?!? MF'er!
575: I thought it was "Flash Gordon". I was only off by one vowel.
neither party owes the other fidelity or explanation
i think people just don't see the other one's situation and if that happened to them they are all bitter and unforgiving, if they cause it then it's all nobody's business
can't they separate the situations and see it like objectively and try to behave some optimal possibly way i.e owing each other accordingly what is what, fidelity or explanation, i mean basically just respect
573: In the context of long-term relationships, a whole family of ways of talking about what's owed, what's reasonable, what's justified, sounds contractual, though, doesn't it? That language says: when the relationship is over (we're no longer living together/married), the contract which says we owe each other anything is ended.
It's a strong metaphor, and I see the attraction, but given how often it doesn't match up with our actual feelings about the matter, there's a problem.
i.e owing each other accordingly what is what, fidelity or explanation, i mean basically just respect
Exactly.
578: One of my friends was definitely a serial monogamist, and an overlapping one at that. I watched her do this through, uh, let's see 4 or 5 relationships. It seemed that when she felt things were going poorly in the current one, she would start becoming quite close to the next guy. In most cases it wasn't actual cheating per se, though that did happen at least once. I can't remember the exact breakdown but I think it was close to 50/50 split on who actually did the dumping.
My take on it - and one that I discussed with her - is that she was terribly afraid of being alone, in part because she got a lot of her sense of self-worth from being part of a couple. She's married now, to a great guy, and I suspect things are going to work out better for her, in part because he actually talked this stuff out with her and helped her separate her sense of self-esteem from the relationship.
583: Well, parties may have obligations following the termination of a contract. Damages for breach, duties to mitigate damages, etc.
It's a strong metaphor, and I see the attraction, but given how often it doesn't match up with our actual feelings about the matter, there's a problem.
Strong metaphors can be dangerous; like maps purporting to show many man-made features, they can be deceptively perspicuous and yet incomplete.
Also, one can be forgiven, one hopes, for thinking that one's marriage or other crucial relationship ought to be one part of life where language about debts and accounts doesn't apply.
I was a cereal monogamist until one day that box of Apple Jacks....
587: I quite agree with this, particularly the last paragraph.
583: Yes, contractual, but contractual is not the same as monetary.
It's a strong metaphor, and I see the attraction, but given how often it doesn't match up with our actual feelings about the matter, there's a problem.
I'm thinking it usually comes down to mismatched interpretations about what is owed, not a rejection of the notion of obligations altogether.
Also, one can be forgiven, one hopes, for thinking that one's marriage or other crucial relationship ought to be one part of life where language about debts and accounts doesn't apply.
The forgiveness program is detailed in 504, supra.
591: Can I make another small suggestion in your 'not thinking like a lawyer' program?
585:
Associated with the serial monogamist issue is that most people dont have the gumption to leave the status quo until they have something else lined up. They are surviving and managing, and then they realist (or think) that something better is out there.
Further to 587 last para., I am not unaware of the quixotic nature of this hope nor of the use of the same or similar language in discussions of matters soteriological, where it is even less appealing if you think about it.
"The forgiveness program is detailed in 504, supra." could be a bit less formal.
Flip, I suspect such language is only ever invoked in situations that are not working out -- as a way of trying to articulate the less concrete dissatisfaction.
587: Also, one can be forgiven, one hopes, for thinking that one's marriage or other crucial relationship ought to be one part of life where language about debts and accounts doesn't apply.
Yes, this.
590.1: Right. I don't speak econo-metaphor very accurately.
I'm thinking it usually comes down to mismatched interpretations about what is owed, not a rejection of the notion of obligations altogether.
That works. What hasn't been sitting well for me in this discussion is the suggestion that there's a right answer about whether divorced/separated/split up parties owe one another anything. As though we can, well, consult the contract to determine this.
The human mind is pretty quick to read "I want" as "I deserve."
598.last: I think read nailed this question. They owe each other what we all owe each other -- decency and respect. What that requires invariably depends on the specifics of the situation, of course.
What that requires invariably depends on the specifics of the situation, of course.
Cough void for vagueness cough.
I observe that Flippanter is a smart man.
600 thanks DK, i really believe that, and think that one owes nothing to nobody talk is repulsive :)
the emocon is to DK not to the repulsive talk
thinking that one's marriage or other crucial relationship ought to be one part of life where language about debts and accounts doesn't apply.
Mr. B. and I totally do this thing where we'll say to the other one, "okay, I get a lot of points for this."
606: Oh, is that what you call say about that filth you've been watching?
The human mind is pretty quick to read "I want" as "I deserve."
It's also quick to read someone who is unhappy with you as making unreasonable demands. I do happen to think there are some things people deserve in relationships. Among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
I do happen to think there are some things people deserve in relationships. Among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
You're smothering me! I want to live!
thinking that one's marriage or other crucial relationship ought to be one part of life where language about debts and accounts doesn't apply.
I've always perceived it as more a language of rights, duties, responsibilities, obligations, etc.
546: Short version: the next chief will probably not be as good as Bratton. Neither was Bratton.
I've always perceived it as more a language of rights, duties, responsibilities, obligations, etc.
I wonder whether there are arguments to be made (by somebody who has been married, if 587 weren't clear enough evidence of a lack of relevant experience) against even such language as this, given how common rights-based (and "duties," etc.) claims are in 21st century America. To me, marriage-as-clash-of-rights sounds pretty dismal, in a "Tonight on Crossfire!: Who ought to go back to work to defray the eventual cost of private schools? Who's been Facebooking some guy from college?" sort of way.
597 to 613.
And anyway I'm pretty sure you, like everyone else on the planet, has pretty strong ideas about how people who are in a relationships with you ought to behave.
in a relationships with you . . .
I'm thinking of building an orrery for marriages, or maybe a hydraulic model. (And surely some demented Victorian has already done so--but I can't find it if they did.)
And anyway I'm pretty sure you, like everyone else on the planet, has pretty strong ideas about how people who are in a relationships with you ought to behave.
I had ideas once, but she moved away.
618: And how did you feel about that?
617: I'm too tired for games M/lch; is there an archive I need to read or something? Otherwise just go ahead and contact my lawyer.
hydraulic model
it's interesting how you always defend the more like morally strange stance
so one should give in to their urges and impulses without explaining/ owing anything to anybody
well, what if next ib could find herself in the same situation as alice, she wouldn't hopefully cry
578: Are the people who are bouncing from one relationship to the next the ones who are breaking things off? That would make some sense to me from the perspective that it can be hard to leave something without a safety net in place. On the other hand, if you got left and crashed violently to the ground, a new relationship looks less like a safety net and more like the next guy to push you off the ledge. Or something.
Yes.
585: 578: One of my friends was definitely a serial monogamist, and an overlapping one at that. I watched her do this through, uh, let's see 4 or 5 relationships. It seemed that when she felt things were going poorly in the current one, she would start becoming quite close to the next guy. In most cases it wasn't actual cheating per se, though that did happen at least once. I can't remember the exact breakdown but I think it was close to 50/50 split on who actually did the dumping.
I know someone exactly like that.
My take on it - and one that I discussed with her - is that she was terribly afraid of being alone, in part because she got a lot of her sense of self-worth from being part of a couple.
Well, that fit my ex, which is kinda ironical since lately she has been complaining about her best male friend's inability to be alone. Anyways, she needs/wants/desires someone to take care of her, so the guy she married fits into the hole I left rather neatly, except he's a chunky guy beloved by her family, which suits her better these days.
She's married now, to a great guy, and I suspect things are going to work out better for her, in part because he actually talked this stuff out with her and helped her separate her sense of self-esteem from the relationship.
My suspicion is that in actual practice, should things not work out with Great Guy, she'll be right back to it. Your friend is probably better off because she's with a Great Guy. Shit, that guy just shot up a whole gymnasium because of that exact problem.
max
['It seems to just be the way people are.']
619: I continue to feel like the life that I have lived since then is the vacant, meaningless half-life that a parallel universe Flippanter is relieved to have avoided, but you can't love somebody enough to make them love you back.
marriage-as-clash-of-rights sounds pretty dismal
Well, obvs that isn't *all* it is, but all that stuff about rights and obligations *is* part of it. Better to acknowledge that up front that run into it after the fact.
609: It's also quick to read someone who is unhappy with you as making unreasonable demands.
It's also prone to boredom, seeing things in a self-absorbed way, poor impulse control and up and deciding what used to be fabulous is now no good. Sometimes because it is/was no good, and sometimes because the perspective has change and greed overrules ... morality. At any rate, most people appear to accept a concept of obligation that allows them to get out any time, while requiring others to obey them at all times. See Goldman Sachs, et al.
max
['Virtue: it's up the flue.']
At any rate, most people appear to accept a concept of obligation that allows them to get out any time, while requiring others to obey them at all times.
You really think that's true of "most"?
The Moniac is fucking amazing, an analogy built and operated. I just love that it is sold as an easy and intuitive way to understand econ. I knew econ was a science, just like hydraulics.
I wasn't really thinking in monetary terms - it's more the duties & obligations end of the word sense. IMNSHO, when one is in a relationship, what makes it work is honesty, fidelity, respect and the ability to attain reasonable compromises. [Now, by "fidelity" I don't necessarily mean sexual fidelity. I mean being true to your word, to your partner. If a couple agrees on monogamy, then, yes, it has to do with monogamy; if they agree on something else -polyamory, whatever, then not being monogamous is not "being unfaithful".. Otherwise, it's being loyal to your mate, being back-to-back against forces outside the relationship.]
I don't like the thought of amassing quid pro quo "points" in a relationship. That smacks, to me, of inherent insecurity and manipulation, trying to get another person into a state of obligation. The BFWHM was that sort of person; everything had a price tag, 'What have you done for me?' was his constant refrain and one of the main reasons I left him. [The denial I'd been wallowing in ended after I threw him a birthday party with 150 guests, did all the cooking and baking and whatnot three days after I returned from a trip to England, and a week later he turned to me and said 'You never do anything nice for me'. CLICK!]
That said, I don't think a divorced person "owes", in the sense of "has a duty", his or her previous spouse details about his or her post-end-of-marriage sex life. In deference to the previous relationship, which one may assume started with love, it would be a Good Thing not to broadcast the details to anyone, especially on the lines of 'Oh, the woman/man I'm doing is so much hotter than my ex!' That's just good manners. And manners are important.
620: Just a dumb joke, playing on the contractual language issue you were making fun of.
621: I don't understand how you've arrived at that interpretation of what JP wrote.
That's just good manners. And manners are important.
Oh, yes. The entirety of 628 is right, but this especially. You don't broadcast your subsequent engagements (flirtations, infatuations, panting-after-hotties, dating, whatever it is) out of consideration for your previous partner. If you do, and declare in self-defense that you don't owe previous partner a thing, well, you're ill-mannered at best.
626: You really think that's true of "most"?
Well, considering the last decade and a half or so, running from the Contract With On America right through the bank bailouts, but also including our many fine pundits, film stars and the like: Yes.
There's a reason Diogenes had to wander about with a lamp.
max
['Whether it happened or not.']
Because he couldn't see in the dark? And flashlights weren't invented yet?
Even then he would have been O.K. if people would have just put the spears away in the proper rack instead of leaving them in the agora.
Because sitting in a tub eating onions gets old after a while?
That's an emperical question. Try it and report back.
the woman/man I'm doing is so much hotter than my ex!'
and if that person happens to be a mutual friend and one not knowing that fact approaches that mutual friend for friendship, now still you don't owe any explanation as just friends even?
i don't know that is good manners, i would think that's deception and offensive
but i'm tired to repeat the same point over and over, so, whatever
Good grief! 636 comments? Are you all trying to drive off read again?
["Hi, read. Nice to see you again."]*
* apologies to max
hi, JR! thanks, i like to argue it seems
629, orrery, hydraulic models and demented Victorians don't tell anything to you? i can sense the bedbug jokes hidden somewhere in there
I guess I don't understand how orreries, hydraulic models and demented Victorians are related to Stormcrow's defense of morally strange stances. I would love to, though.
I'm not even at the part about the bedbugs yet.
Because he couldn't see in the dark? And flashlights weren't invented yet? [...] Even then he would have been O.K. if people would have just put the spears away in the proper rack instead of leaving them in the agora. [...] Because sitting in a tub eating onions gets old after a while?
Ahem: goatsex.
max
['Well, it was nighttime, wasn't it?']
638, 639, 640: I'm just a spectator at this point. Because I like to watch I'm morally strange that way.
Nighttime means goatsex. That's a truth of the world.
638: I hate to speak for Stormcrow, who is hopefully finally getting his nap, but I imagine the only moral stances he was taking in his infamous "hydraulic model" comment were along the lines of:
"Ooh, look at this amusing historical curiosity!"
"Economists sometimes exaggerate the extent to which their discipline is a 'hard science'"
"This discussion of formalizing the duties and rights of parties in a relationship reminds me of other misguided attempts to systematize human behavior and interactions, but really, who cares, because this is kinda funny."
So yeah, bedbug jokes.
644: I hate to speak for Stormcrow
No problem, you're are doing a much better job than I would. I'd just link to something like this and confuse everything again.
finally getting his nap
No I'm still at work, overfunctioning by semi-needlessly bird-dogging a production change ( because I like to watch graphs of things as they happen in realtime). Then racquetball!
Nighttime means goatsex.
Serial goatsex.
max
['Because it's romantic like that, dammit.']
636: No, read, it's tact. According to the original post, the Letter Writer had been more the ex-husband's friend than the ex-wife's. LW is under no obligation to become the ex-wife's bosom buddy/roommate/confidant at this juncture - in fact, the advice to etoliate the existing "friendship" between Alice and LW is probably wise. That can be done politely [again, manners] and without hurting the XW. It's not deception not to tell someone something that's not really their business. Had LW and the XH been involved during the marriage, I'd agree that it was deception and infidelity and all that, but not after the marriage has been over for several months.
It's also possible that the XW is aware of the relationship between the XH and LW and is attempting to either create a situation wherein she can proclaim victim status to all and sundry or to make LW so uncomfortable that she severs the relationship with the XH. It seems all too coincidental that the XW picks this particular friend to contact and essentially importune to become close friends.
Ex-whatevers can be so much fun - the BFWHM stalked me for several years, despite the fact that he'd married shortly after we split. He tried to bribe my son and his neighbourhood friends to give him details about my life. My son took the money and answered his questions quite truthfully: 'Is she dating anyone?' 'No', says my kid ['You aren't dating BH, Mom, you're living with him']. 'Where do you live?' 'In a big apartment', says my son ['I don't know the real address, Mom'], etc. The BFWHM even tried to get my ex-husband to tell him where I lived. And that's bizarre.
But do you have to tell your goatfriend when you're moving on to the next goat? How soon? What if they're usually pastured together?
discussion of formalizing the duties and rights of parties in a relationship reminds me of other misguided attempts to systematize human behavior and interactions
ah, a very useful excuse to excuse anything selfish
attempting to either create a situation wherein she can proclaim victim status to all and sundry or to make LW so uncomfortable that she severs the relationship with the XH
there, your famous western overthinking and cynicism
well, my schooling was that if your friend falls in love and you are on his/her way, give a way don't hinder his/her happiness something, very idealistic
incompatible with reality, yes
and Megan, i know you are witty and all, plus now you'll always be that goatsex talk lady for me, i hope you are flattered
647
... According to the original post, ...
You also need to read comment 42. Apparently the marriage is not totally over in that the divorce is not final (and it is unclear how far along it is).
Yeah, LW says she never loved XW, but do I buy it?
Shorter this thread: I'm beginning to suspect that there really isn't a consensus.
Sent the email last night. Didn't tell her about sleeping with Ralph. Did tell her that since I'd always been closer with him, that was the relationship I'll focus on now. Also said that I wasn't a neutral party and I'll be wishing her well from a distance. Wrongshore, Di Kotimy and Parsimon, your suggestions were very helpful.
I think her stated reasons for contacting me (moving to a new city, looking for friends) are probably her real reasons. I don't think she was sussing me out as a successor (until she got that reply from me).
The divorce isn't final, but they've moved out, separated their money and retirement accounts, separated their phones, filed for divorse and taken off their rings. If I'd thought there was any uncertainty, I'd have told him to work on his marriage.
647: It's also possible that the XW is aware of the relationship between the XH and LW and is attempting to either create a situation wherein she can proclaim victim status to all and sundry or to make LW so uncomfortable that she severs the relationship with the XH. It seems all too coincidental that the XW picks this particular friend to contact and essentially importune to become close friends.
I heartily endorse this serious comment, since I thought the same thing.
But do you have to tell your goatfriend when you're moving on to the next goat? How soon? What if they're usually pastured together?
Sexist. Maybe's it's a boy goat! Anyways, polite people never BAHHHHHH and tell.
plus now you'll always be that goatsex talk lady for me
Wait. What? They have phonesex for goats now?
I did not know that.
max
['How degenerate.']
631: There's a reason Diogenes had to wander about with a lamp.
Max is talking about virtue. Here, in this place. Dearheart, your true self is showing. It's lovely. I think the truth is that there are people who get it.
I've been wishing Rob would step in with some wisdom about moral clarity, for he knows about that.
sounds respectfully and pretty different in tone from the original email, with explanation of aneutrality, i like that phrase, clear and not all i don't owe you anything imo, so, good luck
i'm sorry if i was too harsh to Lw, just conscience is a pretty painful thing so better to avoid any such pain beforehand, i hope my comments helped a little too, a bitter medicine like
b/c it was along the lines of DK's comments i guess
650: Hell, my ex-husband and I didn't file for divorce for six years - but the marriage was definitely over, we were living in different households and involved with other people. Then we bifurcated the divorce so he could marry, as we hadn't quite finished the asset split/child support end of things. That meant I had really good medical coverage for those six years, not that we were considering patching things up. I think once the divorce papers are filed, it's pretty unlikely there will be a rapprochement. California has a six month waiting period, just in case.
Good luck, B/LW. Wishing you and all involved ease and grace.
655: Max is talking about virtue. Here, in this place. Dearheart, your true self is showing. It's lovely.
Well, thank you for the compliment, dear, but you know, what a great load of bloody rubbish. (About me, that is.)
I think the truth is that there are people who get it.
It could happen. At any rate, I think the whole degeneracy thing is over-rated. Customs change over time.
max
['What? You and second-grandma-before-last got married? Like forever? OMG!']
653: Good luck. It sounds like you hit on a good approach.
653: Good luck, B/LW. It sounds like you handled this gracefully. My concern about the finality of the divorce is not that his (or her) feelings are anything less than final, but that "amicable" can become "ugly" as final details get sorted out. But you seem to have open eyes about what your are getting into and what Ralph has in front of him. Strength and courage to you all!
Frankly I'd rather know if an ex has moved on. If I ended it, it helps deal with the bad feelings I have for upsetting them by ending it, and if they ended it, it stops me feeling so stupid when I eventually and inevitably find out (I am quite oblivious and the group of friends doesn't exactly gossip much).
The only person who ever broke my heart I found out he had moved on by seeing his car outside when I was visiting a friend (he was banging my friend's flatmate), which was pretty harsh.
