It would matter to me.

I understand that initially, compliance with NC is the only thing that matters. But, I would still feel like the WS "dug the hole" a little deeper by not ending the A on their own. I would feel like something was missing from recovery if they did not address that, and I don't think I would just "accept" it.

I say that because I think there are things that can be missing from a M that one can just accept. But generally, true acceptance is a matter of recieving enough benefits in other ways to make up for the "loss" of that missing item. I just don't see how other things can provide enough benefit to "sustainably" overcome wondering whether you were chosen or settled for. I use the word sustainably because I think at times, one might be able to accept it, but over the long haul, it would wear a person down.

MEDC, I don't know for sure either way. I imagine there are some WS's who are just evil. But I see the occassional one here who seems convinced that if we would only "understand" their situation, then we would agree that an A was okay. This does not convey a person who knows what they are doing is wrong. It conveys a person who believes what they are doing is right, given their situation. They will freely admit infidelity is wrong, yet proceed to point out that their actions are correct.

We see it all the time. Situational ethics, or double standards.

How many WW's said men are lying cheating dogs, and then went out and had an affair, blame-shifted, etc, saying if he had only met my needs I wouldn't have been forced to fall on another man's penis? (After all, it was going to explode, so I had to save everyone around me, LOL.)

It's wrong for others, but it's OK for them to engage in wayward activities.

I think that's classic fog. There are other names for it, such as a double standard, etc. But fog is an accurate way of describing such logic.

The justification one hears from a wayward IS FOG. It's a smoke screen that tries to hide the truth. Sadly, I think the wayward begins to believe the foggy tale is true, and they become lost in their own fog.

You owe me a keyboard and monitor.

I just bazooka puked on them.

So I should have stayed with a wife that was trying to have me killed because "god" wanted it that way because that horror was "perfect"?

Many of us here have been through the "what god wants" routine and found it a bit unfair.

"Situational ethics"

How true. Ways one finds to justify their actions.

Whether is was important if the WW was the dumpee or dumper can cook down to one reason.

The justification that the BH needs.

Justify to take back his WW. Or, justify to not take back his WW.

Amen,

I got the "God never wanted us to marry line" from my former wife.

I agree with medc that there are some marriages that need to end. So one can't put me in the marriage at all costs category.

However, when folks begin to invoke god (largely without actually being in line with what God says in His Word) it's often too sickening to accept.

In fact, it's just another example of fog. Either they believe that God is really telling them to violate His Word and have an affair. Or, they think you are gullible enough to believe them.

Either way, it's delusional, it's foggy.

"You owe me a keyboard and monitor.

I just bazooka puked on them."

I do not know what you look like, nor want to.

But, picturing you doing that has me rolling on the floor laughing my butt off.

I'm just not sure I view "foggy" thinking as the same thing as situational ethics. Wayward behavior has a lot of both, that leads them to "think" what they are doing is right.

I think "fogginess" implies the wayward is not seeing reality clearly.

Perhaps in what I said before I should have said "It conveys a person who believes what they are doing is right, given their 'perception of their' situation."

All I mean is when a wayward says (and I am greatly oversimplfying) "I met my soulmate, so I had an A", the latter part is situational ethics, the first part is fogginess.

Runnerboy, Mel and MrW - great posts! ITA.

WOW,
Thank you all, each and every one of you for taking the time out of your day and the energy to reply to my thread. You folks are so giving and thouthfull, I'm speechless.

I can't possibly respond to each and every one of you, as much as I would like to, but when I glanced at this thread this morning, there were 6 replies. Now, it's 5 pages and 47 replies.

I apologize if I put BS's to thinking. It's something I do too much at times, sortof OCD.

My curiosity and OCD thinking often gets me in a mood that spells nothing but trouble. Sorry if I caused the same here. It was not intentional.

Mel, Medc, and all others, I thank you for your frank and candid opinion. You were under no obligation to offer that to me, but, I will take that and eveyone else's opinions as pearles of wisdom.

You are all such good people. That's why I can't leave this place. When your in the company of good folks, why would you ever want to leave?

As for me, I guess I will question why this horrible thing had to happen in our M. Ultimately, that Q and all others will be answered when I pass from this world :RollieEyes:.

For those who don't know me, I spent sixteen years without alcohol ever passing my lips in this M. It wasn't until my family Dr. dx me with and STD, that I broke out sort of speak.

Bottom line, I guess, is FWW has returned to her own self, and as much as I will never forget, I will forgive her.

Is it still OK to have a bad day, once and a while?????

All Blessings to all of you,
Jerry

Of course it is Jerry.

(((Jerry)))

Sure Jerry, from my perspective I've had LOTS of "bad days" over the past 6+ years. This was no "trifling" mistake, but serious and tremendously pervasive hurt to your entire (to any BS's) being.

Why not click on my sig line link when you have one of those bad days and do a little reading. You might find some helpful things in there among the posts to help you get through those days.

God bless.