nexus6,

I am sorry for your pain and I understand completely where you are coming from. I have realised from reading the book Buyers, Renters and Freeloaders that I was a buyer from the day my WS and I met our SF need together. Being married made no difference to my commitment to him and when we did marry I had no qualms and was very happy. Unfortunately, my WS did not go from Renter to Buyer. He stayed at Renter level for a long time before taking me completely for granted and moving to Freeloader status.

Your gf was never fully committed to your relationship and if you had married her, there is a strong chance that she would have still not moved into Buyer status. It may be a good thing that you did not marry because I think the pain is 100 times worse when you know that they made a solemn promise to be faithful in front of witnesses and they broke that promise.

If she is married, then you need to stay out of it because otherwise you may end up with the label of OM, and you don't want that.

Take care.

Here's the hard reality.

Your GF was just using you for financial support until the man she really wanted came along.

I've been down that road before and it ain't my first rodeo.

My friend, you minimized the depth of it by taking it no further than a dating situation. A dating situation that didn't work out. You never took it any more seriously than that, so you can't expect others to either.

No one is trying to be mean to you, nexus, but want to point out that there is a world of difference between dating and getting married. You might have "considered" yourself married, but that doesn't mean it's so.

>minimize the depth of our relationship

So has she.

People on here are strict constructionists. They are mostly spouses betrayed in the coventant of marriage and therefore take a STRICT interpretation of what defines a marriage. If there were ANY wiggle room it would appear that they have wayward tendencies. You will get little support around here for "living in sin" round here. You can do a plan B. Completely cut her off from you and force the OM to meet all her needs. If she is married, and you interfere, tecnically she would be committing adultery..DUDE

Well, it is not cause and effect! We do not take a strict view of marriage BECAUSE we have been betrayed. We take the view that either one is married or not whether we have been betrayed or not.

There is no logic in that statement. It makes no sense. If people believe that living together is just like being married that does not mean that they themselves have wayward tendencies.

Many of us, including me, have "lived together" before marriage. Some people here use the term "living in sin." The point is, it is not marriage and applying the Harley plan to it is problematic.

Plan B is for an affair during a marriage. It has its force because there was a marriage. This poster was not married and the now HUSBAND is not the OM. Of course he should meet all her needs. That is what he promised to do when he married the ex girlfriend. There is no moral force that can be brought to end this legal marriage.

huh? dude, someone doesn't have to be married or have been betrayed to possess simple logic. A person is either married or they are not. I can call myself a tomato but it doesn't mean I am a tomato, it just means I am probably insane. It is the same with marriage. A person is either married or they are not. There is a world of difference between dating and marriage and all the denial in the world will not erase that.

We aren't helping this gentleman by helping him evade reality. His situation will only improve if he faces reality.

Exactly, I telling him the slant on here is more strict than he would experience in the general public. Yes, I believe you should NEVER live w/ someone til married. Yes, I believe you should NEVER sleep w/ anyone til married. That ain't main stream and when you bend those rules, then your spouse bends rules, we get where we are now. If you have a strict contructionist view of marriage it should be all the way around in my view. I'm warning him that on here it will be more strict than he is probably accustomed to, not that I don't feel the same way...DUDE

Exactly..."Plan B" where nexus is concerned is called "a breakup"...Sometimes people do get back together of course, however, if nexsus' ex-gf is indeed married, well then it's best if he comes to the logical conclusion~~~> His relationship with ex-gf is officially over...forever...

I'm sorry that you are hurting, nexsus, but denying reality will only prolong the hurt...

Mrs. W

You have mischaracterized the discussion. We didn't tell him he shouldn't sleep with someone until married. We didn't tell him he shouldn't live with someone until married. That is not the issue at all.

The issue is whether living together is the same as being married. IT AIN'T. He fancies himself as the equivalent of a married man and believes his girlfriend is morally obliged to him. She is not. She is a free agent because he never bothered to marry her.

I'm sorry, but when you just live together and date, both people are FREE AGENTS. If you don't buy the cow, then anyone else is free to purchase the cow at any time. Nothing wrong with that!

Not really, I was explaining to him WHY his view of common law wife on here ain't getting him ANYWHERE. Their friends/family may have viewed them as married, but not on here. Also, sexual contact should ONLY take place inside of marriage in an ideal situation. Once we start slipping on that requirement, then folks are doing it while married and everyone is shocked[ON HERE} their spouse cheated on them when they had 23 lovers before they were married??! DUDE

I would hope both parties had knowledge of such so they could make the best decision..DUDE

Again, the issue is not WHY he shouldn't live with a woman, but that there is a difference between married and not married. The reason the notion that he is "married" isn't getting him anywhere, is because HE IS NOT MARRIED. Its not a complicated thing. Most 5 year olds can discern between married and not married. THAT is the issue, Dude.

Apparently he does not accept that she is a free agent and feels she has betrayed him by moving on. That is the "best decision" to her.

Interestingly the Supreme Court and the IRS would actually beg differ w/ you on this subject matter. The courts have ruled numerous times if a couple "Holds themselves out" as a married couple(sharing checking accounts, buying a house together), they ARE MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE STATE. I'm sure those Ivy League law gradiates know a little more than a five year old. Nice try though...DUDE

Gray area. It sounds as though it was a committed relationship and if she is not married, plan B could still apply so he has tools at his disposal on this forum...DUDE

Dude,

Several people posted to this thread saying that there is a difference between marriage and non-marriage, and pointing out that since this couple were not married, the ex-girlfriend is a free agent.

They explained themselves very well and perfectly clearly. If they had wanted to say that they did not approve of "living in sin" they would have said that. If their objection to this poster's position was that sex outside marriage was wrong then they were free to use those words. They did not raise those issues.

It was not your place to to interpret those posts and put YOUR words into other posters mouths and say that what YOU feel is what they really meant:

Please tell the original poster that this is what you believe, if you want to, but please do not take it upon yourself to tell him that your view is what other posters really meant. You have mischaracterised what I said and I object to that. If anything I have said is not clear then I would be happy to explain it IN MY OWN WORDS.

Whatever...DUDE

Agree. Perfectly said, as usual.