out of curiosity, are you ladies professional advisors or just members?
Read the manual: here that is the disclaimer at the top:
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Counseling Center at the top of this page.
Many people here have valuable experience and knowledge, however, that qualifies them to give advice on dealing with marriages and infidelity.
Now to your issues:
Dating is not supposed to take the place of the commitment of marriage. You cannot twist dating into something it is not. You are merely dating your S.O. Dating is an interview to see if a candidate is right for marriage. We advise you to run because this man is not a good candidate for marriage or a long term, committed relationship in any way. When married people deal with infidelity the advice is different, because they've made a commitment you have not.
I wrote this to another person a while back but I think it explains what I'm trying to say clearly:
Whether you like it or not we live in a society that values marriage. Social Institutions exist for a reason: they work! The institution of dating, by nature, is temporary. It's a method for getting to know whether someone is worthy as a potential mate. It's structure is not meant to be permanent and it shouldn't be. You should be able to walk away easily if it isn't working out - with few losses except maybe a bruised heart. Once a level of commitment is established you say to those around you - I am willing to marry this person, and you get engaged. However, all you have to do is say the word and the engagement is ended. It's a little more difficult but lives have not yet been entwined - you can walk away. And then there is marriage. It isn't just a commitment between two people. It is a commitment between them and the society around them. They are saying to society that they will be bonded together, raise children together, be 'off' the market and society is saying in turn - we will support your union. Just because there are unhappy marriages doesn't make the institution broken - it makes it human.
What you are with your S.O. is MILES away from a marriage. You don't get the support and benefits from the community (in particular this community) to repair your relationship because it is not a marriage. Our infidelity advice WONT WORK! for you.
Also about unconditional love. Here's what the author of the Marriage Builder program has to say about unconditional love:
So let me explain to you what unconditional love in marriage is, and then we'll see whether or not it makes any sense to promise such a thing at a wedding. Let's begin by taking the phrase apart, looking at each word critically.
"Unconditional" means that there are no prerequisites or contingencies to the promise. The promise of love is to be made regardless of all circumstances, including what the other person chooses to do. There should be no confusion regarding its meaning.
"Love," however, is a different matter, and I've seen many different ways to define it. I define love as applied to marriage in two ways: (1) romantic love which is the feeling of incredible attraction to someone and (2) caring love which is meeting someone's needs. When you're in love, you feel something, and when you care, you do something.
I have specifically eliminated a third definition of love that is widely expressed: Wishing someone the best in life. When someone says "I love everyone," that's usually what they mean. And that kind of love can reasonably be given unconditionally. Personally, I want everyone to be happy, and no one to suffer regardless of what they've done to me or others. If that's what's meant by unconditional love at a wedding, I have no problem with it.
But in that context, the wedding vow could be offered to the audience as well as the bride and groom. Using this meaning of love at a wedding, doesn't make much sense because it doesn't offer a unique promise.
My definitions of love makes the spouse very unique, but the promise itself very conditional. If I promise to be incredibly attracted to Joyce, and to meet her emotional needs for the rest of our lives together, it doesn't make sense if there are no conditions attached.
Romantic love, my first definition of love, is created when someone makes massive Love Bank deposits by meeting important emotional needs. When an account is high enough to breach the romantic love threshold, a feeling of incredible attraction is reached. If those deposits continue, and withdrawals don't threaten to reduce the balance significantly, romantic love is experienced indefinitely. I've been in love with Joyce for the entire 46 years that we've been married because she's kept her account in the stratosphere.
If I had promised to be in love with Joyce unconditionally, I would have failed to understand how romantic love is created and destroyed. It's not what I do that causes me to be in love with Joyce--it's what she does. So I can only promise to be in love with her if she meets my important emotional needs, and avoids hurting me. I have nothing to do with it, except to give her an opportunity to make those deposits.
My second definition of love, caring love, makes unconditional love seem possible. Technically, I could try to meet my wife's emotional needs without condition. But could I do it indefinitely, and would it be a good idea?
Let's take a few examples. Suppose a wife were to have an affair, divorce her husband, and marry her lover. Should her ex-husband continue supporting her financially if they had no children together? Should he provide the same support that he would if they were married? Should he be there to help her through life's struggles? Some who believe in unconditional love feel that he should.
Or, suppose a husband sexually molested their children and ended up in prison. Should his wife continue to meet his emotional needs during conjugal visits? Some who believe in unconditional love think that she should.
What if a husband were to beat his wife senseless in a fit of drunken rage? Should she continue to meet his emotional needs? I once counseled a couple where the husband tried to kill his wife three times. After his last effort he buried her in a shallow grave because he thought she was dead. But she managed to recover, dig herself free, and crawl for help. Should she give him another chance? Should she meet his emotional needs for the rest of his life? The elders of her church thought she should because they believed in unconditional love. After I encouraged her to divorce her husband, they never referred anyone to me again.
So if there's no religious reason to give or receive unconditional love in marriage, we're left with practical reasons. And I know of none. If Joyce were to tell me that she loves me unconditionally, and were to mean by that that she'll meet my emotional needs regardless of how I treat her, I wouldn't be very motivated to treat her with utmost care. I could get away with anything, knowing that she'd be there to pick up the pieces. There are many that I counsel that expect to be cared for unconditionally after an affair, abuse, and even attempted murder. After all, it was promised at the time of their wedding.
My job as a marriage counselor is to encourage both spouses to meet each other's emotional needs, and avoid hurting each other. When they follow my advice, they fall in love and stay in love. But one spouse can't do the job alone. They must work together to build a successful marriage. Neither should promise unconditional love because a great marriage is a joint effort that requires many conditions.
Source:
What's Wrong with Unconditional Love? Unconditional love is a horrible foundation on which to build a relationship because it encourages abuse.
Your S.O. may have committed to date you exclusively, but he's shown he can't stick to that commitment. If he can't keep that small commitment there is no way he'll keep larger commitments. Recovery from affairs takes 2-5 years from a committed person. You really want to waste more of your life on this? When there are no children between you? When the commitments are easily broken?