if you really care about your marriage and your partner you will not go.

The advice to see a psychiatrist was good, but did Dan miss the part where SADCUNT said there will be people at the memorial service who knew, or may have known, about the affair? This is a situation in which people are grieving a lost loved one. They’ve got enough on their plate already, emotionally speaking, without having to process the presence of The Other Woman on top of everything else. There are a million scenarios in which this ends badly and far fewer than that in which it doesn’t. Do the decent thing. You don’t have to process your grief all alone - hence the shrink - but for God’s sake don’t do it there.

Speaking as a widow- please do not ever refer to a widowed person as the dead person’s ex- it’s horribly offensive, and inaccurate. An ex- implies a formal break-up or divorce. A widow(er) is not an ex. They have a ‘former’ or ‘late’ partner, not an ex-partner. Yes, these word usages do matter to (most) widowed people. (This concludes the Public Service Announcement portion)

Also- LW please go see a grief therapist to talk about all this, it will be helpful to get it all out with someone who is a stranger and who specialize in this subject. I don’t think you should go to the service because I don’t think you will be able to keep this secret.

No one will know from your grief that you had a sexual relationship. Different people are different.

Can we go ahead an posit that assiduous avoidance of pronouns when the story itself HEAVILY indicates what they are is obnoxious? Like, if you're trying to get gender-neutral advice, I would include so many details that evoke the classic powerful-older-man hotter-younger-woman trope, especially since they aren't especially germane to the actual question. Seems very cart-before-the-horse.

Does anyone remember this: "Fatback ain't got no life insurance, you're about to lose your house and car; hey heyyyyay"

When was the last time you were at a funeral and thought 'That bitch in the back is CRYING! She must be some kind of total whore who sucked his dick!!'. It's ok to be fucking upset at a funeral. That's what they are for. Don't throw yourself on the casket or beg the widow for his old shirts but do go or you will likely regret it.

@4 "wouldn't"

A few weeks is unfortunately not enough time to get a therapist, unless you're paying out-of-pocket. (And even then it's not a guarantee.)

I would highly recommend joining a support group online. I've used many FB groups to help get me through hard times; it can mean so much to get support from strangers actually! (Although a therapist is still a really good idea; it will probably just take more time.) Also if it helps you feel safer, you can create a "fake" profile just to use in those groups. (And possibly message the group admins if they don't initially let you in, and explain briefly why you needed an alt account).

Hope this helps. You're allowed to feel all of your feelings.

I don't think people will be suspicious because of LW's open display of grief, I think it will have more to do with the fact that LW already told, like, everyone about the affair.

If they wouldn't have attended otherwise had it not been for the affair, I would skip the service and let the family and close friends of the deceased have their moment. Closure is never in the first place you look. LW should, as others have stated, see a grief therapist to help them find their peace.

"Speaking as a widow- please do not ever refer to a widowed person as the dead person’s ex- it’s horribly offensive, and inaccurate. An ex- implies a formal break-up or divorce. A widow(er) is not an ex. They have a ‘former’ or ‘late’ partner, not an ex-partner. Yes, these word usages do matter to (most) widowed people. (This concludes the Public Service Announcement portion) "

Ditto from me.

Also as a widow, if you had an affair with my husband, you stay the hell away from the memorial service as a vote for your OWN marriage and to stop damaging mine.

Jesus, some people just can't stop looking in the mirror.

Stay away for the good of everyone involved including yourself and take the advice to find a therapist. Do not add to anyone else's grief. You made your choices and now you have to live with them. Don't try to spread your grief around.

@4 and @5 - The key phrase here isn't "I'm afraid l’ll get inappropriately emotional and people will get suspicious of me". It's "I want to ask their closest friend (who may have known that we were together)". In the end, it doesn't matter how emotional LW gets or doesn't get. What matters is that their affair is very likely common knowledge among a certain portion of the memorial service's attendees. For LW to show her face there invites trouble - especially given that she's already stated that there are other loved ones of the deceased who DON'T know, at least not yet.

I was once in a situation very similar to LW. 10 years ago or so I had an affair, which I ended after my wife found out. The other woman (also married) committed suicide several months later.
I told my wife when I heard the news, and decided to go to the funeral. My wife was upset to see me grieving and upset I would want to go, but I felt I needed to do it.
In retrospect, I regret going. There were a lot of people there, but not enough that I could completely blend in. I felt awkward being in the same room the grieving family and horribly horribly guilty. As much as I loved hearing the stories and remembrances, I felt keenly I did not belong, and that it was selfish of me to be there.
I advise the LW to skip it.

Visit the grave in a few weeks, leave the ceremony to "loved" ones

The red flag for me is the desire to ask mutual friends what the dead lover said about her. LW, don't do that, ever, to anyone, about anyone, alive or dead. Go where you will, for whatever reasons you will, based on feelings we may have no idea why you have, but don't be a middle-schooler with a cootie-catcher.

It sounds like the LW wants to share grief with people who really loved the deceased, and she cannot because those people don't know about the relationship. I don't think it's so simple as saying she wants to attend the memorial and just sit there and no one will know. LW's situation sucks and my heart goes out to her, but it would be cruel to take her grief around the other of the deceased's inmates. Moreover, to me it sounds like the death could've been a suicide or an accident caused (in part) by emotional distress- why else the feeling that the LW contributed in some way. So no, don't take that guilt or that grief and start talking to family/friends/coworkers about it- it will come out that you were closer if you do, and then questions will start. Go to a therapist and seek comfort from friends/family who are not associated with the dead person.

Also it seems the LW went to great pains to use gender neutral terms for everyone, and then Dan referred to her as "other woman"- I wonder what the context was for that.

Yes, exactly what @11 said for all those who are saying LW should just go and no one's the wiser. The most sympathetic and generous interpretation is that the LW doesn't want to be in the situation of being the elephant in the room- that will be hard for everyone.

A less generous interpretation is that the LW is the sort of person who stirs up gossip and makes everything about her. If no one else got that vibe from the letter, I'll drop it and assume I'm being unfair, but there were several things in it that seemed that way to me.

Also LW, if the family or close friends of the deceased have questions or want to share with you what they said about you, they will seek you out. Not the other way around. You don't know what they know about you so you can't take that chance without betraying the deceased and risking causing a lot of hurt to the family/close friends. If the close friend knows about you and wants to engage with you, they will come to you when they feel the time is right for everyone. If they do not, then that means they either have no idea about you or else they feel that it would not be a good idea to engage with you for a variety of reasons. If this friend knows already and does not reach out to you, you can only assume that they are doing what they think is best. If this friend does not know, then you can't anticipate how they will respond to finding out and what effect this might have. And if it's a situation in which people are spectating about the deceased's life the past few weeks (such as a suicide or an act of emotional recklessness) then there is probably already some gossip and speculation going round.

@blip you are correct, I saw it as the sign off. I even went back and read it twice, but I miss shit all the time, even when I'm looking for it.

The sign off also mentions that she's a teacher right? Just seems odd that the letter uses entirely gender neutral terms for everyone and vague words to describe the professional relationship without revealing the context, then in the end, she says she's a teacher and a woman. And choosing sadcunt for herself. Plus the performative "Like many of my peers, I respected this person but didn’t know them closely—at least, that’s what everyone thinks. The truth is, I had an intensely hot kinky affair with this person for the last few months of their life." And centering herself in the cause of death.

Dan, reread this letter and then email the writer back and tell her to stay away. Everything about this letter is horrible as noted above. Really, this is a truly horrible narcissist trying to make a family's grief about her.

LW had an affair of a "few months," and it was over when the other person died. Not just that it "ended badly." LW is basically a footnote, barely, in the life of the deceased. Yet she goes on on on about what she wants, not just to attend the service quietly but to talk to their closest friend, etc. And she's afraid she'll make a huge scene and make everyone notice her. Yeah right, she's really afraid this funeral will go on without allowing her to be the center of attention. She needs a therapist for more than grief counseling.

LW, don’t go. I get the impulse (or maybe even need?) to share your grief with others who are also sad; that’s why we have funerals. But unfortunately for you, there is absolutely no way for you to do that without making their pain worse, and damaging your own reputation beyond repair.

My mom was also a teacher and also the “other woman,” and although her story diverges there, this part is the same: once people found out, it took more than a DECADE for her to repair her professional reputation, and more than one professional relationship was completely destroyed, even though the affair really had nothing to do with her work. We’re sitting at the 22-year mark now, she’s been retired for several of those years, the first wife has openly and publicly forgiven her and comes to our house every year for Christmas and Thanksgiving, and there are STILL people who won’t let it go.

Like a few other fields, people in education get held to a different standard in a lot of ways, and this is one of them; it’s not fair and it sucks, but it’s true. Don’t do that to yourself; it’s not worth it to get an hour’s worth of cathartic grieving at the expense of your entire career. Talk to a therapist, cry on your friends, and try to keep this discreetly to yourself.

The big mistake the LW made was telling her own partner. Had she not shared that info. then I would say go. Anybody who knows about the affair knows because they were told in confidence. Had those people been judgmental, I assume the deceased would have told the LW. But by telling the LW's partner, the LW now puts an added strain on that partner by going. I assume the LW's partner wants the LW to distance herself further from the deceased.

So, don't go. But the moral of the story is don't tell. Then grieve as a friend to the outside world and grieve as an ex-lover internally.

The LW doesn't know, really, what the widow knows. Her ex told her to keep their relationship secret, but did her ex do the same after she broke off the relationship? At the end, who knows what her ex and the spouse discussed.

Going to the funeral would be just wrong all the way around unless you are indifferent to the other people there and indifferent to the trust your ex had in you to keep your mutual secret. You could show up and find that the widow not only knows about you but didn't reach any kind of closure with her spouse about you and - the possibilities don't bear thinking about.

That, and all the other reasons people here cited for not going. Go to a grief counselor, certainly; find an online forum, get help from people totally unconnected to your or your ex's life. But just act as if it never happened when you're around their family and friends, and any of your friends who knew them.

When you carry a friend or lover's secrets, you are obligated to keep them forever - even when you've broken up, even when they've died. They trusted you, you need to live up to that trust.

I wouldn’t worry about getting overly emotional at the service. You never know who is going to get emotional or why. I also don’t think it’s disrespect to your partner to go. Generally with sudden death, people get some slack, and it’s not as though they need to be concerned about you resuming the affair at this point.

Stay away. To be blunt this is not about you. Yes, you had an intense fling. But you are not grieving like they are grieving.

You have a lot of feelings. Your feelings are real. But you've got to point them "out" not "in" in terms of rings of grief. And if you're not in a position to see what ring you're in, stay the double fuck away.

That's not even getting to what you'd be doing to this person's best friend for certain. And everybody else if it all blows up, which is not improbable. In summary, nooooooo.

Please, Dan, please use a copy editor. The typos 😖

SL @4 "Can we go ahead an posit that assiduous avoidance of pronouns when the story itself HEAVILY indicates what they are is obnoxious?"

Agreed. All the "they"/"them"'s in this letter make it sound very weird and artificial. I'm sure the LW wouldn't use "they" when discussing the affair with her best friend.

Blip @15: It's also possible, though I admit less likely due to this person's age, that the deceased was non-binary. But see how easy it was to use the pronoun "they" throughout?

I don't think this woman is necessarily a literal teacher; she uses that term only to get the letter T in her signoff, and refers to "mentors" elsewhere in the letter. One question is, if they didn't have the affair, would she have been close enough to the deceased to get an invite to the memorial service? If not, don't go. If so, I agree with the commenters who say to consider not going. Consider it her apology to the deceased's wife. And get over yourself, you didn't kill them by breaking up with them. This comment, along with the desire to ask the best friend what the deceased said about her, indicates she's too immature to attend a grownup event like this one. Let out the grief with a shrink or in a support group, and later, alone at their grave. But not at their funeral. Give them a dignified send-off, without you, as your parting gift to this person.

Joe @12: Thank you for your perspective.

Emma @17: Good theory on why she may feel responsible for Ex's death. Either that or she is as narcissistic as we both read her as being -- though people who are grieving do tend to focus on themselves, let's not forget that. I assume "It was a sad, sudden, and expected death" must be a typo and she meant unexpected. She sounds very young so perhaps this person was only in their 40s. Agree fully with your other points @18 and @20 too.

BigSteve @23: You misread the letter -- the affair didn't end when/because her lover died; she ended things and then they died a month afterwards. Either she was indeed a mere blip in their life, or she's not wrong about being the reason they killed themself; either way, "stay away" seems to be the right move.

Surfrat @25: Presumably when LW confessed about the affair, she had no idea this person was going to die in a month's time. (Unless she killed them? Dun dun DUNNN.)

Why is there this assumption that all women who have affairs with older married men are hot? ;)

The first thing I'd say is that I'm not at all sure that the LW's rejection of her late lover precipitated their death. Look at it rather from their way round.... They're older; they may know they're at the end of their life, or may know they're ill; they're going out having a hot, kinky affair with a woman twenty years their junior.... It sounds like a happy, liberated way to go. There is probably no need for the Other Woman to blame herself for her lover's death.

I think Dan's advice is good. I'd go to the funeral--discreetly. People see distant acquaintances crying and suppose they are remembering their own mother, father or grandmother. It doesn't seem that the deceased person's life-partner knows of the affair? I certainly wouldn't do anything to bring it to her/his attention ... but this person's feelings can't be second-guessed. Perhaps they know nothing. Perhaps they know everything and do not begrudge their late partner a final fling. They might resent the Other Woman's presence at the funeral or actually might not (might even think it required of her).

Is the LW enjoying kink in her marriage? She cheated on her husband and has to work through that. She was drawn to a charismatic, authoritative older figure and impermissible transgressive sex--just the once, or is there a chance of its happening again? Now, most likely, she is consumed in grief and guilt. But as she lives with her grief, over to a months to years timescale, she could think whether she wants to introduce kink, fantasy, play with power relations, taboo-busting into her relationship with her husband.

@4. Sportlandia. I think we should respect the LW's desire to keep the pronouns gender-neutral. (She keeps her gender under wraps until almost right at the end--then, in a final flourish, berates herself as a 'cunt'. Or maybe celebrates herself?). She doesn't think the genders are relevant to the story--because everyone she knows is not homophobic? I wouldn't be 100% on her lover being male (and if I said she had a 'husband' without direct indication, that was an oversight). Her use of the word 'community' may suggest a tightly-bound professional community or a queer community.

@11. UpandOver. We don't know the full context. In a gay context, there would be a strong expectation that erstwhile lovers of the deceased turn up at a wake. The partner of the late man would expect it of them. And in tolerant straight contexts something similar might be true. The LW should certainly not buttonhole the late person's best friend for personal recollections at this event--the funeral.

If ever learning of the affair, the widow or widower should perhaps accept that the LW brought something to their partner they couldn't. Hot, kinky sex? A final fling? Near-unequivocal professional admiration? (Try retaining that for a live-in life-partner). Even just a younger body...

@22. christopherj. The LW has as much need to observe the rituals of grief as anyone else who knew the deceased closely. She should definitely not make a show of herself at any public event.

Harriet @35: As LW called herself the other woman, I think it's safe to assume the deceased's widow is female. I do not know any women who would appreciate someone giving their partner a "younger body." I'm pretty open but even I would struggle to accept that magnanimously. And remember, these people did not have an open relationship. Seeing the younger, potentially hotter, affair partner turn up at a funeral would be salt in such a woman's wounds.

@26. ECarpenter. Go in such a way that you will be anonymous, then. Back pew. Arrive after and leave before the widow.

@27. Mtn. Beaver. We don't enough to say 'the dead person's longstanding friends and family', the bereaved spouse especially, 'are grieving more'. More sharply? Intensely? On the basis of a richer (?), more lively (?), longer store of memories? We don't know. The dead person could have died out of the blue. Deaths at 65 can be sudden--and premature. Or 'he' could have been chronically ill and sought out a relationship of the kind he wanted all his life. His relationship with his wife could have been tepid, companionable, estranged ... any of these things--we don't know; and there could have been much more rawness and urgency in his feelings towards his younger mistress. The funerary commemoration is public, and her presence in a crowd as a distant admirer is plausible. If there were a likelihood that her showing up would scandalise her late lover's children, say, she would have said.... The Other Woman has a lot to think about; and I'd say the process of drawing a line and stepping back to reflect might begin with her seeing him sent off.

LW -- Going to the service will blow up your career. It will doubly, super-duper blow it up if you ask anyone (anyone) "What did he say about meeeee?" It will destroy your career.
(I don't actually know that it would destroy her career, but someone this narcissistic and drama-demanding will only refrain from making others feel worse if there are negative consequences for her.)

@37. Bi. You have surmised, without being definite, that the dead person (let's go with him being a man) is in his 40s and possibly killed himself, or acted recklessly leading to his death, while my surmise, again without definiteness, is that the ages are something like 64-44, that the guy was chronically ill without sexual or cognitive impairment, and that he allowed himself a kinky blowout at the end of his life. There's a world of difference between these scenarios. In the first, the LW's relationship with the deceased is maybe not that important to him, an episode in his characterful life. In the second, it's very important.

The headlong and kind-of-selfish thing the LW says is about eliciting personal mementoes from the dead person's friend. But this could just be wanting her connection with the dead person to have an afterlife, or some sort of minimal social existence. I think the urge is understandable. There is no way she should make a hue and cry of her affair. It would be extremely selfish. But I don't think she wants to. I read her as older and more mature than you.

From my perspective, anyone in a relationship should do their damndest not to be cheated on because their partner is following the call of an irresistible kink. Find out what desires your partner has. With any not on your current menu, ask how imperative they're likely to be--then either veto and trust; tailor your hall pass (double asterisk) or be GGG and get down to it. A comment like@9 ('if you'd cheated on my husband...') strikes me, I'm afraid, as much more emotionally incontinent than anything SADCUNT says. People have affairs to get what they can't get from their relationship. If this is a 'younger body' ... there would be something regrettable, even something culpable, on the dead man's part had he embarked on his kinky affair without any preamble, any discussion of his unmet kink. We don't know that, though. And there are many relationship configurations, gay and straight, where partners grant 'spouses' access, almost purely physical, to younger lovers.

Harriet @40: There's not much that's definite here. All we know is that SADCUNT speaks like quite an immature person, and that her lover was 20 years older. Sure, there are immature people in their 40s and 50s. It was EmmaLiz @17 who suggested Lover killed themself; prior to that, I had been picturing an older person, but that didn't line up with their being 20 years older than this young-sounding person. It doesn't help that SADCUNT wrote the confusing sentence "It was a sad, sudden, and expected death." We don't know much, other than the relationship was not open; we don't know whether it's accurate to victim-blame a grieving widow for not being GGG enough or for, gasp, having the gall to age. (Really!?) We don't know whether this was a stay-married-and-stay-sane affair, whether Mrs Deceased was just as kinky as SADCUNT and Mx Deceased was just a selfish bitchstard, or whether Mx Deceased had a hall pass and was pretending to be cheating because they wanted their secondary partner to be as discreet as possible for professional reasons. I think it's incredibly rude for you to speculate on how a widow might have brought this on herself, geez. All we know is, should SADCUNT speak to Deceased's friends about herself, good god no; should she attend the funeral, probably a bad idea; and how should she deal with her grief, while involving as few people as possible.

@41. Bi. I haven't been disrespectful to the widow because she isn't part of the equation. As far as the LW knows, the widow and her family are unaware of her late husband's affair. (We could doubt that, but then we would be granting ourselves license, then, to imagine all sorts of facts about the case --and there's no reason to doubt SADCUNT's sincerity). And so how has the widow brought anything on herself? We don't know that she's brought anything. Her husband was both unusually perky and unusually tired three months before he died? Supposing she's in the dark, she's brought on herself one more veiled mourner (in a congregation of 150-200, say). This is not noticeable and not something to be endured.

The LW shows maturity in many ways: 1) she says little about how she is repairing her fault with her partner--correctly; this isn't the focus of her letter; 2) there is no indication that her two friends she's told about her affair have any connection to her professional world. She seems to have kept personal confidences and indiscretions separate; 3) she recognises that there is a risk of crossing a boundary in appealing to the dead man's friends for personal details about him. She could properly have added that the funeral is no time to be collecting memorials.

I'd think she's in her 40s and the dead man perhaps a retired head or something like the director of a teacher training program.

I /am/ saying to anyone nursing a grievance at being cheated on, 'get off your high horse and go back, in your mind, not to before your partner cheated but to before s/he wanted to cheat. How did you get from marital contentment to his/her thinking, 'might as well cheat'? Without assigning blame, what was each of your part in that deterioration?'

@Bi. So you would drop a male (poly) partner who has just taken up with another woman much younger (however you saw that) than you?

This is a pretty gross and deeply narcissistic letter. Ugh, LW. You claim you feel bad about the way things ended, but you're in a hurry to walk into everyone's lives and stir up more tension and drama just to find out if they KNOW how special you were to him? WOW. You had an intensely hot affair...okay, sure...but it was just that...an affair. You're NOT the primary partner, and if you waltz into this funeral and disrespect their wishes to keep this affair private, then you're not much of a friend, either.

Any guilt you feel you carry here, you SHOULD carry. The burden of responsibility became yours when you selfishly inserted yourself between this couple. You did right by telling your partner what happened, but you have absolutely NO right to insert yourself into the lives of this person's closest family and friends. It's wrong, and it's cruel. If you feel guilty for what happened...good! You should! But don't USE that guilt as a selfish excuse to parade your "hot mistress" status around the funeral and grieving parties. You made your bed--lie in it.

People always try and rush off to make a bad situation worse.

You don't have to go to the funeral. There is no cosmic Emily Post who is going to tut-tut you into etiquette hell for skipping a funeral.

If you are worried about it, don't go. You are clearly already grieving, you don't need an event to do so.

You are just being narcissistic and making this all about you, when it is not about you at all. The person is dead. Dead and gone forever. Their corpse does not care if your ass is distressing a chair near the casket or not. It honestly just sounds like you want to stir up drama so you can have some spotlight at someone else's funeral.

Which you likely feel guilty about, which led you to pen this letter so Dan Savage could give you permission to go. But instead, get therapy.

@38 Perhaps if the funeral is in a huge big-city church, or an evangelical mega-church, or a cathedral, she can be anonymous in the back of the church. In most churches, in most towns, that is not possible, they are not that big. In a normal church, if the ex's widow knows about the affair, she will be quite certain to see her in the back of the church. Under those circumstances, a lot of bad things can happen both during the funeral and after.

There are lots of excellent reasons to stay away.

@44: "There is no cosmic Emily Post"
Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if there were? :)

I agree with Sportlandia that all the singular theys are cumbersome to read. I'm trying to come around, I really am, but it's just such ugly writing. (And why? Why not say "he" or "she" here, would it alter the advice?)

I'll split Harriet & Bi's guesses and go with: 30-something female, 50-something man.

I think the relevant question is: Would her professional relationship with the dead dude (I'm going with guy for ease of writing) mean she would be expected (or, not unexpected) at the funeral anyway? Which would be the case if he were her old department head, or something like that. If so, go. If not, don't. Either way, she should not ask friends of his for details about her. As others have said, this moment isn't about her. Also, funerals are a step in grief but they aren't the end-all-be-all of closure. If she has any doubts, she shouldn't go.

@34 a teacher and principle seems simple enough. I guess my point is - what purpose is being served here?

Harriet @42: You continue to show that you know so little about opposite-sex relationships and about women.

Women are subjected to constant messages that once they reach a certain age, say 40, they are no longer desirable. Men are not. Related, going back to the "teen porn" thread, most women do not see young bodies as inherently desirable absent other good qualities in a partner. Men tend to see youth as indisputably desirable in and of itself.

So if a gay man, less prone to monogamy in the first place, has a partner who expresses interest in a young man, he would totally understand the attraction. A woman in that situation would feel threatened. Not desiring random young flesh herself, she'd be less likely to understand and relate to this interest. Instead, it would merely trigger her insecurities about not being good enough herself - insecurities she can do nothing about, which are the worst kind. In a lesbian relationship this might be ameliorated by the partner also being attracted to the young woman in question, but for heteros, she's nothing but competition with an unfair advantage. Sure, young people are attractive. But for god's sake don't rub her face in the "younger body" of someone she's been conditioned to see as a potential replacement for her past-it self.

Personally, would I dump a partner who was also dating a younger woman? Of course not, but I'd instinctually feel more threatened and would need more reassurance from my partner than if his new shiny was my own age. Poly men would do well to accept that even rational women will react this way. (I'm talking younger but not embarrassingly so, say 20s.)

@48 an observation - there stereotypical 'Chad' preys upon the same (but reversed) weaknesses: They're from wealthier families, get paid more, are held in higher esteem, etc - "the guy she tells you not to worry about". In both cases tho, those traits are superficial; not related to the interior person.

Hypothesis: Deceased older affair partner was a woman in a lesbian relationship. LW's partner is a man. This was LW's first same-sex involvement, so the ground has shifted beneath her feet even more than it would under "normal" Sturm & Drang of a clandestine affair and subsequent loss of an important other. And the emotional fallout for her is likewise outsized--she might not normally be as narcissistic as people are accusing her of. Memorial service will be attended by deceased's family, gay community, and people who worked directly with her, but not random people from the school district (or whatever larger work environment they were in). So LW's grieving presence there will in fact be odd and noticeable if the larger community is medium to small. Even if my theory is wrong, I think she should stay away no matter what, just to cover her tracks for the sake of others who are mourning and don't need any extra emotional trauma.

I see 2 questions buried in here.
Should the LW go to the funeral?
How can the LW get the sort of grieving/sharing/closure experience she wants?

For the first, I think a lot depends on how large this celebration of life is. If it's small where only close family and friends will be there, then having what is to the family a virtual stranger show up and bawl loudly is going to to stand out and possibly hurt them. But it doesn't sound like that's what's planned. Deceased was well respected, and a public memorial service is planned. I say go, get all emotional in the back, don't worry about it.

For the 2nd, I don't think anything is going to provide that. Maybe therapy as Dan recommends. But the bottom line is that things ended badly between LW and the deceased. How are a lot of people who never knew LW and certainly never knew about LW's particular relationship with the deceased going to provide the sort of comfort she craves? They can't make it right between them. Their memories aren't going to be remembering fondly all the deceased's cute adorable kinks.

"It was a sad, sudden, and expected death." "I blame myself in part for their death, because during the last month of their life, I rejected their advances in order to do right by my partner."

Harriet, the reason I (not BDF) suggested it could either be a suicide or something that resulted from emotional distress / reckless behavior is the LW's words that she blames herself in part for their death. I don't see how the LW could blame herself for something like a chronic illness. How could rejection of someone play a role in someone's death other than in a suicide or in an incident/choice caused from emotional recklessness or distress?

Also I did assume that the "expected" was supposed to be "unexpected" because it makes more sense with "sudden" and the "blame myself.... I rejected their advances..." But if it was an "expected" death but also "sudden" then it would have to be some very fast acting sort of illness- but even still, a chronic illness is not "sudden", nor could the LW find any cause to blame herself for it.

Regarding the rest of the speculation (around the deceased's gender and the widow/er) I have no opinion at all and those scenarios don't interest me or seem relevant to the letter.

I don't know about the appropriateness of attending but as to what people think, if you cry you can just say that it brought back emotions from the passing of your grandfather/dad/best friend and leave it at that. No one is suspicious because you cry. Maybe don't go view the body though, that could be weird.

But this person clearly suffers from boundary issues anyways and is a tad narcissistic. I'd second going to visit the grave a few weeks later.

I was not going to comment since the early consensus jibed with my own: SADCUNT should not attend the funeral of a person with whom she was recently having an affair, and she should not speak with her lover’s friends or colleagues about her lover, but she can grieve at the grave some weeks after the burial. However, there was some discussion as to how her lover died. My guess is heart attack. SADCUNT could not feel responsible for an accidental death, as that makes no sense, and if her lover committed suicide, I believe SADCUNT would say as much. A heart attack seems like the kind of stress-related phenomenon for which someone would believe they were responsible. The fact is that SADCUNT would not be responsible for causing a heart attack, but she should still not attend the funeral. If her lover did commit suicide as some have guessed, then I would absolutely tell SADCUNT that going to the funeral would not only be inadvisable, but also insane.

Also, my guess is that SADCUNT is a graduate student in her late 20s, her mentors are her graduate advisors, who were advised by her lover.

I don't think LW should attend the funeral because she fears she won't be able to control her emotions (and, OMG, everyone will just KNOW). Her post-mortem desire to learn more about her former lover will have to be satisfied by reading the obituary and the online book of condolences. Attending the memorial and then monopolizing conversations just to fill in the blanks would be obnoxious.

Learn to process the death without automatically believing YOU were the cause of hastening the lover's demise. Remember the good times through a nostalgic veil ... then get back to living your own life with your partner.

Yeah Sublime, that makes sense too. Any sort of potentially stress related thing, the LW could think she contributed to it.

It's very unlikely the LW is actually responsible in any way- it's her perception that she is somewhat to blame that's real here, not that she's really to blame. Even if it's a suicide, it's not her fault regardless. It's very common for people to feel guilty when someone commits suicide, and those people attend memorials anyway- what would be insane in that case isn't attending but rather the seeking out the loved ones. Just to clarify. What I meant by "accident" is like, the dead person was distressed and therefore not using clear judgement or sleeping properly or whatever and then did something reckless- driving while intoxicated, doing something dangerous while on sleeping pills, etc.

A sudden illness that is often correlated with stress does seem to make the most sense though- and also accounts for the age difference and common cause of death, so I bet you are correct.

@53 my read was a cancer patient who decided not to continue treatment

Oh, I don't know; I was guessing public school teacher and Superintendent or master teacher, or principal or professor in the education dept. at the local university. And the reason for using the pronoun "they" was to try to keep the anonymity as much as possible; it's far harder to identify this very respected person if one can't even narrow the guesses down by gender. I'm leaning towards a typo: it should have read "unexpected death." This could be a suicide or an accident, perhaps caused by the older person's substance use. I wouldn't normally get this dramatic, but the lw says, "Things ended badly. I blame myself in part for their death, because during the last month of their life, I rejected their advances in order to do right by my partner." Why would you blame yourself for someone's fatal illness? But you could easily blame yourself for making your ex-lover so distraught that s/he is drinking or using benzos, and then is driving or . . .

Anyway. Not that any of those details matter.

I feel for the lw--she's distraught: grieving and guilt-stricken. But I don't think going to the funeral is a good idea. There's no guarantee that she won't be noticed or arouse suspicions, especially if she is clearly grief-stricken--and no, saying, "my uncle died recently" won't make her weeping and wailing at the funeral of a person she is supposed to have worked with but not known well. And her reasons for wanting to go--to position herself amongst the more official and expected mourner--is wrong.

I'm a big fan of the farewell letter written and then destroyed or kept hidden, just as a way to process her grief.
I would also suggest that the lw join a grief or bereavement group (in a different town, if possible) with no one in it who knew the deceased, and for good measure, use a pseudonym and identifying characteristics--no need to say you were 20 years younger than this married pillar of the community and were having a secret kinky affair. Just say, "my boyfriend."

Or the lw could talk to the few friends she has whom she KNOWS knew about the affair. They can listen to her mourn and be supportive.

But under no circumstances should she try to find out what the dead guy said about her to his/her "closest friend," who she only THINKS may have known about the affair.

If she wants to do right by this person, she should make keeping his widow from experiencing still more pain her first priority.

I have been in a similar situation and it is difficult. The lw is being denied the comfort of grieving publicly and getting public sympathy and support. In 816, George Gordon, Lord Byron, wrote this poem mourning the end of a forbidden love (even though in the poem, the lover is still alive).

When We Two Parted

When we two parted
In silence and tears,
Half broken-hearted
To sever for years,
Pale grew thy cheek and cold,
Colder thy kiss;
Truly that hour foretold
Sorrow to this.

The dew of the morning
Sunk chill on my brow--
It felt like the warning
Of what I feel now.
Thy vows are all broken,
And light is thy fame;
I hear thy name spoken,
And share in its shame.

They name thee before me,
A knell to mine ear;
A shudder comes o’er me--
Why wert thou so dear?
They know not I knew thee,
Who knew thee too well--
Long, long shall I rue thee,
Too deeply to tell.

In secret we met--
In silence I grieve,
That thy heart could forget,
Thy spirit deceive.
If I should meet thee
After long years,
How should I greet thee?--
With silence and tears.

@53. Emma. Your question ''how could rejection play a role in someone's death other than through' suicide or reckless behavior in response?' is a good one. Idk. Someone in CATFISH's position could be feel so guilty she blames herself for a heart attack (?).

@All. This would be one of the cases where I'd (quite strongly) agree with Dan and not the consensus. I WOULDN'T say 'go to a twelve-person private or family wake'.

@46. cockyballsup. Is there any reason besides selfishness to go? Yes. SADCUNT does not want to make a public exhibition of her grief. She is not claiming a share, licitly or illicitly, of her old lover's family's sadness. She just wants to tap into the same rituals as everyone else who knew the man. The confirmation that she knew him better, knew him in a special way, is for her private peace of mind and process of grieving--and for the sake of putting the affair away.

I can't see the fact of her having an affair means she's forfeited her share of these ordinary human rituals (so long, always, as she disturbs no other mourner).

@48. Bi. Oh, I am not saying at all that someone in that situation (a woman in a poly relationship with a guy who takes a younger partner) would not feel /threatened/. Or shouldn't. Yes, one might well. (My identification is as much as the female or NB partner of a man as that of a seasoned cis homo). But, in any negotiated relationship, there isn't just one direction or dimension of threat ('oh, she's younger, she'll replace me'). The other dimensions might be e.g. 'she's smarter / less smart', 'hotter / less hot', 'liberated (more into his kinks) / less liberated', 'more casual or flexible over time / less so', 'more biddable / less so' etc. And in real life these dimensions will all interact. My partner likes twinks (is a sort of twink-magnet), certainly more heavily than I find new outside sexual partners; sometimes these young men pose a threat to me, and sometimes they don't. Those who have versions of the qualities my partner prizes in me are often more of a threat--and more likely to get a veto from me.

I would hope that in fifteen years' time, the LW would more serenely think it a good thing for her late lover that he had this late kinky affair. (Obviously her marriage is still in the balance or needing work. This also supposes that her rejection didn't actually bring about his death). In fact, after that length of time, if knowing of the affair, I'd hope his widow, too, wouldn't begrudge it.

@BDF: My general feeling is that she shouldn't have confessed no matter what (knowing or not knowing that the lover was going to die is superfluous for me even though that's the reason for the letter).

I wasn't one who assume the LW is/was hot as linked to a larger trend of hot women sleeping with other men, but I would add to the conversation that most women are hot. I've noted in previous posts, including one in the past few months in response to a LW who had a crush on a co-worker, that my daily commute on mass transportation leads me to conclude that about 85% of women commuting are hot in some way. Maybe my standards are low or maybe I just look for different features of a woman that could make her hot. Haha.

*older, not "other."

I wish there was an edit option.

"Out of respect for the deceased—they'd asked me to keep our affair a secret—and also for the deceased’s ex-partner and family, who have no idea."

"Only a couple of my friends know about my involvement with this person."

"I want to ask their closest friend (who may have known that we were together) what the deceased said of me, if anything. But it seems like there are boundaries I shouldn’t cross here."

This combination of phrases (among others) makes me definitely think this LW shouldn't attend the funeral. It's good she realizes that asking the deceased's closest friends seems like a boundary not to cross. She seems to believe she followed their wishes to keep the secret of their affair, when not only did she tell her partner (a good idea), but "a couple friends". That's not a very good idea and she can't really know who else at the funeral may know bc of who she told (on top of who may've figured it out). The possible hurt that could be caused hugely outweighs any possible gain in attending the funeral. Don't go! Grieve with friends who already know, support groups and in therapy.

Sporty @49: I don't hang out on incel forums, so you'll have to give me some more explanation of this "stereotypical 'Chad'" phenomenon, as I'm afraid I don't follow your post at all.

Sublime @55: Academia makes sense here, with all this talk of mentors. Good call.

Cocky @58: Well, it's Harriet whom you need to correct, as he (a mostly-gay mostly-man) is the one who claimed @35 that gay men would expect their partners' other lovers to show up at a wake, and that they should accept the desire for a "younger body" as justification for an extramarital dalliance. And that women should copy this attitude. (Straight men, sure, have been conditioned to view their female partners as belonging to them, which is why cheating is a threat not only to their relationship but to their manliness. Again, it's Harriet who's claimed gay men aren't possessive in that sort of way.)

NoCute @60: Before Emma's suicide hypothesis, I viewed Lover as being in ill health and, post rejection, going on a booze or drugs bender that hastened their death. You're right, it doesn't really matter for the questions being asked.

Harriet @62: I'm not arguing that it's -logical- to feel more threatened by a partner who is younger. I'm just saying it's an instinctive and unavoidable reaction, caused by society's valuing older women as lesser than younger ones.

Surfrat @63: So you believe that people who cheat should never come clean? I have to say that I disagree. I can see some circumstances when not confessing might be better, but I tend to view dishonesty as the exception rather than the rule. It's not possible to heal a relationship post-affair if one person doesn't know about the affair.
But I'm wondering where you were a few columns ago where I asserted that most women were just objectively more attractive than most men. :-)
https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love/2019/03/26/39718817/savage-love/comments/90

@66. Bi. I agree with what you say to me--or there's no difference between us; no sheet of paper that could be put between us--but not so much with your characterisation of my views to cocky. I never said that a hot 'younger body' 'justified' the older man cheating on his partner. On the assumption that this relationship was monogamous by agreement, that the affair was covert and would have upset the dead man's wife, it was wrong. The difference in age between the LW and her former lover's wife, as this is most readily imaginable, only means there was--on this crude measure--something the affair offered than the marriage didn't. (Possibly the kink, and other things, differentiated it as well).

As I see it, many of the commentators, in an unreconstructed way, believe that adultery is wrong, and that adulterers forfeit any solace that might be offered them by public rituals of mourning. Fine. Perhaps with any story that features adultery, they put themselves in the shoes of the party cheated-on. But these people should have the courage of their moralism. Instead, here they superimpose on the facts of the case suppositions not warranted by what SADCUNT says--that she wants to make herself the center of attention, that she will 'monopolize' conversations, buttonhole other mourners. Nothing like this crossed Dan's mind; he said 'sit at the back, take a friend' quite quietly. What I would say to the moralists is, 'how many people need to attend the funeral before you say, 'go without drawing attention'?'. And I suspect the answer is e.g. definitely above Trump's inauguration numbers, because they don't think she has any right to go at all. (I'll arbitrarily say 'don't go if the number's below 50', to show that I agree the Other Woman should not obtrude herself). No one, further, is counseling that she mourn in the company of those with a more publicly attestable or above-board connection to the deceased.

Of course not all gay men are minded to grant their partners younger lovers, and of course many gays feel rational, irrational and complicatedly mixed jealousy on account of age. (I'd think my identification is female, on the proviso that identification involves projecting into something you're not).

@66 you know the type. Smarmy white guy. Frat bro, etc.

@69. cockyballsup. Well, I fear abandonment. I know that I should fear abandonment less because my relationship is nonmonogamous; because what I offer my partner has been explicitly spelled out, is out in the open, in the realm of reason (as it is not in some romantic partnerships); and because I have some understanding of what our relationship will be like (unless either of us undergo personality transformations) after break-up. I still nonetheless and irrationally fear abandonment.

In fact I agreed with Bi that socialisation (as much as any arguably hardwired differences between the genders) leads women to fear 'the younger rival' more intensively and aversively than men. Or, rather, I agreed that this fear in its irrationality in some cases might reasonably be 'given a pass' because of background features of the sex war. What I wasn't so happy with was the claim that I didn't understand women or OS relationships. I don't feel het relationships should be generalised as OS relationships. (As an e.g., I'd find it hard to imagine any trans man-ciswoman relationship being plagued by the tensions and misunderstandings of the latest SL, the 'have you had previous boyfriends?' one; yet it would also be an OS relationship for me).

Harriet, I get you're pulling for being understanding of why cheating happens (eg "From my perspective, anyone in a relationship should do their damndest not to be cheated on because their partner is following the call of an irresistible kink"). But in this situation you have a widow, family, and close friends dealing with the death of someone they love. We and the LW can't know how much any of them know or may have guessed at this point and while, in an ideal world it may bring some of then joy in MUCH later years to think the deceased got to enjoy a kinky affair before their death, if it ever happens, this raw time won't be it. Whyever the affair happened, it's described as an affair that the deceased wanted to be kept secret. The possible pain that could be caused be this woman attending is great and I do think her actions mean she forfeited her right to attend. Attending isn't going to really give her "closure" or tell her what, if anything, the deceased said about her to friends.

Though I've never been cheated on (I guess that I know of) or cheated, my views are that if someone isn't getting something they need, they have to use their words and if the current relationship isn't working, leave. People don't get to decide to change the rules of a relationship behind their partner's back, but continue to reap the benefits. People can control themselves, our kinks don't make us wild animals unable to stop ourselves jumping on the first hot person willing to fulfill them. There are situations that I of course think are exceptions (when one partner is on a monetary leash or in any way being abused or forced into staying in the relationship, when children are involved if less harm is done by cheating, etc.). Of course like anything, cheating doesn't happen in a vacuum (there are reasons), but that is true for almost any action and doesn't absolve people of any consequences or of being accountable for their actions.

@BDF: I think that unless someone is in an open relationship and there is a stated agreement that each person will share their activities then a person should never come clean. The never come clean applies to don't ask, don't tell or just straight up cheating. Coming clean doesn't do anyone any good. Ignorance is truly bliss.

Things get busy during the week so I sometimes can't return to a thread and missed your post. But I would generally agree that women on the whole tend to be better looking. Of course, as a straight guy, that might be my default. I do think I can say objectively if a guy is hot and it does seem that less guys fit that category, but gay men and straight women might disagree. So, I'm on team BDF with this one. haha.

Harriet @67: To quote you @35:
"If ever learning of the affair, the widow or widower should perhaps accept that the LW brought something to their partner they couldn't. Hot, kinky sex? A final fling? Near-unequivocal professional admiration? (Try retaining that for a live-in life-partner). Even just a younger body..."
You said "affair"; you weren't talking about honestly open relationships. You said the widow/er "should perhaps accept"; does this not equate to seeing the affair as justified? If an affair spurred by a younger body is not justified, why should the widow/er accept it? The affair offered something the marriage didn't, sure. But as they'd committed to monogamy, what difference does that make? Of course, seeing a younger body, the wronged party will understand that that was probably the attraction. But presumably, people commit to monogamy KNOWING that other people will offer things their partner doesn't, and agree to forsake all others, despite the advantages those others offer.

Sporty @68: Thanks. Please continue elaborating, as I still don't understand quite what you mean by "the smarmy bro preys upon the same (but reversed) weaknesses: They're from wealthier families, get paid more, are held in higher esteem, etc - "the guy she [who?] tells you [who?] not to worry about". In both cases tho, those traits are superficial; not related to the interior person" as all that relates to my post?

Cocky @69 (congrats!): The word I used was "threatened." Jealousy is most often tied to insecurity, and that can be either real (someone in a brand-new relationship is right to feel insecure about that relationship, which odds dictate won't last) or imagined, ie based on one's perceived shortcomings. Because one feels that their partner may prefer someone who is younger or hotter than they are, they feel their security in the relationship is under threat. This is, indeed, so common as to not be irrational, which is why partners who are dating younger new shinies should be cognizant of the effect and make a big effort to ensure their existing partner feels valued.

Harriet @70, if you can indeed relate to why a woman would feel threatened by a younger partner and not just "accept" it as a reasonable excuse for cheating, then I withdraw my statement that you don't understand women, and replace it with one that your post @35 was very confusingly worded!

Surfrat @72: It seems that mature individuals should have an up-front conversation about, if I ever cheated, would you want to know, or under what circumstances would you want to know. I agree with Kitten @71 that cheating usually means something is wrong in the relationship. If not -- for instance, a one-off, out-of-town, opportunistic ONS, with condoms, about which the cheater felt horrible afterwards and resolved to never repeat -- I would say don't fuck up the relationship by telling. But you can see those are rather narrow parameters for my exception to the honesty rule. For one, there is STI risk that a cheated-on partner has the right to know about. And what about a hetero situation where someone may show up seeking child support? Someone who's cheated is bound to act strangely, which will be confusing to the cheated-on partner. Personally, I feel that trust is important in a relationship and that requires knowing what's going on so that one can deal with any situation with a full grasp of the facts. I would never agree to a DADT arrangement! In other words, I would feel far more betrayed by being lied to than by my partner fucking someone else.

I can't think of any good reason to go, but dozens not to.
Am I crazy?

@75 you were commenting on why women may excessively fear the 'younger rival' - because they have, superficially, the qualities this society tells us make a superior partner. I was noting how for both men and women, the action is the same rather than different - you're told you're a fundamentally less suitable partner.

Sporty @78: So who's the fundamentally less suitable partner -- the smarmy bro (who doesn't sound appealing at all) or the... what other male archetype is being referenced here?
I'm not familiar with a societal trope that women will leave their existing partners for smarmier, bro-ier guys, so I'm struggling to see the parallel. The wealth perhaps? I still think it's a stretch. In past generations, women were advised to just "accept" (Harriet's word) that their breadwinning husbands would have affairs with their secretaries because that's how men are, and they had little recourse because they were depending on their husbands' incomes. There was far more censure of women cheating, so there wasn't this same warning to men that their house-wives would leave them for richer men. Because of course those richer men were out banging younger and more attractive women than the wives in question. And because women got zero allowance to cheat, like men did, because they'd somehow earned it with all their hard work and they just couldn't help being drawn to a body that hadn't borne you three children.

So I think this is a trope among incels maybe, but not elsewhere.

Ah - were you talking about "alphas" and "betas"? Only certain men see things that way, but at least I'd have known what you meant!

@79 at some point you'll have to pay attention to things beyond yourself.

@71. KittenWhiskers. I'm not sure the LW thinks attending the memorial will bring her 'closure'. After all, she wants to find out more about her late lover--and it's not clear she will practically be able to take this very far. She doesn't want to be denied some public expression of her grief, is all--and 'public' in the sense that she turns up, not in the sense that she 'publicises' her relation with the deceased. To me, the tiebreaker on this one is whether she's going to disturb the late man's family in any way. Going to the memorial e.g. of the once head of a university department as the mentee of a mentee is not necessarily going to set any head turning--or turning over.

You're saying something like, 'if you have unmet needs in a marriage, negotiating and leaving are honorable courses, and cheating dishonorable'. OK--but I'm looking at it more from the view of a partner. I can't identify at all with the view that says, 'he's unhappy but he's mine!'

@75. Bi. Oh, all heat has now gone out of it--I don't mind whether you think I understand women or not. But for the avoidance of doubt, I don't think a 'younger body' 'justifies' a fling, as e.g. 'he persistently denigrates and blanks me, but I'm financially dependent on him' justifies it.