For those who did not know the story:

In 1998, when I became a GGGM in Amsterdam, one of the friends I made there was a young opera singer who went on from Amsterdam to England where he made a serious play for the unfortunately already partnered Mr Fry and was so disappointed that he turned bisexual and has been with women ever since. Team Sexual Fluidity is welcome to take that one and use it for their own purposes. My opera singer friend was then living in California, but had lived in New York for some years, where he'd become close to Mr Crisp, whose columns, in which he always called everyone either Mr or Miss, I had been following for some years in the now long-defunct magazine Christopher Street. When my friend was back in California, we happened to have a telephone conversation the same evening he'd just gotten cast for the first time by a Gilbert and Sullivan company. When I mentioned that I was going to New York on the Sunday with my so-called aunt (it was about her tenth or twelfth chess tournament; after losing her first twenty-five tournament games despite having winning leads in more than half, she'd finally started being able to finish out a won game and was trying to get her rating over 1000), my friend said I should phone Mr Crisp while I was in New York with the news of his having been cast (very against his personal politics at the time) as the Sergeant of Police in The Pirates of Penzance. I phoned multiple times, but only caught Mr Crisp at home shortly before our train left after the tournament. He was absolutely charming, and as thoroughly amused by the casting as my friend had predicted he'd be.

Mr Crisp died about two weeks later.

As for other honourifics, besides the usual ones and my idea of appending an R or an S after Mr or Ms to indicate the unknown partner of a known person (for example, Msr Erica, Ms Erica's husband) along with M? for addressing those about whom I was unsure (one occasionally forgets details about irregular posters), Mx Wanna either approved the designation or at absolute least did not object. I cannot recall at the moment if Mx was a general designation at the time. And M?? Harriet I do recall came about as a result of my mentally trying out one different possibility or other. I asked if M?? would suit, and M?? Harriet replied in the affirmative.

Now, as I do seek to be accommodating, I'll gladly change Mr Curious to Dr (I know that some among the assembled company retained fond memories of Dr Sean after his departure from these pages) or Prof or perhaps Atty, which would apparently be most apt, but some honourific everybody must have. It has become too long engrained a habit with me to change now. It could be considered comparable to how Dr Tarrasch used to say he felt lost in a game of chess if his opponent had captured his King's Bishop, or my being perfectly willing to give everyone who so desires gender-neutral pronouns, but my not being able to bring myself to use "they" as a singular because I was publicly shamed for doing so forty-seven years ago. But anyone who wants a different honourific, within reason, from the current one has only to speak.

I'm sorry, but according to the math, they were married for only a year before he started the affair (after being together for 4 years before they married). He should have negotiated ENM before they took their vows.

He's been having an affair for half of their relationship and nearly their entire marriage!

Who cares why he did it. She should DTMFA.

People cheat for all kinds of reasons, and oftentimes they still love their partner. The fact that this was a 5-year-long affair suggests that whatever the reason is that the husband cheated, he either began with or ended up with having a close emotional connection to the person he was cheating with.

I think that there are as many ways to be hurt by a partner's cheating as there are different kinds of cheating and different reasons for cheating. If you discover your partner has been having an ongoing, long-term affair, you can feel betrayed because of the emotional connection; if you find out your partner has had a one-night-stand or more than one, you can feel hurt that your relationship seemingly means so little to your partner that they casually disregard it any time they get the opportunity. If you find out that your partner has used a dating/hookup app to meet someone, you can feel angry that your partner is actively looking for someone to cheat with--not that they couldn't help themself when they locked eyes with the compelling stranger at the hotel's continental breakfast when they were out of town on business, or got too drunk at the office xmas party and lost control.

I don't know that there is a "worse" kind of cheating. I think different types appear worse to different types of people.

As far as who is to blame or how one should think of the person that their partner cheated with, well, again there are different circumstances. I agree that the contract entered into through marriage (assuming that the marriage is intended to be monogamous) makes cheating a breach of contract, but that only applies to marriages, not other relationships that aren't bound contractually. And does it only apply if the phrase "forsaking all others" or whatever it is that indicates monogamy was part of the wedding ceremony? Because not all weddings use the same standard boilerplate. I also think that it's perfectly legitimate to be angry and hurt and feel betrayed by the person your partner cheated on you with if that person is/was a friend of yours. That's a double betrayal, and I can't imagine that anything would hurt more.

But even if I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and that if I were having sex with a married man, his wife should be angry with him, more than with me--that's logic, not emotional thinking. And people don't tend to approach their responses to being cheated on logically. Nor do I think they either always can or should. I think that expecting someone who is devastated that the trust they had in their partner has been betrayed to emotionally react logically, is naïve.

Lastly, and I speak as a former CPOS. I never (again) want to knowingly do anything that I have reason to believe would cause pain to someone. And I know that even if I hadn't promised anything to the partner of a person I might have an affair with and that ultimately it was his decision to cheat on his partner and I didn't make him do it, I would be an instrument of pain to his partner.

@100 venn
Congrats on the lucky number!

I'm sorry we lost Mr. Crisp, but happy you got to talk before we did.

By the time I finished @87 I realized it's fine with me if you (as I wrote @87) "please go ahead and gender me, venn."

(Unless we start featuring Gender Wars again, in which case I might ask to be called "Human Curious". Or maybe "Space Cadet Curious", or what would /really/ be most apt, "Asshole Curious".)

curious, aka Mr. Curious

As for the Great Divide and teams (which was general and nothing to do with any particular letters), one of my favourite Interesting Points from this site is how Mr Savage takes his film festival to be evidence of how alike people are, while I am continually and constantly finding here further proof of how decidedly differently and deeply divided we think and are. Ms Fan and I respect each other's norms and spaces, which is in my book a tacit acknowledgement in and of itself of being on different teams. Mx Wanna, who advocates for Matriarchy, certainly would not want me on the same team, as matriarchy would be very little (if at all) better for gays than patriarchy is for lesbians. As for M?? Harriet, I'm still not sure what to think, which seems complimentary. The apparent olive branch in #76 is rather surprising. I sometimes suspect that one just doesn't want my having a team of my own, but I respect my opponent enough to doubt that it's really that simple.

@101 nocute
"I never...want to knowingly do anything that I have reason to believe would cause pain to someone. And I know that even if I hadn't promised anything to the partner of a person I might have an affair with...I would be an instrument of pain to his partner."

I think the way N. worded this was wonderful, and illuminating for me. I think the 'other' can very well both be an asshole and not share blame, for the cheating.

@104 p.s.
"both be an asshole"

And not just that, it would be (despite my arguments to the contrary) be wrong.

It sounds as if she's going to therapy on her own to me. She should be going to couples therapy with her husband. Have a couples counselor ask him--or the counselor should independently ask him:

'Why did you cheat?'
'Did you feel justified in cheating?'

He might possibly reply more honestly than he has just to her.

@105--Exactly, curious2.

P.S. Fever is gone and COVID test came back negative. I don't know what I had, but it wasn't COVID-19 and it's in the rear view.

I think trying to figure out why someone cheated is a fool's errand, and what kind of valuable information could one hope to get?

"I am no longer sexually attracted to you."

"I wanted to feel alive again, in a way I haven't in years, maybe decades"

"I've gotten bored."

"I was drunk; it just happened."

"I wanted to feel wanted. The attention was flattering."

"The opportunity just presented itself."

"I wanted novelty or variety."

What is the cheated-on partner supposed to do with that? No doubt, some of those reasons can be dealt with, but that doesn't change the fact that trust was betrayed, that they were lied to, perhaps exposed to STIs, made to feel foolish and humiliated. Does it really make a difference to hear that the affair made them feel "alive" again?

I'm not saying that cheating MUIST or SHOULD result in the end of the relationship; that's for each individual or each specific couple to figure out for themselves, and there isn't a wrong or right response. I'm just saying that going on a hunt for reasons is generally not a productive strategy and often little is gained by it, but more pain can be engendered by it.

@107 nocute
"COVID test came back negative...it wasn't COVID-19 and it's in the rear view."

That's wonderful news! And nice to know that something else is going around so if one gets a fever it might be something else.

What does a 'team' mean anyway?

Is there a presumption that the members of a team think alike? Groups like 'women' or 'divorcees' would be too large and heterogeneous to form teams.

Is it that team members are culturally similar? Well, I don't know any NASCAR fans; but by no means do I share the enthusiasms of everyone I associate with.

Is it that other people assign all team members to the same identity category? Here there would not necessarily be much of a basis for splitting up homosexuals and the gender-dissonant. Most of the casual forms of prejudice I've been exposed to, for instance, are indistinguishable from homophobia.

A better question, then, might be why someone went on cheating--for five years. It probably wasn't because he wanted, just the once, to feel young again or because he craved variety.

Why did he stay in the marriage?

Does DW's husband lack any fundamental respect for her? She doesn't say that--she isn't, at least explicitly, considering the question. "Is 'once a cheater, always a cheater' true of my husband?" isn't the same question as "does he have any respect for me?". If he doesn't have any respect, it would be a good thing for her to know.

Nocute- I used the wrong term, will follow through in few days.

Aunt Zelda- “may continued good fortune be yours. :)”
Thanks! While some of my fortunes have recently discontinued due to the latest ongoings I look forward to retain those I still have and will gladly welcome new ones if and when. Hopefully things will get better for all of us soon. How is going braless treating you?

Mr Venn- “Mx Wanna either approved the designation or at absolute least did not object.”
Not only I approved, I also started using it when possible.

“I cannot recall at the moment if Mx was a general designation at the time.”
It wasn’t, though few months after your suggestion the Oxford dictionary added “Mx” as an official hono(u)rific. Who knows, maybe linguists all over the globe are paying close attention to SL after the highly successful “spreading santorum” campaign and other terms and acronyms that started here.

“Mx Wanna, who advocates for Matriarchy, certainly would not want me on the same team, as matriarchy would be very little (if at all) better for gays than patriarchy is for lesbians.”
My submissive preferences and follow up with those whom I deem as deserved to be followed should not be viewed as a blanket endorsement of matriarchy. I have also branched out a bit in this regard so the term may not be accurate anymore.
I think we could make a good bridge duo had I not deserted the cards awhile back. Tennis is not my thing but ping pong is, in case you’re looking for a couples’ partner.

Nocute @108, My guess is laziness, over time. Got away with it the first few times, don’t want to upset what’s set up at home.. moving takes an effort.
There are no children in this marriage.
I agree JibeHo, @101, she should DTMFA, a slip up is forgivable, but five years is the behaviour of a man who has zero respect for his wife so why bother putting any more energy into the relationship. Once trust is gone, how does one get it back.
I find it sad when women, like this LW, want to bend over backwards to hang onto a man, despite him showing his ethics are out the window in relation to them... excusing a man because of fear of loneliness and the pain of grief.

For some here to suggest they talk of having an open marriage, now, after it’s been open for him for five years, is crazy. This man enjoys the game, having two relationships going at once where one of them had no knowledge her marriage was open.
The other woman, she’d know and happy to collude with hubby in his cheating on his wife. Maybe it rings her bells, to know.
Life is short, this LW is young, and you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. Or a decent marriage out of one with yrs long betrayal.

Mr. Venn @100 -- when people say things like "not being able to bring myself to use 'they' as a singular," I sometimes point out that language isn't just about what a person says but also what they understand when someone else is talking.

So in that sentence, I figure you do understand my use of the singular they, as a pronoun referencing "a person."

I also figure you don't interrupt stories about a non-binary person to say "'They? They? Which group of people are you referencing?"

If I'm right, then I'll just note that most nonbinary people don't mind others using their name in lieu of a pronoun if that's easier. It's certainly preferable to using an incorrect pronoun.

nocute @107 - so glad you're feeling better!

nocute @108 - "going on a hunt for reasons is generally not a productive strategy."

I wouldn't urge someone to seek reasons if they didn't want to, but in DW's situation she may be feeling that she hardly knows her husband.

Of course she can walk away if she likes, but if the sex and companionship are wonderful, maybe she'd like to try to get to know him better. If so, I'd ask him to speak frankly about his reasons, as a starting point.

LG @113 - well, I find it sad when people presume to criticize other people's decisions about when a relationship is worth working to mend. DW might want to stay because of many positives, not out of fear of loneliness.

Erica, I remember, if my memory is correct, your experience of opening your marriage is that though MrP cheated, it was once or twice and then he told you. He had the courage to fess up quickly, risk , to be an honest man.
Very different situation to this LW, and you had children.

Most people have no issue with the singular they when you are speaking about a generic person. It's been part of English usage for ages. What's new and difficult for some is the use of the singular they in reference to a particular person. I admit I find that very hard myself, and tend to go for a car-salesman-like overuse of first names instead.

DW, hard one to deal with, hugs to you. Be realistic as you decide your way forward. As Fan said way back, time to use your head.

I agree that five years of lies is too much to overcome, regardless of the original circumstances. Cut your losses and go.

LG @117 - I agree DW's situation isn't the same as mine. That doesn't mean it's ridiculous for her to consider seriously the option of staying married. She came for perspective, and mine is based on many years of conversations with people in challenging marital situations.

Phi @98: "whether a guy was cheating because he was ok with some extramarital sex by both of them and thought discretion was polite, or because he was blaming his wife for not being good enough for him to stay exclusively in love or lust with her"

Both of these are bullshit excuses. "Oh, gee, I thought our relationship was open, even though we never discussed that." Seriously? We are still in a society where committed relationships are presumed monogamous unless otherwise specified. "Gee, I was just being polite by instituting a unilateral DADT and not telling you about it." Nope nope nope. And the second, "It's your fault I cheated because you're not good enough"? UGH. If he tries either of these, I hope she chucks him without a look back. Any step forward will have to start with taking full responsibility for his actions, coming clean about everything, and making amends, including giving her all his passwords until she's sure she can trust him again. And did I mention getting an STI test.

I think you've misinterpreted Ciods @96. She was not arguing that "cheating is part of a good, happy marriage," but that some people are not "driven" to cheat by problems in the relationship, rather by simply meeting someone they fancy in addition to their spouse. In other words, she might not have been wrong in her assessment that everything was fine between them. He just cheated because he couldn't keep it in his pants. We don't know whether he thought cheating was OK or justified in any way, but if he did, she should not give him another chance because with that attitude he will cheat again -- even in the context of an open relationship, he'll cheat by breaking the rules, since he won't think they apply to him.

Nocute @107, glad you're on the mend.

Nocute @108, I disagree. If I were cheated on, I would want to know why, as this would help me decide whether to stay with that person. Were their reasons justifiable in my own moral and ethical framework? I guess if I could see myself making the same mistake in their shoes, I would be more inclined to forgive. "I wanted to feel alive again" could potentially be phrased a bit more tactfully, for instance, "I felt like I was stuck in a rut after X years of monogamy." But again, the explanation and the wording for that explanation would factor into whether they would get a second chance.

And yes, I too have cheated with, and felt horrible about it, and decided that I'm not that kind of person. If someone wants to cheat and hurt their spouse/partner, they're 100% to blame for those actions, but they can leave me out of it.

Harriet @110, I agree, I'm not comfortable being placed on a "team." That implies I will take the side of anyone with similar demographics to my own, which should not be presumed.

Lava @113, I don't see this as gendered behaviour, but the reaction of someone who is still in shock and some degree of denial over the situation. The initial impulse is of course not to want to upset the apple cart, end the life one knows with the person one loves. It will take some time for her to view this from all the necessary angles and make her decision after she's processed all the stages, including denial and anger. I don't see her excusing him at all and think perhaps she deserves a bit more credit, as EricaP says.

Ciods @118, I have a partner who is non-binary. Remember to say they, not too difficult, sometimes I slip up, move on. My partner is sheltering with another partner. So my partner is a they, and my partner together with their bubble are a they, so how many people am I talking about when I refer to "they"? I even confuse myself sometimes, let alone anyone I'm talking to about the situation! I do wish a singular gender-neutral pronoun had gained traction, but we're stuck with they for now. Hmm, maybe "they-all" will catch on?

Did these people have children, Erica. I know those situations too, and one can see the ties that bind. Children and home ownership being the big ones.
Attachment and habit intertwined.
I only envisage hard work ahead for this young woman, and no guarantee of it being fruitful with this man.
There are good honest men out there, why settle for less.

This young woman, and I emphasise that, is blinded by her attachment to and love for her husband. There is no indication in the letter that he is coming to any party she might throw, it’s all on her to adjust to whatever it is he’s set up.
It’s the time frame, the unsafe sex, this man needs much more self work done. If he even wants to address his behaviour.
If he’d been stealing money out of her/ their account over five years, would anyone suggest keeping on with such a person. Yet he’s been stealing her time, her trust and love.

Congratulations on the Hunsky, Mr. Venn @100, and thanks for the story.

LG @124 - I'm not "suggesting she keep on with him," I'm acknowledging there are many factors she might consider. If her husband had been secretly spending money on hotel rooms for his affair that wouldn't change me into someone who says "DTMFA!" for this situation.

Now, if he'd been denying her requests to discuss opening the marriage, has frequently said cruel things to her, or plans to vote for Trump, then I'd be saying DTMFA. I'm not an absolutist on this.

LavaGirl, do you see room between saying "stay!" or "go!" where one can say "here are some things to consider as you decide whether to stay or go"?

Venn@100~ First, congrats on the hunsky, use it well. Second, for my honorific, I’ve always been partial to “The Magnificent and Ever Present, All-encompassing, Exalted and Honored DonnyK the Great, Master of The Four Winds, Keeper of the Keys of Gondorff, Blessed Child of Mesheklebob”.

LavaGirl, I reread the letter and it doesn't mention children at all, neither their existence or the lack of them. Could you show me where you get that this couple has no children?

Donny @127: The Omnipotent Comment God no longer enough for you? :)

Nocute @128, I went back to check too. I think that if there were children, she'd have mentioned them, but agree it's among the many details we haven't been made privy to. Does it actually matter? It seems feeling obligated to stay with someone who's betrayed one could be a very strong argument against having children.

Lava @124, what letter did you read? This woman is not "blinded," she is not "excusing" him, she has not made a decision to forgive so I don't know why you are scolding her for doing that. One of the few details we know is that she "just found out." She is talking to a therapist, seeking advice from Dan, and most likely from people in her life that she trusts. She is not a helpless victim of Stockholm Syndrome here, so I don't know why you're painting her that way. It's a bit insulting, tbh. There is every possibility that she will in fact decide to DTMFA, but she needs to consider all the angles and work through her emotions in order to get there. Don't you remember that it took you some time to make the decision to split with your ex-husband? Haranging you for not seeing it sooner would not have helped in any way.

I never said anything about any syndrome, unless attachment and love are part of one.
Not up to you to be insulted, or to be the gatekeeper around here. You think others agree with every word you write? Or others here write?

Enough with your put down words too, Fan. Look at all the angles? What.. five years of deceit looks different from every side.
Of course this woman will do what she wants, with all the input from the world and make her decisions. She wrote in, she wanted non friends/ family as well as Dan to read her story and respond. We are not at a pool party, this is a person’s life.

I do know my advice has been sharp, because yes love/ attachment do blind us. Even after major transgressions,
on we go, still loving and being attached. This is not peculiar to this LW.
You bring up my marriage Fan, and no comparison. Children were involved.

BiDan@129~ Well, that’s my SHORTENED title... 😁

If you girls don’t stop your fighting, I’m going to turn this car around and go home!

Donny, you are fantastic.

No, honest challenges Donny.
These scenarios are universal, people lying to each other. Set up house, have kids, hard to untangle that scene. Here, with this young woman, she can walk freely from a dishonest man. I’ve given her a proverbial kick.

NoCute, "I'm just saying that going on a hunt for reasons is generally not a productive strategy and often little is gained by it, but more pain can be engendered by it."
This is the opposite of the way I live my life. I try to understand problematic situations rather than run away from them or ignore them, I think that's far more constructive.. How else can she make sure she doesn't commit to the same sort of man in the future, if she leaves? How else can she start to feel confident that she understands him and can trust him, if she decides to stay? I think this is a big deal to her, so I think she should figure out how she ended up with such a faithless man.. those who ignore, run away from, forget, or otherwise cannot understand their past are doomed to repeat it.

"No doubt, some of those reasons can be dealt with, but that doesn't change the fact that trust was betrayed, that they were lied to, perhaps exposed to STIs, made to feel foolish and humiliated"
Yes, but people will make mistakes, nobody's perfect. When there is a betrayal of trust, that doesn't mean the relationship will end.. While she can't trust him to keep a monogamous promise, or tell her the truth about his feelings, maybe she still thinks the marriage is valuable without that particular trust.. and people can learn from their mistakes, there is a possibility he can earn her trust back if she gives him a chance and they want the same things. I think that deciding that any betrayal justifies divorce, is just as extreme and misguided as deciding to trust someone who hasn't earned it. Personally I'm far more hurt by the betrayal of sexual availability when a partner stops meeting my sexual needs in important ways but wants me to stay monogamous, or betrayal of speaking to me with respect and prioritizing my safety and feelings, the vow betrayals of threatening divorce or neglecting basic care, but that's just me, overt abuse to my face feels the most hurtful and offensive. Figuring out what she wants is most important, and all she can decide at this point before she understands his perspective, is that she can't handle his behavior and wants to run away, or ignore it and put up with it. What she could get if she understands his perspective, is a reasonable plan to avoid men with this sort of behavior in the future that will help her feel like this was a growth experience for her rather than a ten year mistake, or a reasonable plan for them do things better in the future if he wants to do better and she thinks she can handle the work involved. I don't know what that would be, because she doesn't say why he cheated or anything about his perspective.

"Look at all the angles" are "put down words"? Okay. Sorry Donny, I'll make like the Talking Heads and stop making sense.

Case 1, 2, and 3 have different warning signs and different solutions.. whether he thought it was ok for him, ok for them, or ok as revenge. If he was happy but deluded, he'll have more motivation to either change his ideas of gender roles and entitlement, or to learn about the difference between cheating and ENM. More motivated to work through his problems. In case 3, if he has a habit of blame-shifting, getting angry to excuse his cheating, this is what anger management is meant to address. I think case 3 is the hardest to change, while case 1 would be the hardest for me to feel sympathy for. I think case 2 is easiest to deal with, but others probably disagree.

In some case 3 circumstances, I think that many people would unfortunately agree that cheating was ok, case 3 is rampant in America.. If DW had a years long affair before they married. If she had stopped consenting to sex more than once every month or two after they married, or otherwise majorly changed the sex game. If she gained or lost a bunch of weight and Mr D was not sexually attracted to her anymore, or if DW abused him, or he fell in love with someone else, but he was staying because of kids or finances. If he stayed in love with her and fell in love with someone else. If she were too ill to have sex but didn't give him permission to seek it elsewhere. Even Dan might blame her and say he was justified to cheat. Or claim it was case 2) that anyone would cheat in those circumstances because sometimes cheating is ethical, Dan is sometimes confused about ENM.
To Dan:
-It's not your call that "he's not cheating her out of anything she wants" when you advise someone to cheat in a sexless marriage, she knows what she wants better than you do. There's no reason to treat her like a fragile flower who can't deal with her husband's reality or make her own marital decisions.
-It's not your call that "she'd rather you cheat and help with her illness/finances than be faced with the choice between an open relationship or divorce", she knows what she wants better than you do.
-Women don't stop having sex out of revenge unless they are unethical, and it's better to deal with an unethical spouse with counseling or divorce rather than cheating. Usually we stop initiating and consenting because we lost our desire because of a problem, either our body changed or our lover changed, and cheating won't help the problem, it'll help it fester.
-It doesn't justify cheating if she stops consenting to sex, or gets too ill for sex, but refuses to give her husband a hall pass. If he needs to break his promise of monogamy for any reason, and she would rather divorce, that's her decision. If he'd rather stay and cheat and take care of his dying spouse because he doesn't think she could handle the truth but he can't stop cheating, then he should feel both guilty and determined to demand a less monogamous relationship, with reasonable exceptions for marital celibacy, after she passes if/when he moves on. If she suddenly can't handle an open relationship because of dementia, she's the one who is changing the terms of their marriage so it would be kind to ignore the demented behavior, try not to take it personally, and discreetly keep following the original terms.
-It's not ok to conclude that someone is cheating because the marriage is sexless. It is IMO realistic to observe that many people outsource the sex and keep the marriage companionate, whether honestly or dishonestly. I also tend to assume both people are cheating when I hear about a sexless marriage, because that's the only way I could be happy with one, but I understand that my assumption has a good chance of being incorrect because people are all different and I don't claim it is correct or base plans or advice on that assumption.

The cheater should be struggling to grow better, build an honest relationship or to leave (while caregiving or already struggling with higher priority survival issues, it will take longer to address the cheating and possibly not happen before the spouse dies). I sort of think that most of the time people cheat, they don't feel right about it, they are just desperately trying to be happy and can't manage to do it ethically, they can't handle ENM or divorcing and losing marital dependence, so they can only build their character by trying to build the strength to be honest or divorce. I can see how survival and caregiving can be higher priority than basic honesty, but I don't think it's ethical to cheat if your spouse isn't dying and you can take care of yourself and your children as a healthy independent person. The exception Dan gives to those in a sexless marriage, even old folks, generally seems to justify the idea that it's ok for a man to decide for his wife that she'll be happier with a discreet cheat than with an honest divorce or open marriage.

While I think cheating is wrong.. I don't think that people are awful for doing it, it's only really awful when they don't treat it like a mistake and sign of big problems and try to live more ethically, I think they end up hurting themselves and their kids..

My single dad friend has had a relationship with a woman who says she's in a sexless marriage, he's seen her regularly for about a decade.. She's jealous but I don't think he tells her that he's monogamous or lies to her, he doesn't neglect his kid, so I think he's doing ok but this is the best stable relationship he could find.. And I'd bet her husband is cheating on her too but they don't want to divorce or be honest with each other. I feel bad for her kids, although I know nothing about them. Actually, my friend's kid seems to fall hard in love and not cheat from what I've heard, but he's also hung out with a bad crowd, and got in trouble covering for his girlfriend and friends. So.. I don't think these people are evil, but I do feel bad for them, they seem to be doing the best they can with what they have.. but the kids suffer.. Should he stop seeing her even though he seems to highly value the relationship? I won't tell him that.

Yes, strangers can break a social contract and help your spouse cheat, but strangers can also break the law. I don't think it's a good idea to trust strangers very far, or to take it very personally if they betray my trust.. I would conclude that I've unrealistically trusted them rather than blame them for not being what I expected...

Ms Cute - Good for you, and continued health.
xxx
Mr Klicious - Hence "within reason".
xxx
Mr Bar - I feel as repetetive as a British comedy sometimes, and, knowing that some among the assembled company find my stories tedious, tried to make it a bit more entertaining on this telling. That I got to include a tribute to Mr Fry (that part was hyperbolic, though I do like to think that, IF anyone's rejection COULD be sexuality-altering, Mr Fry's would make the short list) as well as to Mr Crisp was a bonus.
xxx
Mx Wanna - Not exactly recalling how things went, I opted for the conservative claim. I'm always glad when my grey cells produce a little idea that suits so well. Use it in good health and prosper. And there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't advocate for matriarchy.
xxx
M?? Harriet - Good questions; one gets into a highly complex system of voluntary associations and common goals, etc. Mr Savage seems fairly clearly on your team, but my goals and yours are far too incompatible. Pursue yours to the utmost.

@LavaGirl: @#113, you said, "There are no children in this marriage." @#117, you told Erica that the lw's situation was unlike her own, and you implied that the lw doesn't have children ("Very different situation to this LW, and you had children."). @# 123, you continued comparing EricaP's examples' relationships with the lw's ("Did these people have children, Erica. I know those situations too, and one can see the ties that bind. Children and home ownership being the big ones."), again implying that Duped Wife doesn't have children. And @133, you say to BiDanFan, "You bring up my marriage Fan, and no comparison. Children were involved," which once again contrasts this presumably childless marriage with yours or others in which there were kids. Your inference is that it should be much easier for Duped Wife to leave because she doesn't have the ties of children to hold her in this marriage.

So it seems as though some of your advice comes from your conviction that the lw has not had children with her cheating husband, and we don't know whether or not she has any. At 6 years of marriage and a decade of being together, they may well have children. Or not. The fact that she doesn't mention children is irrelevant, because that doesn't seem to be the focus of her question; we also don't know whether they own a home or rent or whether the husband makes substantially more money than the lw does, or if anyone has a health issue. Because the lw didn't think that any of that information, all of which could have a bearing on whether or not someone decides to leave a spouse, was relevant to her immediate question, which was /will he do it again?/

Not that this makes your basic point of view any different--that this man committed a gross and grievous betrayal that destroyed not only all trust but all possibility for any future trust, that he behaved so badly, you think there's no possible benefit in Duped Wife staying in this marriage. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but only wanted you to see that part of your later argument seems based on a "fact" which you're not in possession of.

@141. venn. But do you think we differ in the encouragement or mentorship we might offer gay teens, or maybe young adults? You must remember I'm a generation older than these people, even if you may be closer to two....

If I enter a cross dressing competition, can I join Team Queer? I've heard they have the best parties.

@99 fubar: Thank you for your fantastic Big Hunsky lead in. May good fortune continue to shine on you. :)
@100 vennominon: WA-HOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congrats on scoring this week's Big Hunsky Award! Savor the riches that come with this highly coveted SL honor. :)
Thank you, too, for sharing your story. I am sorry to read about your sad loss of Mr. Crisp.

Ms Grizelda - That's probably the best five-minute acquaintance I've ever had in my life. To give Mr Savage his due, I can see his eventually being viewed with equal reverence.
xxx
Ms Erica - Yes, the odd reference usually passes, but for consistent use, especially in writing, it often leads to great lack of clarity (a particular DS advantage). I've tried reading great Austenian passages with singular "they"s and it quickly gets extremely clunky.
xxx
M?? Harriet - I think I'd send all the gender-discordant ones to you, just to be safe and do no harm.
xxx
Ms Phile - That may have been a joke, but things are really happening. I've mentioned a certain BreadTube presenter (BT being a group of leftists devoted to Propotkin) who, while remaining quite masculine-presenting and in a long-term relationship with a woman, recently began presenting as non-binary (though not expressing any preference for a neutral pronoun), listing as grounds that he never liked team sports and that sometimes he enjoys cooking or cleaning. One might shrug at that, but then almost the first thing he did afterwards was two days later to run a weeklong stream to benefit the Trevor Project. It probably came out more or less okay, but I've seen the dangers of letting Johnny Come Out Lately types just dive right into leadership positions.

Mr. Venn @148 which character(s) did you reimagine as non-binary?

I think the awkwardness can be managed by returning to the individual's name more frequently than is customary.

But certainly "he" can get confusing too if multiple men are possibly being referenced. We're just used to that issue. When language changes (as it does regularly) there's an adjustment period until the new ways feel natural.

Phi @139, I think you're missing Case 4: He knew it was not OK but he did it anyway. I think this is in fact the likeliest possibility. Or perhaps I want to see it as the likeliest possibility because if you're right and he thought that cheating was OK, that suggests to me that he is a sociopath, and that means there is no saving this relationship because the very first thing he needs to accept is that what he did was not OK.

I agree that many would have a Case 3 attitude to cheating, including many of us here in this forum, which is that it is justified in certain circumstances, the main one being a sexless marriage, or perhaps in revenge for her cheating. The first possibility does not seem true; she implies that they had a great sex life, mentioning it twice. If he was getting revenge on her for cheating, and she left that out of her letter, then she would appear to be the one who is a sociopath. And even in the unlikely event she had cheated years ago, he might reasonably consider himself justified in a revenge one-night-stand, but a five-year affair? I would call bullshit on that excuse too.

Dan's attitude to cheating seems informed by his own monogamishamy, a relationship style where casual sex with others is no big deal. That's fine so long as both partners know and agree to this, which is not the case here. I agree with you that as far as ethics go, discussing an opening of the relationship is almost always preferable to making that decision secretly and unilaterally. The exception I'd make is that the spouse is financially dependent, physically unable to have sex or unwilling to improve the sex life, would be unlikely to agree to (or has already vetoed) openness, and sex is not happening at all (or so infrequent the wannabe cheater takes it off the table before banging anyone else -- thinking of the guy who proposed sex several times a week to a wife who said yes every other month). Any other situation, giving them the choice of ending or opening the relationship would be preferable.

People do bend rules when they are lonely. I think that what this woman is doing is wrong, what your friend is doing is marginally less wrong, but judging people (who haven't asked) is also wrong. I think he knows the risk that this could blow up in his face if they are found out and has decided to accept that risk. After all this time perhaps the husband doesn't care, or indeed is doing his own thing too, and they both "know" so they effectively have a DADT. I agree he's not setting the best example for his kid, but perhaps the kid will learn from it anyway.

This woman has just received some devastating news. A "proverbial kick" is not what she needs.

Venn, Maybe that wasn't so much leadership as the entrance fee to get into the best parties.. Sorry if my humor didn't come through, I tried to play off of the talk of teams and membership..

BDF, "He knew it was not OK but he did it anyway."
I think if Mr D really thought it was a mistake, he wouldn't have kept doing it. I'm sure that some people think that their cheating is a mistake, and stop. Maybe once he's divorced, or once he realizes how hard he has to work to earn the trust again, and has to deal with the consequences of his actions which generally includes giving her more freedom somehow, he'll think it was a mistake that he should plan hard not to repeat.. There is the possibility that he eventually saw that what he was doing was wrong and tried to stop the affair, and his jealous mistress told his wife, but for years he found some way to feel ok with continuing, and listening to his particular justifications or explanation is a big part of either avoiding that sort of behavior in the future, or salvaging some sort of marriage that might work for them.

Re revenge, I said "If DW had a years long affair before they married." then a lot of people would say his cheating was justified, I didn't hypothesize a one night stand. Revenge promoters are stuck in the violent old "eye for an eye" even though now the ethical consensus is that "two wrongs don't make a right". Yet in the US we still have the death penalty and little prison reformation compared to punishment, and revenge is only unnecessary when a good legal system exists, maybe that's why it's not uncommon to hear Americans espouse revenge..

But I have to disagree, that I deserve a revenge one night stand if my husband cheats on me once, that I deserve to cheat if my husband was dependent on me financially and stopped having sex with me. Because I think if I'm treating my spouse badly then I'm in a bad marriage, just as much as if my spouse were treating me badly. I don't think it's kind to try to save him from the consequences of his actions, why not just honestly say that in order to stay with him I want a hall pass too, or that he's welcome to stay and let me continue to take care of him financially but that I'm going to take care of myself sexually with others unless he wants to try to build a good sex life again, and let him decide for himself whether he wants to deal with the consequences in our marriage or leave. I would not jump to extramarital sex if I were in a monogamous marriage and the sex stopped, I'd try to work on it first. But I prefer open relationships and I try to talk about my sexual needs early in relationships, my strong likes and dislikes, how often I like it and how I would want to satisfy my drive with others in a sexless relationship...

Who's up for this week's Double Whammy? Tick...tick...tick...

Griz went to see her primary care provider today about her pulled right shoulder. No orthopedic surgery--YAAAAAY!----just physical therapy to soothe my right shoulder cuff for a while. No alto flute playing until it heals, though, so I'm taking it easy. At least I can still drive my beloved VW, play my piccolo, C flutes, and piano.
So it's Bill Murray Night for Griz--featuring two of Mr. Bill's earliest films post SNL: Meatballs (1979) and Stripes (1981). Summer camp hijinks and enlisting in the U.S. Army, Bill Murray-style.
And that's the fact, Jack. :)

Phi @152: "I think if Mr D really thought it was a mistake, he wouldn't have kept doing it."
I disagree. I think that most people who do wrong know that they are doing wrong. People who cheat on their taxes know it is wrong. People in gangs know it is wrong. People who embezzle from their companies know it is wrong. People who have years-long affairs are under no illusions that what they are doing is wrong. They just do it because it feels good, because they've caught feelings, because they think they can continue getting away with it, because... well, I've never had a years-long affair, so you'd have to ask Mr DW what excuses he's using to rationalise it. In other words, knowing something is wrong and feeling enough guilt to stop are two different things.

"I said "If DW had a years long affair before they married." then a lot of people would say his cheating was justified." OK, fair, I read you too quickly. But if she'd had a years-long affair and then she caught him having a years-long affair, I don't think she'd be having the reaction she is having, unless, again, she's a sociopath. You'd have to have more reason than revenge to stay with the same person for five years, anyway.

"I have to disagree, that I deserve a revenge one night stand if my husband cheats on me once." I was not arguing what anyone "deserves," but what rationale may seem justifiable. If one's partner cheats, an eye for an eye is immature, but most people I think would find it a reasonable reaction. The mature approach would be to discuss why they had cheated. decide to forgive or break up, and if one thought one desired a reciprocal hall pass in order to forgive, request that openly rather than taking the same wrong action your partner did.

"that I deserve to cheat if my husband was dependent on me financially and stopped having sex with me." Again, "deserve" is a funny word here too. Deserving something and being justified in doing something are two different things. Dan has described cheating in this scenario as the least worst option, with which I agree. In an ideal world, there would be no cheating, but in an ideal world, no one would ever become incapable or unwilling to have sex and not grant openness to the partner they love. I think you have probably experienced enough in life to know that situations are not always ideal.

Griz @154, hope the physical therapy works and glad you don't need surgery!

@155 BiDanFan
"most people who do wrong know that they are doing wrong. People who cheat on their taxes know it is wrong."

I agree. OTOH, most people would.

Most people don't think it's wrong to do wrong. Many have a worldview that it's a dog-eat-dog world and they'd be a chump not to do wrong. Many are amoral.

In the USA 85% reported in an IRS survey that cheating on taxes is "not at all acceptable"(1); however that appears to be a result of that
"Most people in the United States can't cheat much because their employers report their incomes to the government."(2)

"America’s [tax voluntary compliance rate] has consistently hovered between 81 and 84 percent...Other countries score worse, among them Italy (62 percent)...
Then there’s Greece...the government placed a luxury tax on private pools. When only 324 residents in the ritzy suburbs of Athens admitted to having one, tax collectors knew they were being swindled—-but didn’t know how badly until Google Earth photos revealed the real pool count: 16,974."(3)

In other words, 98.1% cheated on that tax. Many people feel quite differently about stealing from giant entities than from individuals.

(1) https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/cheat-taxes-americans
(2) https://www.livescience.com/32313-how-many-people-cheat-on-taxes.html
(3) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/why-americans-dont-cheat-on-their-taxes/583222/

Curious @156, so to relate that to this letter (if it is indeed related), you think this guy cheated because "everybody does it"? Or are you saying that tax evasion was a bad example? I agree that more people would be willing to cheat on their taxes, or to accept the wrong change back or an incorrect refund, than to hurt someone they love by committing adultery, so perhaps what you mean is "bad example." But my point stands that the people who cheat on their taxes still know it's wrong. They don't do it because they think it's OK, they do it for other reasons, namely greed, which was in fact my point: that this guy probably isn't cheating on his wife because he thinks that there's nothing wrong with cheating on one's wife. And if he does think there is nothing wrong with cheating on one's wife, she should DTMFA because a guy who doesn't think cheating is wrong will not stop cheating.

@157: I once knew a man who cheated compulsively. He had been married for decades, but began cheating on his then-girlfriend (later-wife) within the first few weeks of dating her. The longest he'd gone without cheating was maybe a year. His stance was, "what she doesn't know can't hurt her," and he claimed to love her. I met him via a dating site on which he represented himself as single, but after our first coffee meeting (at which sparks definitely flew), during a phone call, he said something which, when I asked a followup question, revealed him to be married and NOT ethically non-monogamous (at least he told me, if not his wife, the truth).

He was very handsome; he was pretty funny; he was into me. I told him that I couldn't knowingly do something which I had good reason to think would cause pain to another person, and that I was 100% sure it would cause his wife pain to learn of his infidelity, so I was not going to have sex with him.

We chatted for a month or so after that. If we could have met in person without it being not-okay with his wife, I may have tried to be friends, because we clicked on a number of levels beyond the sexual, but that probably would have been too dangerous. We talked more about his habitual cheating. I tried to suggest how hurt she WOULD be when she ultimately found out, but he assured me he was very careful. I tried to suggest that cheating, especially cheating that much, was probably not so good for one's self-esteem, or sense of honor, but he laughed all that off. I think he really knew he was a CPOS, but he continued to hold the whole "ignorance is bliss" stance. But he never gave the excuse that everyone else did it. I wonder if he ever got caught.

@157 BiDanFan
"Curious @156, so to relate that to this letter (if it is indeed related), you think this guy cheated because "everybody does it"? Or are you saying that tax evasion was a bad example?"

Sorry, this was just another of my tangents, I don't even remember the letter!

I think there are different kinds of wrong. I think that breaking such a promise to a loved one, let alone (not that I remember if the letter involved this) exposing someone one loves to the risk of STI's, is one of the worst kinds.

I do vaguely recall that I (vaguely) upthread advised the LW that her husband was a liar (which was my diplomatic way of letting her know to expect he'll keep cheating).

As I said @156 "I agree" he knew it was wrong.

But as I also said most don't think "it's wrong to do wrong". Many have a sad, bitter, unevolved worldview which expects other people to be like them and fuck each other over; they'd feel like a sucker if they didn't.

@155 BiDanFan: Hopefully I get a call to go in for physical therapy before my hysterectomy next month. My doctor said to schedule a physical therapy session, and the woman at the facility my MD recommended that I spoke to on the phone was rude and abrupt--'We will call you to schedule an appointment, once your insurance clears.', and hung up. Click. I can't imagine being in the medical field. It must be beyond exhausting, and the stress has got to be unbearable. I'll stick to flutes, piccolos, and pianos. They're a lot less painful.
I'm taking my beloved VW Love Beetle in for automotive service soon, to get ready for hopefully some sunny weather driving post-surgery.

BDF, As far as "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks," it's more of a philosophy than something one can prove easily, I don't think it's been studied, it just works well for me to assume this.

Phi: "I have to disagree.. that I deserve to cheat if my husband was dependent on me financially and stopped having sex with me.."
"why not just honestly say that in order to stay with him... I'm going to take care of myself sexually with others unless he wants to try to build a good sex life again, and let him decide for himself whether he wants to deal with the consequences in our marriage or leave."
BDF: "Dan has described cheating in this scenario as the least worst option, with which I agree"

Yes I understand that you disagreed with being honest here, but why do you think cheating works better than letting him choose between an open relationship and divorce?

"I think you have probably experienced enough in life to know that situations are not always ideal."
I know it's not ideal to be called naive by someone with whom I'm trying to conduct a civil discussion. But why get worked up by nonideal things when they don't have much actual affect on my life, or use them as an excuse to do whatever hurtful thing I've been tempted to do? It's important to me to be ethical, if others disagree then they can skip my posts. If I'm not trying to act true to my beliefs and ideals, then what's the point of life, scavenging enough food to continue to propogate? That's not the way I want to live, that makes it hard to feel close to anyone.

BDF, I'm sorry, I read a "not" into your quote which was not there..
Apparently I'm ultra defensive today. I get that you weren't trying to call me naive there. I'm sorry to have leapt to the negative.
I should have just said something like, life is really hard, and sometimes we do things we regret out of desperation or ignorance, but I always try to do better.. This works for me.. What really feels bad for me is when I let the difficulties of life drag me down and make me more pessimistic and treat others worse... Like I just accidentally did to you.. Sorry.. I strive hard for realism over pessimism, and optimism when I can, although that does mean I'll get more bad disappointments so I can't always manage to be optimistic..

Phi @161, I think we are slightly talking at cross purposes. Again I'm talking about PEOPLE, I'm not talking about ME. -I personally- would honestly tell that person that the relationship is now open, and I will be as honest or as discreet as my partner wanted. But -I personally- also wouldn't be in a relationship where children were involved, and -I personally- would never be in a relationship with someone who wouldn't be okay with opening a relationship if the sex was over (or, more realistically, the relationship would already be open), and -I personally- place a higher value on honesty than protecting someone's feelings. But I am not talking about -me personally-. I am talking about hypothetical situations that happen to other hypothetical people. Hypothetical people who had the misfortune to marry people who hold a strict line on forsaking all others no matter what. So, no, I do not think that cheating works better. I would not cheat in that or any other situation. What I would do is accept "the sex was over, s/he was financially dependent on me, s/he would be crushed if I asked for an open relationship" as an acceptable excuse that SOMEBODY ELSE might use for cheating. Hope we are on the same page now.

Who's getting worked up? I wasn't until you accused me of calling you naive when I actually said I'm sure you are not. This is not the first time I've spoken about people generally and you thought I literally meant me, so I guess I have to point it out that I'm doing it again, talking about situations that other people, real (as in DW) or hypothetical, might find themselves in, not what I personally would do. If you don't want to discuss hypothetical situations, then I'm not quite sure what you're doing still reading the comments by this point in the week, when they've veered well away from the letter itself and broadened to a number of real (as in Nocute's) and hypothetical situations? I recall you're the one who brought up this hypothetical situation in the first place, when you started the discussion about when Dan might justify cheating. Why bring that up if you didn't want to discuss it? Perhaps you are getting me worked up now, it is frustrating being repeatedly misunderstood. Hell, this whole conversation is about monogamous relationships, and I'm not monogamous, so clearly nothing I've written regarding her letter applies to me personally. I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place because I would know and probably be on friendly terms with the other person my partner had been in a five-year relationship with. I think it is important to be ethical too (I mean duh), but I also think it is important to be kind, and all I am saying is that in rare but not unimaginable situations one might have to choose between ethics and kindness, and in that very narrow and specific circumstance I would not fault somebody for choosing kindness, even though I personally might make a different choice.

Phi @162, our comments crossed, imagine the difference three little letters can make! Apology accepted.