what's the worst affair story you've heard of where the marriage recovered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, it is not a matter of having BOTH a relationship with the APs child and your children in marriage. According to the counsellors, it is a matter of one or the other.
Life decisions are hard. That is that.

If the conditions of remaining in the existing marriage are to disavow the other child than the father has the 'choice' to divorce his wife and have shared custody of all his children.

That would suck for the existing wife if she wanted to reconcile but the father would have made the right decision.

Great, destroy the lives of multiple people rather than one. Awesome.

No one is destroyed by divorce. It is painful but it doesn't destroy you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, the children of marriage are also innocent and not adults. Why would the wife care about someone else's innocence ahead of her own kids?

It's not about innocence. It's about abandoning a baby who did nothing in this situation. The baby has a right to a father and to a father's financial resources. No one is suggesting that the father abandon the child of the marriage. Lots of people are suggesting that the father abandon the child of the affair.

Abandoning a child is monstrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nice strawman argument and you are changing the topic.

Children of lesbian couples have two parents.

Children adopted by single mothers are not ideal, but better a single mother than a child with no home. Those kids are often older or minority children or hard to place children. I don't support single mothers adopting babies when couples are available to take the baby.

When a man has a baby, he should support the baby financially and emotionally. He should be a father. It is his responsibility. He should not abandon one child in favor of other children. It is immoral to make him choose between his children. If you are the wife who seeks to do this, the husband should divorce you immediately because you are a monster.

Yet he does, doesn't he. Even if a man chooses to stay in touch with the outside child while married, he IS choosing his other children. They will have a full-time father, a much more solid emotional foundation, more money, more attention, more everything. The outside child won't get equal treatment. You get that, right?

Nobody said the father had to have a perfectly equal relationship with the child of the affair. He should do what he can, though, and not abandon that child.

By your logic, if the wife has one child (or several older children) and the mistress has one child, the father would be perfectly reasonable to abandon the marriage to raise his new baby. He has to choose, right? Nothing can make it fair, right? The child in the marriage already had time with in a father in the house. The new baby deserves the same.

[Anonymous]

The baby is the bait

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.

That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.

Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.

There was a lot of nastiness. The nastiest was the father, then the OW, then the mother of the 7 kids who puts her brain into pure survival mode.

Yeah, the mother of 7 is BY FAR the best person, morally, in the situation.

No one disagrees. But she is still evil. And did she screw her husband knowing the only reason he was with her was because he could not afford to be with the other woman?

I hope some of you supporting this are not the very ones shitting on Melania Trump in the Political Forum.

[Anonymous]

Bastard child here. Deeply loved with a healthy relationship with both sides of mom and dad's. And siblings on. Org sides. We don't do "halfs" in any home.

To each, there own. But there are differences amongst us that work without all the drama, insecurity, hostility.

Here's a hint: inner peace is the key to having peace when the world, circumstances, or your environment seem to threaten any part of your well being. The healthy path always begins with inner peace. Then you see clearly.

Some of these posts suggest that many posters lack this gift, it's my biggest hope for you to receive one day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.

That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.

Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.

There was a lot of nastiness. The nastiest was the father, then the OW, then the mother of the 7 kids who puts her brain into pure survival mode.

Yeah, the mother of 7 is BY FAR the best person, morally, in the situation.

No one disagrees. But she is still evil. And did she screw her husband knowing the only reason he was with her was because he could not afford to be with the other woman?

I hope some of you supporting this are not the very ones shitting on Melania Trump in the Political Forum.

When people are in survival mode, how can you call them evil? She has to do what she has to do. She needs an intact home to raise the kids. She NEEDS that. OW obviously was willing to risk it all, and she lost. In this case, wife was right and her children should thank her for taking control of the situation and protecting them.

[Anonymous]

It is much easier for the OW to find another man than it is for the mother above with 7 kids.

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who slept with his wife's suster- his sil- when they were engaged, ,continued the affair until a couple of months, till the first baby arrived

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nice strawman argument and you are changing the topic.

Children of lesbian couples have two parents.

Children adopted by single mothers are not ideal, but better a single mother than a child with no home. Those kids are often older or minority children or hard to place children. I don't support single mothers adopting babies when couples are available to take the baby.

When a man has a baby, he should support the baby financially and emotionally. He should be a father. It is his responsibility. He should not abandon one child in favor of other children. It is immoral to make him choose between his children. If you are the wife who seeks to do this, the husband should divorce you immediately because you are a monster.

Yet he does, doesn't he. Even if a man chooses to stay in touch with the outside child while married, he IS choosing his other children. They will have a full-time father, a much more solid emotional foundation, more money, more attention, more everything. The outside child won't get equal treatment. You get that, right?

Nobody said the father had to have a perfectly equal relationship with the child of the affair. He should do what he can, though, and not abandon that child.

By your logic, if the wife has one child (or several older children) and the mistress has one child, the father would be perfectly reasonable to abandon the marriage to raise his new baby. He has to choose, right? Nothing can make it fair, right? The child in the marriage already had time with in a father in the house. The new baby deserves the same.

Except most marriages after an affair do not last. An affair thrives on darkness and can't survive the light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.

That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.

Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.

There was a lot of nastiness. The nastiest was the father, then the OW, then the mother of the 7 kids who puts her brain into pure survival mode.

Yeah, the mother of 7 is BY FAR the best person, morally, in the situation.

No one disagrees. But she is still evil. And did she screw her husband knowing the only reason he was with her was because he could not afford to be with the other woman?

I hope some of you supporting this are not the very ones shitting on Melania Trump in the Political Forum.

When people are in survival mode, how can you call them evil? She has to do what she has to do. She needs an intact home to raise the kids. She NEEDS that. OW obviously was willing to risk it all, and she lost. In this case, wife was right and her children should thank her for taking control of the situation and protecting them.

She WANTS that. She doesn't need it. The kids aren't going to get eaten by bears or slaughtered by a rival village if she is divorced. Lots of divorced families out there getting along just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was talking about this thread with a friend who said that the exact same thing happened in her family. Her parents had SEVEN kids, and her father became distant. He was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and expected to control him. He actually left his wife to be with this woman. Then the lawyers got together to discuss the divorce, and he realized that he would lose "everything". So he scrambled back and begged his wife to take him back. She had kids ages 2-16. She took him back, but only with the condition that he cut off all, ALL, contact with the other woman and the child. Fast forward 35 years, they are happily married.
My friend said that a divorce would have been expensive and acrimonious. Her siblings would not have stood a chance of college at all. The other child did get support until age 18. Yes, "unfair", but in this case, more kids (7) were better off. One child, was worse off.

That's crazy! With 7 kids, that's probably the only way it could have worked out. You can't really leave a marriage with 7 kids.

Maybe. But I have no respect for a person who ask their spouse to cut off another child, no matter how the child came to being. That is some nastiness right there.

There was a lot of nastiness. The nastiest was the father, then the OW, then the mother of the 7 kids who puts her brain into pure survival mode.

Yeah, the mother of 7 is BY FAR the best person, morally, in the situation.

No one disagrees. But she is still evil. And did she screw her husband knowing the only reason he was with her was because he could not afford to be with the other woman?

I hope some of you supporting this are not the very ones shitting on Melania Trump in the Political Forum.

When people are in survival mode, how can you call them evil? She has to do what she has to do. She needs an intact home to raise the kids. She NEEDS that. OW obviously was willing to risk it all, and she lost. In this case, wife was right and her children should thank her for taking control of the situation and protecting them.

She WANTS that. She doesn't need it. The kids aren't going to get eaten by bears or slaughtered by a rival village if she is divorced. Lots of divorced families out there getting along just fine.

It's kind of crazy that you expect a mother to sacrifice the wellbeing of her seven kids, their education, stable home and financial security in favor of another child unrelated to her who she neither met nor wanted in her life. A mother looks our for her kids, number one, two and three. She doesn't care about any other kids, nor should she.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bastard child here. Deeply loved with a healthy relationship with both sides of mom and dad's. And siblings on. Org sides. We don't do "halfs" in any home.

To each, there own. But there are differences amongst us that work without all the drama, insecurity, hostility.

Here's a hint: inner peace is the key to having peace when the world, circumstances, or your environment seem to threaten any part of your well being. The healthy path always begins with inner peace. Then you see clearly.

Some of these posts suggest that many posters lack this gift, it's my biggest hope for you to receive one day.

You have no idea what your father's wife and her children went through so stop blathering about inner peace. Assuming it was your father who was married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who slept with his wife's suster- his sil- when they were engaged, ,continued the affair until a couple of months, till the first baby arrived

That guy is awesome!

***** W I N N E R *****

[Anonymous]

It's very interesting to me to read all of these responses because my MIL basically abandoned her biological children in favor of her step kids so she could gain approval from new wealthy husband (was her AP of course) and his parents.