OP, I understand where you are coming from and your sentiment about the situation. It feels unjust that your friend had to endure so much pain and humiliation while there appears to be no consequences for her ex.

I get it and want to point to something from my own experience. In high school I was bullied unmercifully by a boy a couple years older than me (I’m female FWIW). He’d throw things at me in the parking lot, scream foul obscenities, mock me, tell me that I needed to commit suicide. I literally did nothing to him and had very little interaction with him previously. His behavior, and that of several others in his circle, fundamentally transformed how I saw myself as a person, left me anxious and fearful of literally everyone, and made me not want to leave the house, ever. I was so scared of him that I refused to go to school and nearly flunked out.

Fast forward 20 years. He died an untimely death in a sports accident. The amount of the outpouring of love, admiration for, and happy stories from growing up with him that he received on social media that I saw really shook me up. This was a boy that I knew a very different side of. I was terrified of him. He was crude and hateful. How could so many people see nothing bit the opposite? It made me angry and once again had me questioning my own self worth.

People show certain sides to themselves to certain audiences. It does not make them a good person just because they’re fun and cool toward one person. It doesn’t diminish the value and love that person brought to others if they happened to be a jerk to someone else. I’ve always believed that we have a karmic path on this earth in which there are certain experiences we need to have to become our best selves. I’m on mine, and he was on his. Your friend is on hers, and her ex is on his. Please don’t take this to mean she got what she deserves. Most folks have a pretty narrow understanding of what karma is. If she can understand that these experiences are intended at the highest level for her greater good, then all of this wasn’t wasted. It takes time and it is hard. But it’s required. All the best to her.

^ Esther Perel is a cheater’s apologist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Whyever not be fine with it? First, no reason to include gender. Both situations can happen to either gender. And the first situation described is completely legit. I don’t think sex is immoral. I don’t think ONS are immoral if you are single. But if you are married and have a ONS without permission, then yes, a problem. I don’t think divorce and remarriage is immoral. So the first situation is completely moral and ethically fine. But the second situation involves lying and cheating. Clearly another beast altogether. Your implying otherwise is simply wrong

I wouldn’t have any issue with someone doing this in an open marriage. Transparency and trust are really bound up with intimacy.

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Whyever not be fine with it? First, no reason to include gender. Both situations can happen to either gender. And the first situation described is completely legit. I don’t think sex is immoral. I don’t think ONS are immoral if you are single. But if you are married and have a ONS without permission, then yes, a problem. I don’t think divorce and remarriage is immoral. So the first situation is completely moral and ethically fine. But the second situation involves lying and cheating. Clearly another beast altogether. Your implying otherwise is simply wrong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Why wouldn’t we be fine with that? One is infidelity. The other is not.

Why does “infidelity” however you define it mean the end of a relationship. Why wouldn’t make more sense to sleep around than break up a family multiple times so you can be “faithful?” Americans are idiots.

It doesn’t define the end of a relationship. It’s about honestly and not lying.

Esther Perel, bless her heart, is kind of an idiot. I know she is well-intentioned but she’s basically very victim-Blamey. I for one don’t care about monotony, or non-nuclear family structures. Those are fine and I don’t know what Esther Perel has against them. Dishonesty, to me, is the problem.

In her book “State of Affairs” she is very much against lying and betrayal. She tries to explain how and why it happens and how often it has absolutely zero to do with the spouse or the marriage. She is about saving the marriage when there is genuine love there.

I’m not saying she is in favor of lying and betrayal. I never said she was for them or in favor of affairs. I’m pointing out that Perel downplays the harm they do when she suggests that we are somehow off when we condemn somebody who had a ONS but not somebody who married twice and slept with a lot of people when not married.

I think that Perel is *too* focused on saving marriages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of "consequences" do you think they should get? An evil cancer and a long slow death? Grow up, OP.

Sounds about right.

So, maybe we should go back to stoning women for adultery?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Why wouldn’t we be fine with that? One is infidelity. The other is not.

Why does “infidelity” however you define it mean the end of a relationship. Why wouldn’t make more sense to sleep around than break up a family multiple times so you can be “faithful?” Americans are idiots.

It doesn’t define the end of a relationship. It’s about honestly and not lying.

Esther Perel, bless her heart, is kind of an idiot. I know she is well-intentioned but she’s basically very victim-Blamey. I for one don’t care about monotony, or non-nuclear family structures. Those are fine and I don’t know what Esther Perel has against them. Dishonesty, to me, is the problem.

In her book “State of Affairs” she is very much against lying and betrayal. She tries to explain how and why it happens and how often it has absolutely zero to do with the spouse or the marriage. She is about saving the marriage when there is genuine love there.

Yes, and I bet most of those who comment against her here haven't read either book and filter what they want to see and hear and then condemn her for it.

Consequences suck. Do you have any idea how much I spend on alcohol and hotel rooms since hooking up with my also married co-worker? At least I’ve had a vasectomy and she likes for me to finish inside her so I can save on condoms

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Why wouldn’t we be fine with that? One is infidelity. The other is not.

Why does “infidelity” however you define it mean the end of a relationship. Why wouldn’t make more sense to sleep around than break up a family multiple times so you can be “faithful?” Americans are idiots.

It doesn’t define the end of a relationship. It’s about honestly and not lying.

Esther Perel, bless her heart, is kind of an idiot. I know she is well-intentioned but she’s basically very victim-Blamey. I for one don’t care about monotony, or non-nuclear family structures. Those are fine and I don’t know what Esther Perel has against them. Dishonesty, to me, is the problem.

In her book “State of Affairs” she is very much against lying and betrayal. She tries to explain how and why it happens and how often it has absolutely zero to do with the spouse or the marriage. She is about saving the marriage when there is genuine love there.

Anonymous wrote:What kind of "consequences" do you think they should get? An evil cancer and a long slow death? Grow up, OP.

Sounds about right.

You are only a victim if you identify as such. Let go and move on. Wish your ex well. If you stay together, figure it out together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Why wouldn’t we be fine with that? One is infidelity. The other is not.

Why does “infidelity” however you define it mean the end of a relationship. Why wouldn’t make more sense to sleep around than break up a family multiple times so you can be “faithful?” Americans are idiots.

It doesn’t define the end of a relationship. It’s about honestly and not lying.

Esther Perel, bless her heart, is kind of an idiot. I know she is well-intentioned but she’s basically very victim-Blamey. I for one don’t care about monotony, or non-nuclear family structures. Those are fine and I don’t know what Esther Perel has against them. Dishonesty, to me, is the problem.

What kind of "consequences" do you think they should get? An evil cancer and a long slow death? Grow up, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently finished reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity." What a great book. I found the following observation very interesting.

A woman can engage in serial monogamy: get married, get divorced, engage in a few intra-marital sexual liaisons, get married again and we're someho w all fine with that, but a man in a 20 plus year marriage who has a ONS is a cheater!

Why wouldn’t we be fine with that? One is infidelity. The other is not.

Why does “infidelity” however you define it mean the end of a relationship. Why wouldn’t make more sense to sleep around than break up a family multiple times so you can be “faithful?” Americans are idiots.

Anonymous wrote:It is early days. They both wound up with lying, unfaithful partners. That is NO prize.

Yep, this. Think of my ex and his girlfriends who think they really scored. Nope!