« Previous | Home | Next »

The Shrew Must Go On

My story starts out like your typical made-for-TV movie, with my husband cheating on me with a mutual acquaintance: I wailed, I calmed down, I died a little inside from feelings of worthlessness. After much reflection, I realized the cheating was a symptom of a problem in our relationship, not the problem itself. After sincere apologies from my husband, we began talking as husband and wife for the first time. But, my story takes a nasty turn: I can’t stop going ape on him. Although the acquaintance fled to another city, when images of them pop into my brain, or if he’s two seconds late, I become this spurting volcano of hate. I feel I’m spoiling our recovery with these outbursts, but I don’t want him to start feeling this wasn’t that big of a deal.

--Mt. St. Helens

Some people do their best thinking while driving. Others wait for answers under the shower or on the pot. Each to his or her own and all that, but just wondering -- are you really at your analytical prime while screaming at the top of your lungs, chasing your husband around the dining room table, and trying to bludgeon him to death with a turkey leg?

Greetings, Spurting Volcano Of Hate! Perhaps you’ve heard that venting anger will make it go away. It won’t. Anger begets anger. It also makes you stupid. Extreme emotional stress unleashes a chemical reaction called the “fight or flight” response, shutting down all systems except those you’d need to either club somebody or run like hell. Sure, this was an extremely helpful survival tool for our ancestors in the cave. And, in some ways, it’s still the perfect response -- for any woman married to a troubled leopard or a tribe of cannibals.

Your husband did pledge to be faithful to you. Oops, maybe he crossed his fingers! As upsetting as that must be, be honest: Is it his infidelity alone that turned you into the Denny’s of rage (no time’s the wrong time for a Grand Slam!), or does it have more to do with the head-on collision of reality and your expectations? Wham, bam, like a moose carcass through your rose-colored windshield, suddenly it’s all in your face: He’s human, he’s fallible, he isn’t the tower of ethics you closed your eyes and hoped he’d be. Stop erupting and start thinking, and you might acknowledge a few equally discomforting things about marriage; like, that it isn’t a simple solution to all life’s problems, but a whole new set of problems -- accessorized with a pornographically expensive set of china.

Sure, it’s easier to storm around picturing him naked with her -- which has to leave him picturing you fully clothed with a Home Depot salesman, pricing a nail gun and a couple of two-by-fours. By raging endlessly, you’re doing what he did, just without the sex -- avoiding the real issue, which is figuring out how to be married. But, first things first. Figure out whether you want a marriage more than you want revenge. If you’re up for a rebuild, stop screaming, start talking, and get reading -- “Surviving Infidelity” by Rona Subotnik and Gloria G. Harris and “How to Control Your Anger Before It Controls You” by Albert Ellis and Raymond Chip Tafrate. When you sense an explosion coming on, take deep breaths and think positive: Crazy as it seems, his affair could be the thing that saves your marriage. Yes, who knew? Maybe what it takes for you to live happily ever after is not the mythical perfect man but the real-life perfect floozy.

Posted by aalkon at November 8, 2006 7:01 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1825

Comments

Amy, you act like fidelity is no big deal... that so what, he cheated... get over it and move on. It's not that simple for most people.

When a mate cheats, beyond destroying your trust in their love, you realize that they don't even care enough for you to protect you from STDs. Sure, STDs are humiliating and can be treated, but four STDs are incurable... herpes, genital warts, aids, and hepatitis B. Catch one of those and your life will NEVER be the same again!

Trust is essential for a good marriage or relationship. Trust is what helps you relax and not be concerned, happily going about your business, whenever your mate is not with you. When you feel secure that your mate loves you, trusting them is easy and natural.

When a mate is unfaithful, it destroys that trust forever. I think you can forgive infidelity, even understand why the person cheated... but forget it? Impossible. From that moment on, everything they say and do is suspect, everything they say about where they are or what they are doing is subject to suspicion and second-guessing. You will always wonder if they are getting ready to cheat again. That is the honest truth about human nature, perhaps our animalistic nature.

At our core, the majority of us wants to be loved completely and exclusively by our mate. We want our mate to protect our heart and our body. A man wants to know that the children his mate bears are his, and a woman wants to know that her man's time, energy and resources are being used for her and their children, not being used to support a bunch of children that he continues to procreate outside of their relationship. Like it or not, that is our true animal instinct and nature.

For thousands of years, counselors have been telling people to forgive and forget infidelity, that a good marriage can survive it. Sure, it can survive it, but it will never be the same again. The innocence is gone forever. And that's something that many of us refuse to live without.

Maybe it's time to stop blaming the victims who can't seem to get past their rage at betrayal, those who can't trust their mate ever again, those who constantly have to wonder if their mate is going to leave them for someone else or bring home some social disease. Maybe it's time to tell the victims that they don't have to live with the pain. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that it's okay to say "ADIOS" to a cheater. Maybe it's time society stops blaming the victims for their inability to "just get over it". Maybe it's time to tell them that it's okay to start over with someone new, someone who is worthy of their trust and their love.

Posted by: Christy at November 12, 2006 8:29 AM

Well, if she can't go on with him, they should break up. Lifelong fidelity is a ridiculous standard, and people don't admit that -- which is why they get into problems. Think about it: You're going to have sex with only one person, somebody you marry in your 20s, and your sex life is going to stay alive and interesting? While you live in the same residence with the person? Right.

Unrealistic standards for marriage and the idea that living together makes sense (it kills your sexual desire for a person) don't help matters.

Again, if she can't get past this, she should leave. But, that's not what she wants.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 12, 2006 8:50 AM

I agree with the idea that they can work through this and get beyond it.

However, cheating IS a big deal. In our sex-and-divorce-saturated society, fidelity seems unrealistic to many people, but really, it isn't. Cheating is the ultimate form of emotional abuse... it says you don't respect the person, their feelings, or their health. The letter writer is right to be angry. Cheating on your spouse does not make you "imperfect floozy", it makes you a low-life.

Although she is right to be angry, she can eventually move on. That doesn't mean being a doormat about it. It means HE needs to show her that he can be trusted. HE needs to win back her trust. If she just gives in and takes it, he will not respect her at all. And why should he?

I think the letter writer needs to take some time for herself. If being around him enrages her, maybe she needs some space to cool off. If she can afford it, she should go on a vacation or a retreat. Or maybe live away from him for a specified period of time, like a couple of months. She should think long and hard about what she wants to say to him, so she doesn't, as Amy suggests, burst into an unproductive rage.

And yes... they do need to talk, and they do need to read, and they do need to get through it, together or apart.

Posted by: Nicole at November 13, 2006 5:02 AM

"Think about it: You're going to have sex with only one person,
somebody you marry in your 20s, and your sex life is going to
stay alive and interesting?"

It has. If anything, it's gotten better.

"While you live in the same residence
with the person? Right."

Right.

"Unrealistic standards for marriage and the idea that living
together makes sense (it kills your sexual desire for a person)"

No, it hasn't.
I'll admit that the odds (bourne out by statistics) show
that this isn't the way to bet. For some people, though, things
really do work out.

Posted by: Ron at November 13, 2006 5:31 AM

Yes, and everybody thinks THEY will be the people it works out for -- against odds and sense. It's unrealistic to get together with somebody for life at, say, 22. And, dare I say it, pretty damn stupid. I don't make promises I can't keep. Hence, I'd never pledge to be with anyone forever (and it helps that I don't need a man to support me, so I don't have to). Hence, my relationship isn't based on the notion that we'll be wiping each other's butts when we're 90, but on the fact that I can't think of anyone I'd rather spend an hour with than my boyfriend. If that changes, we'll split up. Breaking up isn't tragic. Staying together too long is tragic.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 13, 2006 7:00 AM

Ron, I'm glad that things are working out for you. I'd be curious to know if your girlfriend feels the same way as you do about the sexual desire issue. Sometimes women stay in relationships for other reasons, even when the sex has become chore (women sometimes do fake their orgasms!).

Even if you're both happy now, with the passing of time, the novelty will wear off, so I think Amy is right on with this one.

Posted by: Chris at November 14, 2006 8:58 AM

Advice from the ladies at Sisterly Advice: 1)Jena: Hold your breath and count to three. And then, get an attorney and leave him; 2)Michele:If that doesn't work for you, hold your breath, count to three, get an attorney and leave that bastard; 3)Elana: And if that doesn't work for you either, go ahead and buy that book that Amy recommended. If you still have the anger after all of these efforts, hold your breath, count to three, get an attorney and leave that dawg.

Posted by: Sisterly Advisors at November 14, 2006 10:01 AM

Ron,

You'll never win this argument with her. Amy is anti-marriage. She'll use arguments about human nature, etc., but she just thinks that all of us that jump on the marriage wagon are fools, or "pretty damn stupid". It seems to be a theme throughout her columns.

I look forward to getting old with my husband. I'm glad to hear that your marriage has worked so well for you! Congrats!!

Posted by: Taylor at November 14, 2006 2:17 PM

Yes, there are people who get together on an altar at 22 stay happily married and hot for each other for a lifetime. I'd venture they're in the minority.

People who are fools are, for example, women who marry at 22 and think some man's going to take care of them for a lifetime, and have no real means of supporting themselves.

Some people have to get married. There are men who could never get sex on the open market without paying for it (not realizing that prostitutes can often be cheaper and less misery-producing than being married to the wrong woman -- and whether she'll put out much past the wedding night is another story). Some women need a man to pay for them.

I pay for myself, so I have the luxury of having love and passion in my life. I can't imagine being without my boyfriend, but if it gets dull, as I must have said above, I wouldn't stay with him just so I can have the status people give to those with relationship tenure, or so I can have some free help to fasten my adult diapers when I'm 90. Ick. That's not love, that's low-rent prostitution.

What I am is honest -- and my honesty flies in the face of the soulmate bullshit and lifelong love bullshit. Again, some do find it. Mostly, I hear shrill wives and half-dead husbands snapping at each other at Target.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 14, 2006 3:33 PM

Amy,

The whole "some women need a man to pay for them" argument is a little dated, is it not? In today's world, very few married or unmarried couples can live on one income. More people are getting married later in life, and have strong careers before that happens. It really is a possibility that people do get married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together. It's not only a loving relationship, but a partnership as well. It's not about wanting someone to wipe your ass for you when you're old, but knowing that you have a friend for life, that will be there to support and understand you.

I only wonder what happened to you to make you so cynical about the whole thing so early in life. Most women don't decide that marriage is for suckers until they're much older and bitter. I feel sorry for you, really. I'm glad to know that you and your boyfriend are so happy, and I sincerely hope it lasts.

Posted by: Taylor at November 15, 2006 10:36 AM

"The whole "some women need a man to pay for them" argument is a little dated, is it not?"

Not in the least. I'm working on my column for next week, but do you know a lot of men who go into PR and take low-paying jobs figuring somebody else will be the earner in the family?

I'm not cynical. I'm quite the romantic in my personal life -- and I keep the romance alive by being realistic. My boyfriend and I are frequently asked if we're newlyweds.

Don't feel sorry for me because I don't drink the Kool-Aid that marriage is the answer. Realism breeds happiness, not the unthinking belief that it's realistic to pledge to spend a lifetime with one person.

What if the relationship dies? Do you just stay with them because you said you would? Things end. That's life. I believe in not wasting it on lifeless relationships, boring friends, bad lunch, or a job I don't love. Of course, I live an evidence-based life, so I don't believe in god, or that there's some great beyond. I live in the now, and make the most of every minute of it.

And because I support myself -- really, it's not that hard -- I'm only with my boyfriend because he's hot, sexy, intellectually exciting, has a great heart, and is basically a fucking blast to spend time with. Wow...and all that without pledging it would last forever.


Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 15, 2006 12:00 PM

Taylor, you can have a friend without having to marry them. And what about the sex? I don't hear you mentioning how mind-blowing and fabulous it is. You don't actually mention it at all.

Since what I want out of a relationship with a man is 50% hot sex and 50% friendship, marriage doesn't cross my mind as an option. The hotness of the sex might fade, and the friendship might end, and then I would move on, happy that I had the experience.

And do you actually have an equal partnership, or is your husband just telling you what you want to hear? You sound like a lot of women that just want to play house. Maybe you'd be better off with the kind of partnership agreement they have in France.

Posted by: Chris at November 15, 2006 3:42 PM

Amy,

You have once again proved that no opinion is right except yours. It must be a spectacular existance to be so much more intelligent than the rest of us lowly humans that share the earth with you and annoy you. How can you stand it? That's why I feel sorry for you. It must be trying to tolerate the rest of us!

Chris,
I didn't mention sex because it wasn't necessary to make my point. I'm sure that all of the bed-jumpers out there have nothing but mind-blowing sex, right? The sex is great, the sex is occasionally not so great. I'm fairly sure that would be true in any relationship, not only marriages. As for the whole partnership thing...Yes, my husband does consider me an equal, not that I have to answer to you. My marriage is the type of relationship that you will never know and will envy for the rest of your life. Let me know how the bed-jumping goes when your in your 60's and no one is interested anymore. Let me know how it is to not have that companionship. Marriage is all about living for right now, enjoying every minute, but also knowing that you will always enjoy it that much. I'm sure there are bumps for everyone, but who can't say that about every relationship in the world? I don't feel this way due to some warped church-bred concept. I don't believe in a god. I feel that way because I know it to be true. Good luck ladies!!

Posted by: Taylor at November 16, 2006 10:26 AM

I understand how you might have a problem with the notion that realism is more likely to breed happiness.

I guess you're on the side of the thinking of too many women, that all they have to do is have that "happiest day of a girl's life," and they're set?

And Taylor, I read and write and think about this stuff seven days a week, and talk to the best and the brightest on these issues. Is my opinion (often data and research based) worth more than yours? Probably.

And, Taylor, don't diminish the importance of mind-blowing sex for a man -- or even a continuation of sex. How many married people have sex...once a month even? How many married people have sex once a year. Trust me, that doesn't work too well for most men.

Taylor, it's presumptuous of you to expect that I envy your marriage. And a friend of mine, in her 60s, is having sex three times a week (or so I suspect), I don't keep an exact count. Of course, she isn't married, she has a lover, also in his 60s. Who wants the same person for a whole lifetime? Not many people, if they're honest. Of course, not many people are honest.

And for the record, Taylor, not everybody wants a relationship. But for my boyfriend, I'd probably be on my own right now with boy toys. I don't need a relationship to be happy. I simply would rather spend my free time with my boyfriend than anybody else. If and when that ceases to be the case, we'll both move on.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 11:01 AM

Marriage is an extremely hot topic in Amy's articles (and the responses thereto) from what I've seen. Couldn't we all agree to be a little more moderate on that issue? My two cents:

It IS unrealistic for every couple who want to marry to expect that they'll live "happily ever after." As many happily and lengthily married people have written to protest, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to marry, if one chooses, with the hope that it will be a lifelong partnership and the realization that it might not be.

There are plenty of reasons, many of them legal, to turn a committed relationship into a marriage. Yes, marrying only makes breaking up that much more difficult, but as long as both parties are prepared for that outcome, then I say go ahead. I'm not saying that marriage is something to be entered into lightly; I do believe, though, that any couple who thinks they're ready to get married should also be ready to get divorced if it's truly what's called for.

I could go on and on about marriage, but I guess that's my basic argument. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand why we all seem to be so set on convincing everyone to see marriage the way we do (except of course that it's such an emotionally powerful concept).

What I actually wanted to comment on was the reaction from the Sisterly Advisors to Mt. St. Helen's letter. Leave him, leave him, leave him? Ah, the snappy mantra of people who have, apparently, never faltered or done anything they regret.

Sure, some people who cheat are cheaters: they do it again and again, without regard for the feelings of their partners. Sometimes, though, people who cheat have simply screwed up. They were unhappy with themselves or their relationships, and in an unthinking attempt to feel better or happier they were unfaithful.

If St. Helen's and her husband would rather solve whatever problem they were having and try to stay together, it's almost irresponsibly flip to spur her to leave, leave, leave. I completely detest the kind of girl-powery, men-are-dogs attitude that operates in such absolutes, as if every person and every situation were the same. I guess men aren't allowed to make mistakes!

Posted by: Nora at November 16, 2006 2:57 PM

Nora, very sensible words. Thanks for posting them.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 16, 2006 3:35 PM

Taylor, I'm glad to hear that you have a relationship that work for you for right now. However, there are many ways to live, and as Amy said, not everyone wants to have a relationship exactly like yours. I was married for 4 years and it didn't make me happy.

Also, it's rather presumptuous of you to think I am bed-jumping. Even if I were, if that's what makes me happy, who are you to judge me? And men will always want me, even when I'm 60, 70 and 80, because I'm an attractive, fit woman, and I intend to stay that way. I'm 47 now and have no shortage of men of all ages who are interested in me, for anything from a one night stand to marriage. What I have chosen to do is see a guy on an ongoing casual basis. The sex is the best we've both ever had, and we have an emotional connection that make us both happy. This is what works for me, right now. When that changes, we will both move on.

Amy is right on about the importance of sex to men, by the way. At this point in my life, it is equally important to me.

Posted by: Chris at November 17, 2006 7:37 AM

Quite frankly, if more women were like Chris -- rational, realistic, sexual, and with the good sense to take care of themselves -- there'd be a whole lot fewer women complaining that they can't find relationships.

Ladies, Chris is what men want.

And no, there's nothing wrong with "bed-jumping" if it's what works for you. Of course, many women don't take care of themselves well enough to even get rolled over by the man they're with, except out of desperation.

Sorry, I know the truth hurts.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 17, 2006 7:50 AM

Evana Trump said, "Don't get mad, get everything." Betrayal of trust is horribly painful whether it's infidelity or a fraudulent business deal or even a theft. The depth of anger reveals the depth of the hurt. In Mt St Helen's case she may never be able to get over the pain and forgive her husband enough to make it work. The anger is a step in healing. How to express the anger might need adjusting. For me, I would not go into business again with someone who lied or stole from me, I wouldn't keep a girlfriend as a friend if she betrayed me and I wouldn't keep a husband who exposed me to disease and broke my heart either. Yes we are all fallible and make mistakes but, oops I slipped into her vagina, isn't one of them. He knew what he was doing and he knew the risks. He made a conscious choice and thought he wouldn't get caught. Is he worth giving another chance to? Only she can decide that.

Posted by: chicknlady at November 19, 2006 12:07 AM


How terribly interesting. I love all the "sure, I'm fallible, but he's not supposed to be" and the "leave him leave him leave him" crap is hysterical. Because leaving makes everything better, right? Out of sight, out of mind, right? So just do exactly what he did, pretty much. Think beyond the anger, people, seriously. I've cheated on past boyfriends so literally, as I'm arguing with him, I hear myself coming out of his mouth. I hear the regret, the anger at himself, and most of all, the helplessness at his situation. It wasn't a comment he could take back, it wasn't a gift to be exchanged, it wasn't something he just forgot about, he made a decision, a very bad one and it hurt - and as the person who knows him well enough to be this hurt over it, I wasn't going to start ignoring every feeling other than mine just because "girl power" says it will make me feel better - you can either be apart of the solution or contribute to the problem, and tossing him on his ass and running for the hills has never been my style when it comes to those I care about. Ever wronged someone who never forgave you? Ever dealt with a situation badly? There are some pretty sinless saints talking a lot of shit on this thing, but like Amy, I can't think of a single person - including the ones who view everyone else through a one-way mirror - that i would want to spend an hour with other than him. If all you do is shun every person who ever hurts you, you're eventually going to be one isolated anger-harbouring self-righteous jackass that never learned anything about themselves or anyone else. Is he the one forever? I don't know. I'm sorry, if I've learned anything in life, it is this: shit happens, deal with it. Is he seeing anyone else right now? If he is, he's having to work it in between work, constant make-up sex, and delivery chinese food and I can barely find time to even read this blog lately, so my guess is no. Are we at least happier than before? Of course. There's so much more to each other than we ever hoped to find out while all this was going on. How would I have known that otherwise? If it had come to my attention in any other way that we didn't know each other as well as we thought - would I have paid as much attention? Knowing me, probably not. Thank you for chiming in, even if it was to do the cliche "one a cheater always a cheater".

Posted by: St. Helens Shrew at November 20, 2006 1:27 PM

Amy, if your relationships are all about how they make you feel, then you really don't have much understanding of love....not that you'd be any different than most right now in that regard.

As the child of parents who've stayed together for 36 years, through lean financial times, medical problems, and other things, I can say first hand that if your relationships are only built on what it does for you, you're doomed to failure. Because no other human will ever be able to meet a hundred percent of your desires all the time. And the fact of the matter is that they'll be failing to meet any of your desires at least some of the time.

Love, genuine love, involves two people looking out for each other's best interest. A lack of committment means a lack of security, and to simply decide you'll never get that so you'll redefine not having it as being a good thing is to delude yourself.

Marriage costs something of yourself. *Any* worthwhile relationship costs something of yourself. If you're not willing to pay the price of that, you not only shouldn't be getting married, you shouldn't be getting into relationships at all. If you treat all relationships like you treat romantic ones...have fun while it lasts then dump them when bored...then you'll never find the treasure of something that lasts.

Posted by: Jonathan at January 2, 2007 10:55 AM

Jonathan, a lot of people stick together because they need each other financially, or are afraid to be alone with a packet of adult diapers and unsteady hands. Call it what you want, but I call it prostitution without the 4-inch patent leather mules.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 2, 2007 12:07 PM

Amy, you've said in a previous post that the truth hurts, and I interpret this "truth" to be the unvarnished, naked "truth" of non-monogamy.

So that begs the question of what truth is. Of reality (as in the "unrealistic standards" of marriage). I'm really not trying to be polemic and quasi-intellectual here, for the sake of hearing myself expound; this topic of monogamy and it's compatibility with our "true" human nature is something I've pondered for quite some time. It seems like you're implying that your view is an absolute, just like the freezing temperature of water, or the velocity of gravity.

But how is your view a truth, an absolute fact? Isn't it--after stripping away its controversial patina and its ability to offend others with contrary beliefs--just a plain, garden-variety opinion? Just like the opinion that I like Bloody Marys with lots of Tabasco, whereas you may prefer gin and tonics?

Human nature and behavior is so varied that I don't think you can foist your opinion as a "truth" or "reality." So many people hold so many different opinions. So many people live lifestyles that are foreign to me, and short of murder, rape, incest, whatever felon you can think of, who am I to say that how they're living their lives is wrong? So a lifetime of monogamy works for Person A. For Person B, not the case. On this issue, there is no absolute. There's only what works for the individual and couple.

And no, I'm not an anthropologist, nor a biologist, a journalist, or any kind of "-ist." I've not done countless hours of research, gathering statistical data on the percentages of wives who stray, husbands who stray, etc. I only know what's in my own heart, and it doesn't jibe with the purported truth you assert so firmly.

Posted by: Wendy at January 9, 2007 10:44 PM

So Wendy, your opinion is not based on any facts or research, just what you feel in your heart. This means that it is completely irrational, which means you have not used any rational thought to come to this conclusion. Getting a proper education and using it to think critically are hard work. Let me know when you've actually read some of the research that Amy quotes from, so that your opinion is a little more interesting.

I can feel in my heart all kinds of thing, but those would just be sentimental fantasies.

Posted by: Chris at January 14, 2007 9:27 AM

Chris, that was her point, that people make decisions based on different criteria from others, and people aren't necessarily more wrong than other people, who use different criteria. Some people come to different conclusions even when looking at the same evidence (if you need an example, I'd be happy to go into the history of systemic functional linguistics, but I thought it might be a bit of a bore to most here). It seemed reasonable to me, and I have gotten a "proper education" and learned to use it to "think critically." Maybe the last paragraph of Wendy's comment was too far on the side of kitsch, but yours was too far on the side of going out of the way to be unpleasant. How unbecoming.

Posted by: Brenda at January 16, 2007 11:39 AM

I appreciate the astute paraphrasing, Brenda. What you say is true, too: I'm as kitschy as a cabinet full of prized Pez dispensers.

Posted by: Wendy at January 16, 2007 10:27 PM

How is having an opinion 'being unpleasant'? Are we at a garden party? Why do I have to be well behaved, and not be 'unbecoming'?

All I was saying was that women have to realistic when it comes to relationships, otherwise they will be blindsided by infidelity, just like Mt. St. Helens. It's easier to have your head in the clouds, but I personally would rather live in the real world and have a relationship with an actual person, and not some fantasy that I have projected onto some guy.

Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2007 7:01 AM

To all you psychologists and marriage counselers in the making, I just have one thing to say.

SHADDUP!!!!

You are all foaming at the mouth about who is right and who is wrong. Geuss what. I have a little secret!

YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!!!

There is no set of rules and regulations that defines when your marriage is or is not doing well, no laws that say the prescribed consequence for said action is____________.

And all of you are acting like whiny little brats who didn't get the largest slice of birthday cake, because someone had the absolute NERVE to disagree with you!

I have cheated on my husband, he has cheated on me. We survived it. Our relationship grew stronger. We now have two children.

I agree that most people wouldn't see infedility as an improvement, but for us, it helped clear the air. For most women, it would help clear the china cabinets of all that lovely crystal, but you know.

Cheating is a symptom of the problem, not the actual problem itself. Had niether of us cheated,we probably would not be together today. While I can't say I'm thankful to the two bit slutty little whore who he banged, I am grateful to still have my husband, as our relationship grows stronger with each passing day.

Grow up people. I am Canadian, but I thought America was founded on the principle of free speech?

Posted by: angie [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2007 10:52 AM

Wait -- you're talking free speech and you're telling people to SHADDUP?

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 22, 2007 11:52 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)