LW, I'm with Amy on this. Whatever her concerns are, they aren't your concerns. Dump her and don't look back.

"Her lack of empathy suggests she never got her act together enough as an individual to be able to be a partner. Sure, she came along with you -- but was it because she loves you, or because she feels like nobody without you? Chances are, she's a 37-year-old woman with a teen-girl orientation toward relationships: "I'm pretty, so guys should like me." (Why go through all that sweaty, ugly business of becoming somebody when you can just become somebody's girlfriend?)"
----------------------------------
Amy, You hit the nail on the head again on this one.

The girl is needy. Her needs trump your legitimate grieving. Run away fast. She may decide an "accidental pregnancy" may be a way of keeping you and covering up her insecurities.

In my limited experience with death and loss, I have found that people don't know how to deal with grief. Its not something we talk about. When I was 20, my mother died and I was asked a month later why I wasn't over it. Grief and emotion make people very uncomfortable. Perhaps this gf hasn't dealt with death before, I don't know. And, even if that's the case, it certainly isn't an excuse for her poor behavior. If it were me, I would get rid of the girlfriend, and work on living with your grief. Time doesn't heal all wounds, but it does give you a chance to learn to live with your loss. Support groups may help. A counselor isn't a bad idea. But having to constantly be on guard and explaining yourself to your insecure girlfriend (who should be there for YOU) is going to do nothing but wear you down.

I'm printing out the teenaged girl attitude quotation and giving it to my teenaged girl. It encapsulates in a fresh way a value I've been trying to instill in her.

It does sound like the woman is insecure in the relationship, very possibly because of the age difference.

On the other hand, the guy needs a swift kick in the pants. Yes it's sad that his parents died, yes he was a hero for taking care of them the last six months of their lives.

Guess what: it's over now. Six months of tearing grief is enough - in fact, it is too much. We all expect to lose our parents someday - that's how life generally works. It is past time for him to get on with his life.

To bradley13- I'm sorry, but you're way off base. There isn't a time limit on grief. And knowing that you're eventually going to lose a parent doesn't make the loss any easier. And unless you have been in *his* shoes, you have no idea what he's going through. Every loss is different. Every person mourns in their own way. It took me 2 years to get to where I could talk about my mother without crying. Its been 10 years, and I still feel sad sometimes. And that's ok. The loss of a parent is a loss trumped only by the loss of a child. And if you haven't personally gone through it, then kindly leave you ill-will at the door.

Bradley13 'he needs a swift kick in the pants' - or apparently an extra-curricular roll in the hay.

Even if we are charitable and say you're worried he's stuck in his grief and it's turning unhealthy - his girlfriend's attitude and your attitude are certainly not going to help him find his way out.

Bradley, your attitude on this is perhaps worse than LW's "girlfriend"

Six months might be enough. It might not.

But six months without any support? Not gonna happen. Losing both parents leaves you with nobody to grab on to. This is the "job" the "girlfriend" should be doing. She should be his rock so that he can get past the grief and begin his life without his parents.

Instead, it's all about her.

The girlfriend has probably been cheated on in the past. She's taking his grief as an excuse because many cheaters will use excuses. But that doesn't make what she did right.

I'm wondering whether this is just about sex or if maybe he is shutting her out emotionally too. It may not be the sex but that she's feeling a real distance between them and suspecting there must be another reason.

Many men don't grieve or handle hurt the way we women do, so it can seem odd or unloving to us. In such times, we tend to lean even more on our partner, whereas men often withdraw, making it harder to be supportive. When she reaches out to comfort him - to hold or cuddle him - he may be pulling away. It may even remind him of his mom, which hurts more. The girlfriend may genuinely want to be there for him but is confused.

Bradley doesn't say, but I'm guessing he hasn't gone through it yet.

A friend of mine had to fly out of state to be with her father, who was very ill. Her boyfriend pouted, in my presence, about her leaving him for two whole weeks. I still have the image of him slouched on the couch with his hands in his pockets and his sullen expression as she tried to explain why she had to go.

Hard to believe they were both over thirty.

But six months without any support? Not gonna happen. Losing both parents leaves you with nobody to grab on to. This is the "job" the "girlfriend" should be doing. She should be his rock so that he can get past the grief and begin his life without his parents.

This. Sudden death brings its own issues, but the long, lingering death that requires you to watch and throw lit matches at the darkness brings its own kind of loss, on top of the death itself.

And, if you're with someone who doesn't grieve the way you do, it's not your job to make them grieve the way you want them to. It's your job to adapt your own style to support them in how they choose to grieve.

"And, if you're with someone who doesn't grieve the way you do, it's not your job to make them grieve the way you want them to. It's your job to adapt your own style to support them in how they choose to grieve."

Definitely. I'm just suggesting to the LW that it may not be about sex, but closeness. She may be saying, "We only have sex once a month!" but what she's really asking is, "Do you still love me? Do you really need me?"

If he's showing her physical closeness, just no interest in sex, then it may be true that she's self-absorbed, as everyone thinks. But if he's totally withdrawing - no cuddling or physical contact, just curling up in a ball and pushing her away emotionally and physically - then that's going to have a very negative impact on the relationship the longer it goes on, even with the most nurturing, supportive person - perhaps especially with a nurturing, supportive person.

I'm very nurturing, and, recently, my boyfriend had some minor surgery. I had these plans of helping him - all the stuff I'd do to take care of him - and was kind of looking forward to it. But he, being a proud, independent man, wouldn't let me do that much for him, which made me feel a little hurt. Not that it's rational. I know he loves me, but I wanted him to NEED me. It's possible that's how the girlfriend is feeling.

You raise a good point lovelysoul. The difference is that you realise his way of wanting your support is different from what you'd imagined. I suspect you didn't pout (well maybe a bit - just in your head) but adapted. That's the difference of maturity between you and the LW's girlfriend.

Ah, lovelysoul, you may have touched on something there. But I still think it's inexcusable for her to go through his "belongings and email" to try and find proof of his cheating on her. Why couldn't she just ask him "what's wrong?" And if she wasn't happy with the answer, or if she didn't get an answer, that's still not a reason for snooping through his stuff. Whether or not she's feeling hurt by how he's acting right now, she needs to try to understand why he's acting this way, not look for a reason to kick him when he's already down.

Aw, Flynne, you took the words right out of my mouth again! By violating his privacy, she's making it pretty clear that nobody's feelings but her own are important. The other posters are right. A girlfriend or boyfriend that makes you miserable isn't one to keep.

I agree, Flynne. She definitely went overboard. There's no excuse for snooping like that unless someone has a real solid basis for distrust. Yet, six months is a long time to be shut out emotionally (if that's what's happening), and it could lead to paranoia.

These stressful times seem to make or break relationships. Ones that aren't that strong beforehand tend to fail. And I'm not clear about how close they were prior to this. He says she quit her job to follow him, but did he ask her to come? Maybe he really doesn't need her that much, and this has just magnified what was already missing. She doesn't want to believe he doesn't need/want her and would prefer to suspect there's another woman involved. It's easier to imagine that someone is stealing your lover away than that he was never really there in the first place.

If you do the math here, LW and his girlfriend were only dating for a year when she quit her job, packed up, and moved across the country to be with LW. So saying that she never supported him isn't accurate. And now she's been jobless, friendless, and emotionally cut off from her SO for a year. Not to say that this excuses her snooping, but she's coming from a bad situation and is possibly even depressed. And having no job, no social life, and no romantic action leaves her with plenty of time of her hands to snoop and imagine worst-case scenarios.

Basically it's just an unfortunate situation. I've always thought that violating privacy is the point of no return in a relationship; once that trust is gone, it's a clear sign you should break up. Girlfriend can move back to old job and old friends. LW can deal with his grief on his own, because he's clearly not ready to be a relationship right now.

"If you do the math here, LW and his girlfriend were only dating for a year when she quit her job, packed up, and moved across the country to be with LW. So saying that she never supported him isn't accurate."

Shannon, I'm not so sure about that. The suspicion here is that she went with him not because she was supportive, but because she was needy. If that's true, then she was actually an additional burden on him during that difficult period, which probably accounts for some of the LW's emotional distance from her now.

If I had to move to another part of the country for a while to care for a family member who was suffering from a terminal illness, I really would not want my wife to quit her job and move with me. Besides the practical considerations, there's the fact that when it's all over, I want something to come home to, a place of normality, a routine that brings back some continuity to my life. Plus, yes, I do want a bit of space to go through some of the grieving process by myself. I'd rather my wife stay where she is, and I'll pay to fly her out to where I am every other weekend or so.

The girlfriend's snooping methods are a little strange. Searching the web for his forum comments?? What's up with that?

LW: Show her your letter to Amy and give her a chance, unequivocably, to apologize for what she's been putting you through. (A true apology is a total one--not a "I'm really sorry, BUT...") If she keeps trying to justify her behavior instead of the light bulb going on, DUMP HER.

Love's not all fun and games--as Amy pointed out. It's...tough....work sometimes. And your test of whether or not you've got a winner or loser is how she deals when times are tough. So far, she's not doing so hot (to put it mildly!)
It sounds as if she is extremely self-absorbed & insecure.

These kind of moments define relationships. They also reveal who people really are. Your response is good, but just in case he can't read between the lines.

Time to find a new girlfriend my friend.

I'm with the girlfriend. You gotta hump your mate. A lot.
A 29-year-old man who doesn't make love daily is a woose-a-roo.
When I was 29, seven times week was not enough.
Oh, to be 29 again. As I remember, it was morning and night. Twice a day, in those days.
But even now, several times a week, as in more than four, is right, and I have decades on this sprite.
She should not have spied. She should have left.
Boo-hoo my parents died too. A man overcomes, does not succumb.

BOTU - you're an insensitive asshole.

Humping your inflatable doll doesn't count either.

In your own inimitable acerbic manner, Amy, you showed more empathy for what the guy's going through than his girlfriend. I hope that tells him something.

And even if he not just lost his parents, and his girlfriend proved to be consummately unsympathetic, he had sufficient grounds to dump her when Her Royal Neediness went snooping through his stuff.

He says, "I just don't know how I can ever trust her again, let alone respect her."

That would be because there's absolutely no reason he should. Not because she, tit for tat, doesn't trust and respect him, but because it's simply good sense not to trust someone who snoops through your belongings.

If he'd asked me, I would commend for his good instincts, which obviously haven't deserted him, despite what he's going through right now.

If he writes you again, tell him your blog denizens are very sorry for his loss.

Lovelysoul writes: There's no excuse for snooping like that unless someone has a real solid basis for distrust.

That is totally wrong. There is no excuse for snooping like that...PERIOD!

If she "has a real solid basis for distrust," she needs to talk to him about it. And if she doesn't like his answers, she needs to get gone. She. Has. No. Right. To. Snoop. Through. His. Belongings. Ever.

I'm coming from the opposite direction. My significant other suffered two losses in 6 months (two uncles died, both of which who he was close to). But he's the one who cheated. Midway, I found him with an active online 'dating and single' profile. Yes, it was active and yes, he was messaging people (I had a friend check). When I asked him about it face-to-face, he pretty much admitted it, which devastated me, and I left.

As a girlfriend, I wanted to be there for him, I believe in trust and support. I would be deeply sorry if my efforts were misinterpreted. I was willing to make sacrifices in my life for him, if he had but asked me to. For me, this experience was a life lesson in character.

It is obvious that the girlfriend is a controlling all-consuming bitch. She doesn't understand or care what he is going through because she is someone who simply has no empathy or concern for others. For her, everything is all about ME ME ME. It's all about her jealousy, her needs, her insecurities.

If you are reading this, please tell this woman to get the fuck out of your life before she bleeds you dry.

That said, this guy should get over the death of his parents. Your parents are supposed to die before you, that is part of life. And being an adult means learning to stand on your own two feet. The death of your parents should not bring your whole world crashing down.

If she "has a real solid basis for distrust," she needs to talk to him about it. And if she doesn't like his answers, she needs to get gone. She. Has. No. Right. To. Snoop. Through. His. Belongings. Ever."

I disagree, and I think I would be backed by many professionals and advice columnists.

Maybe you've never experienced that level of manipulativeness, but there are those who will lie very convincingly when asked if they are cheating. You cannot "talk to them about it". When dealing with such individuals, you can't necessarily know what's happening unless you have hard proof. They will always DENY unless you show them proof. In fact, they will accuse you of being "paranoid and insecure" - and it's "your problem" - so that the blame is transferred to the partner, obscurring their cheating.

If your gut and common sense tells you that you're being lied to, despite your partner's denials, inconsistent alibis, and cover stories, then checking e-mail and belongings can be appropriate. It can save lives if this cheater is not using protection (as most won't because they are inherently selfish). If you've never dealt with a cheater, you can't understand how they deflect everything on to you - make you think you're "imagining" events. Having hard proof is very important to the partner in being able to move on.

Aw, c'mon Nick, both of them. Six months ago. I'll admit he's a little more sensitive then some guys. I don't know when I last heard a man say he felt violated.

But six months is not a long time to mourn for one parent, let alone two, if you actually loved them and miss them. And with the first holiday season without them coming up, double ouch! He'll be done when he's done.

Unfortunately, he's also just the type to end up with a user bitch girlfriend.

Pricklypear - there's a very good chance he's clinically depressed rather than just mourning. Depressed people can be very hard to deal with, no matter how supportive she's trying to be. On the other hand, re-reading I see they've gone back to their original location and she "can't rebuild her social life" - ok changed my mind, she's a needy bitch who swaps sex for a servant/companion on call, and with him not interested she's worried about her control.

Lovelysoul - I can see your point, sometimes there are good reasons for distrust. Best way to think of it though is as the nuclear option, if you do it then if the relationship wasn't over already, it is now. Maybe it's necessary sometimes though.

Tina writes: "I'm coming from the opposite direction. My significant other suffered two losses in 6 months (two uncles died, both of which who he was close to). But he's the one who cheated."

Wow, that's quite a story. My sympathies, and no, I'm not being sarcastic. That's a pretty unusual reaction to a personal loss, though. Do you think maybe the cheating started before the uncles died?

Lovelysoul writes: I disagree, and I think I would be backed by many professionals and advice columnists.

Considering Amy just said "Thanks" to my one and only comment on this thread, I would say I have at least one professional advice columnist doesn't agree. Perhaps you didn't notice?

First of all, lacking an official, legally-recognized status as consortium, snooping through his belongings is not just wrong. It's illegal.

Secondly, besides Amy, I did a Google search for "psychologist on snooping," and it just so happens, believe it or not, that was answering a letter about a woman who had, as he put it, "you probably had a right to be suspicious and mistrusting even if your method of dealing with it wasn’t the best." It seems she did just that. They met online, and she decided to create a fake ID to snoop on him.

Why was this not best? He answers it in his very next sentence. "You put yourself in a position not to be trusted as well."

In other words, the boyfriend may or may not be trustworthy, but we already know for a fact that she isn't.

I'd post the link but the last time I posted a single link to this site, it booted my post to the spam folder. But the source I'm quoting is called Couselling Resource, in a section called Ask the Psychologist: Online Clinical Psychologist, in a column dated August 12, 2009, entitled, "I snooped on my online dating boyfriend and now he won't talk to me," by Dr. George Simon, PhD.

So, please don't hide behind these phantom advice columnists and professionals to back you up. Two of two surveyed basically said you're full of it.

If you feel the need to snoop on your mate, you should already be gone. And if you aren't, when he finds out, he needs to show you the way out the door.

Whoops. Seems I did weigh in twice in this column. My bad. Didn't sleep much last night and just got back from the hospital.

In any case, Amy has weighed in on the subject of snooping in a column called "Cache Him If You Can."

She wrote, "You're the guy's girlfriend, not his Net Nanny. You have no right to snoop in another adult's stuff -- and no, not even if you're really needy and insecure (perhaps the real problem). If you suspect your boyfriend of some misdeed, you get to ask him about it, period."

Bad advice. Cheaters don't "talk about it" or confess upon qestioning like in a Perry Mason episode. I'll give an example:

A few months ago, my girlfriend had to borrow her husband's laptop because hers was being repaired. She went to his favorites, looking for a site they both normally visited together, and she found he had a site there called "Ashleymadison.com." She didn't know what it was and clicked on it. "Ashleymadison.com" is a "dating" site for married people who want to cheat.

Of course, she asked him about this, and he explained that he was merely curious because he had seen it advertised during a football game and wondered what it was. He swore that he had no intention of cheating.

I pointed out that his story would make sense except for one small detail - he had saved it to his favorites. Still, she chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, but she asked him to go to couples counseling to make their relationship stronger, which they began.

They've been in counseling for a few months, and she thought everything was going great. They'd grown closer than ever.

A few weeks ago, he announced he was going on a fishing trip with one of his buddies. She watched him pack, and was supportive of him going, but something didn't feel quite right.

He left his laptop open on the kitchen table while he went to the bathroom, so she quickly checked his e-mail. There was a message from his buddy describing the women they were going to meet and what time they'd arrive at the hotel. They were NOT going fishing, at least not of the marine kind.

She confronted him with this evidence, and THEN he confessed.

I don't know what will happen with their marriage, but at least now she knows what she is dealing with. If she had not snooped and discovered the message, he would've gone on the "fishing trip" and maybe brought her back a lovely STD.

There are times when it is smart not to play the fool. She violated no laws, but she learned what she needed to know - the truth. Snooping should certainly be the last resort, but it can be an invaluable tool when you're being lied to like that.

Curious as to why every time Lovelysoul is called upon her ridiculous stances on issues, she feels the need to lie and make up some bogus story about how she knows so-and-so who did this, and it proves that it's okay to do this. She did it during the domestic violence thread, first viciously attacking each and every male who dared suggest that she was wrong, curiously ignoring women who did the same thing. And now, this unmitigated B.S. about how she knows someone who snooped on her husband and she found out that he was cheating, blah, blah, blah...

You determine if your mate is not trustworthy by not being an idiot. There are signs to look for, and if you feel the need to snoop, you're obviously in denial about what's already there.

Lovelysoul's story sounds plausible to me.

Admittedly, by the time I got to snooping through my ex-husband's email, I was 90% sure he was cheating. I just needed confirmation. I had talked to him about it, and he swore up and down that he wasn't. Told me I was crazy and making things up to make him miserable. My ex was an expert at twisting any evidence I found to make me look nuts and/or stupid. The emails to his girlfriends, and to his friends about his girfriends, told a different story.

Maybe snooping was terrible, but cheating was pretty terrible, too, and I don't regret it at all. Having the evidence in my hand was what I needed to end that charade for both our sakes. Thank God cheaters are frequently stupid about technology.

The snooping, for me, was the final nail in the coffin of my marriage, and I was OK with it being just that. My ex did go off on how violated he felt about me reading his email. I didn't feel bad for that even a little by that point.

I've been in a relationship with someone else for 2 years and I have no desire to look through his email, because there's nothing to suggest he's cheating. I am REALLY glad I did it the first time, though.

You always accuse me of lying, but it's not a bogus story, Patrick. Even if you want to believe that, I'll bet others here can share similar ones.

I hope you aren't ever in that kind of position. Yes, there are signs, but signs aren't proof. Amy listed a few good ones - unusual interest in appearance, a sudden enthusiasm for working late, etc. Some others can be lack of interest in sex or the reverse. Gift buying, especially when the nature or value of gifts seems out of character.

But the problem is knowing definitively because there are usually marriages or long-term relationships at stake, and often children involved. What are you going to do if you merely SUSPECT but don't know?

It's easy to say, "Just leave!", but think that over for a minute. Are you really going to say to your kids, "Your mom/dad exhibited all the classic SIGNS of being a cheater, so I left." C'mon. When a marriage and family is at stake that seems very rash. It's fine if you're single and childless, but if you're going to divorce someone, you need more than mere suspicion.

I don't believe anyone should snoop without good cause, but if you have cause, such as my friend did, and you don't snoop, then that is being an idiot.

Besides, it could've gone either way. She might've discovered that he was indeed going fishing, which would've confirmed that she could trust him and the whole "Ashleymadison.com" thing was a fluke. If you're honest, and give no appearance of impropriety, there's no reason to worry about snooping.

I don't believe LS is lying either. It sounds plausible to me. I take every one on here at their word; if they say that such and such happened to them or their friend(s), who am I to question their truthfulness?

I don't snoop on hubby, but if there were other things going on that set my "spidey senses" tingling, yes, I would in a heartbeat. Conversely, I have absolutely zero to hide from him, so if he were to snoop on me, he'd not find anything that would cause me embarrassment.

I think, though, there's a different (greater) expectation of privacy when you're just BF/GF living together than if you're married. I open DH's mail all the time and he opens mine. Depends on who gets it. (Unfortunately all we ever get are bills, so nothing juicy there :). And neither of us have a problem with it. We share an email account and he still has his old one, which I'll only check if he asks me to.

Gotta agree with Lovelysoul and MonicaP here, cheaters tend to be liars who are usually out for their own gain at the expense of anyone and everyone else’s. If you are with a shorter term relationship and you have the ‘gut feeling’ then maybe it’s kewl to simply bounce without snooping or proof. When you find yourself in something a little more ‘substantial’, assets, kids, things get a little more complicated.

Misdirection and manipulation are key to their M.O., sure you can come out and ask if your spouse has an issue, but this only works when they are on the same page you are. If not, you are simply treated as an obstacle to what they really want, whether or not this harms you or the relationship is completely irrelevant to them. Without proof, there are quite a few cheaters out there whom would continue their activities indefinitely while their spouse is in the dark. IMO thinking they would come clean if asked is possibly like thinking a criminal acting suspiciously will spontaneously confess with no real duress present.

That's wonderful, Amy. Unfortunately, most of the population is not as wise or insightful as you.

Are you really suggesting then that someone who suspects cheating should just accept the unknown because they made a foolish choice to begin with? What if they get HIV or some other STD...the importance is that they don't snoop? I'd say the risks outweigh the ethics of not snooping.

I'm sure Greg is a great guy, and he'd probably never cheat on you, but people do change over time. Trying to predict how someone will change and grow over decades is no easy task.

And the difficulty is that most women can't wait until middle age to make a choice of partner. If they want children, women must choose a mate during their peak fertility years, which also happens to be when we're the least mature and experienced. It's practically a recipe for bad decision-making.

So, it seems very unfair to expect someone to take a risk with their life and health just because they might've made a bad choice in their youth. The point is that they don't know for sure. How in good conscience can you suggest staying in the dark?

"BOTU - you're an insensitive asshole."

If he developed some sensitivity, would he become a sensitive asshole?

Amy is absolutely right. And Patrick as well. If you are to the level of snooping, then the trust in the relationship is non-existant, and you need to get out. If you find out your partner is snooping, kick em out the door. Quickly.

You have NO right to go through my stuff. Period.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with Amy on this one. It is impossible to know the twists and turns your life will take. When you are married to a liar you have to do what you have to do. I had a friend in high school who found out that her father had a whole second family. Seriously, a house and kids... the whole deal. This was in the days before e-mail and internet. He was salesman of some sort and kept his two families totally separate. Imagine her mother's surprise when he announced he was leaving one day. Even then, the scumbag refused to admit there was another woman involved. The only way they were able to figure out what was going on was b/c she and her mother were reduced to following him after work one evening. They saw it all. Dignified...no, but at least they finally knew the truth and all the other pieces of their lives started making sense. It gave them some closure. Sometimes you just NEED to know for your own sanity.

Now if this is just a bf/gf situation.... just leave. If the flags are there, just get out before the mind games begin.

Sorry, ladies. You want to give yourselves license to snoop, and you don't have any. Besides, I did uncover something else that you might be interested in knowing: going through someone's computer, even your spouse's, without permission is illegal.

Being attached to someone, or even married to someone, is not a license to go through their belongings without permission. Granted, if you'd been given previous access and you went on his computer, that would be one thing. By contrast, if he's never given you permission to be on his computer and you happen to take the opportunity to go through his history while he's in the bathroom, you could be in a lot of trouble.

And as I said before, and what you seem to be in denial about, ladies...You go through someone's belongings behind their back because you don't think they're trustworthy. But the irony, you've already proven you're not trustworthy. You go behind peoples' backs and snoop through their belongings because you've decided you've had adequate reason.

And yes, you can and should leave someone merely for having all the outward signs of a cheater. "He was evasive when I asked him questions, and he kept too many secrets from me, and I found I could no longer trust him."

Sounds like a good reason to me.

And lovelysoul only knows what her friend tells her, even if the story is true (which I doubt), we're to believe that she had no signs whatsoever that this was going along, and then out of the blue, Providence just happened to drop his computer in her lap.

And just to let you know, I don't have the slightest bit of guilt about accusing you of lying. On the domestic abuse thread, you savaged every man with ugliest accusations I have ever seen on this board, because they had the unspeakable gall to disagree with you, the self-appointed expert on domestic abuse, who knows more than the professionals on this subject, because you're the landlord of a trailer park. "You have an abuser mentality!" "You want to hit women!"

Lovelysoul, you chose your name ironically, because you are anything but...

Not a lady here, just one of the guys and I beg to differ.

I agree with sheepmommy 100%. No one knows what life will pass our way. I hear many times how we all need to choose well. And this is right, I agree, but to think that simply by choosing well that you escape all of life’s pitfalls is to think that by working out you will never get sick with a serious illness. By working out you increase your chances, sometimes you will avoid some issues all together, but you cannot say definitively that you will dodge every bullet that comes your way by what you do right now.

Now this is becoming a game of semantics, of someone’s right to privacy being upheld as they are abusing this very right at your detriment. Whatever one may say about Lovelysoul, she is dead on about what a counselor would say about privacy when infidelity is possible. If you try to confront without proof, most go underground and hide their behavior.

It is always easier to say ‘just leave’ in theory, what many have said here seems to be ignored. When you have kids and all of that, it’s much easier said than done. Maybe it doesn’t make sense to some, maybe the idea of your SO rifling through your stuff upsets you, maybe it does, but I think the idea of you SO sleeping with someone else and then coming back and sleeping with you may be a little worse, no?

The Divorce rate is high enough and cruel enough as it is. Children can suffer even through a separation, and I fully bet that is the reason why some choose to ‘break this rule’ of privacy, not at the first instance of their gut going off, but after many repeated lies and evidence that something is going on contrary to what is being said. I can’t fault a man or a woman for getting proof before they confront after months of lies and misdirection. Their SO’s privacy isn’t worth their children’s sanity IMO.

Amax, you're forgetting that if you happen to find this person is not cheating, and you did all the snooping anyway, guess you've uncovered. Your mate is trustworthy, but you're not.

I remember a older column of Amy's, where a man wrote her about his girlfriend not seeing him for a while, claiming her brother had cancer. The she broke it off completely, later to find out that her brother never had cancer.

Amy replied sympathetically that if his ex's mean-streak were any wider, it would show up on interstate highway maps. And she offered a moment of silence as we think sympathetically for the guy treated to head-games by the vicious bitch.

And then she said, "Now that that's over, bend over because you're about to get paddled."

She pointed out in her own witty fashion that his ex did not go to bed one night all honey and sweetness and wake up the next day with six legs and a crunchy brown exoskeleton. There had to have been signs and he chose to ignore them. She also pointed out that cockroaches scatter when you turn on the lights, including the ones with lipgloss.

I will stand by what I said, and I reject the ethics that says "Oh, it's okay to snoop, if you have justifiable cause."

(By the way, who decides what's justifiable? You? I don't think so.)

You have the means at your disposal to prove your mate is trustworthy. Claiming you have justifiable reason to violate a person's privacy is simply bullshit. You're not looking for the truth when it's staring you in the face. You're looking for an excuse and you don't have one.

If you think you could have reason to rifle through someone's stuff behind their back without permission, you thought wrong. And again, the irony is that you think you deserve someone trustworthy when you're not.

Thanks, Amax. I agree completely and loved your analogy about working out. All you need is to make a "good choice" and none of life's issues will intervene, and you can't get hurt.

Nevermind that you would need to be practically omnipotent to do this. That there's no way one can predict, with complete accuracy, that their partner won't have a mid-life crisis or a change of heart down the road, regardless of how ethical and good they might have once been. Bad things still happen to smart people - and within relationships - even when all due diligence has been applied.

I find it sort of akin to people who hide behind religion, thinking that faith is all it takes, and that if something bad happens to you, it's because you either must not have prayed hard enough or God wants it to be - but either way, it can't be completely RANDOM.

This makes many feel more secure - that God is in control. By the same token, the message here is that we are in control. If you get hurt, you must've seen it coming. Therefore, it follows, that in order not to get hurt, one only needs to be smart, insightful, and choose well. It's black or white....and overly simple. Life doesn't unfold that cleanly.

And what I find even more disingenuous is that the messages are conflicting. I've heard so often here that if one chooses a mate, and has children with them, you must stick it out and not be selfish for your children's sake. Yet, the contradictory message is that if you even have an inking of distrust for your partner you should "just leave" because your gut is obviously telling you something, and there's no need to try to confirm it with actual proof. The trust is gone, so you might as well leave.

So, which is it? Stay or go? Are you really supposed to dump your family on a hunch...a mere suspicion? Wouldn't that be an extremely selfish thing to do to your children? One message completely contradict the other.

Isn't it more logical, where there are red flags, to try to confirm what's going on? It like what MonicaP said - she was 90% sure, but before getting a divorce, and breaking up a family, she need that final 10%.

That is mature and reasonable. After all, what if she had been wrong? Not every partner who exhibits signs of cheating is, in fact, cheating. There could be a valid explanation. I think a married partner, with children, must do everything possible to confirm their suspicions before ending the relationship.

lovelysoul writes: Yet, the contradictory message is that if you even have an inking of distrust for your partner you should "just leave" because your gut is obviously telling you something, and there's no need to try to confirm it with actual proof. The trust is gone, so you might as well leave.

When you read this board, how do you read it? I'm betting you read a post, beat yourself over the head with your keyboard about twenty times, then reply. That's the only rationale I have for your capacity to hear things no one said.

No one said you should walk over an inkling of distrust. But ironically, you find yourself justified into going into full snoop mode over that same "inkling." One wonders how many times you've invaded your boyfriend's privacy. And one wonders more why the hell he puts up with you. I wouldn't.

Does he go through your stuff, by the way? He should, if he has even an inkling of distrust, as you put it. Or is it only women who have the right to snoop?

You have the right to pay attention to the signs that your mate is displaying.

You have the right to ask him about what you're seeing and express your concerns like a mature adult.

You have the right to weigh his words and actions carefully.

You have the right to stay or go based on what the signs are telling you.

You do not have the right to go through his belongings behind his back without his permission.

It's rather ironic because the consensus on this board was firmly with Amy in the Cache Him If You Can thread. I'll take a chance with getting booted by posting the link.

I wonder if it's because the woman's only justification was that she figured "most girlfriends" as opposed to "most people" go through the mates internet and cell phone. And all she uncovered was the fact that he unsuccessfully Goggled his ex-fiance of 9 years ago, who broke it off with her when she cheated on him.

I find it hilarious that lovelysoul is using words like "mature and reasonable" to defend going behind someone's back and snooping through their belongings.

Snooping is neither mature nor reasonable. Nor legal, for that matter.

And again, I ask, what happens if the partner is completely innocent? Does the snooper say, "Oh, well, guess I was wrong." Not likely. She'll simply keep right on digging, and if she still finds nothing, she'll just keep right on snooping.

What does the innocent party do when he discovers someone has invaded their privacy, only to not uncover the evidence she was looking for? "Let's see...she gave herself permission to invade my privacy on a suspicion. I wonder how many times she's done this in the past. I wonder how many times she'll do this in the future. What's her standard for justifiable cause for rooting around in my computer without my permission? Why the hell am I with her?"

Patrick, despite your nastiness, I continue to respond reasonably and maturely. And, for the record, I don't snoop on my boyfriend. He has never given me any reason to distrust him.

Besides, he encourages me to use his computer whenever he's not there. He's obviously not concerned because he has nothing to hide. Same with me. I leave my laptop open all the time. If he wanted to read my e-mails or even my posts here, he could. There's absolutely nothing there I'd be worried about him seeing.

The only thing I've ever done is when we were first dating, and he OFFERED ME his computer, I did check his history. My ex had an internet porn addiction, and I didn't want to end up with the same sort of guy. Also, I have a daughter, and she is my first priority.

I'm not naive enough to think a pedophile is going to tell me he's a pedophile if I just ask. So, I have no regret about checking. As a child advocate, I've seen too many times parents blindly trusting someone who ends up abusing or molesting their children. A 2 second check can tell you a lot about a person and potentially protect your child from harm.

Thankfully, there was no kiddie porn or anything else of alarm. Since then, I haven't even looked. When there's trust in a relatonship, and people behave as they should, there's no reason to snoop. But we're talking about situations where people are throwing out red flags.

"Amax, you're forgetting that if you happen to find this person is not cheating, and you did all the snooping anyway, guess you've uncovered. Your mate is trustworthy, but you're not."

Which is why I had stated that this is an action of last resort, not the first. Alright, let me explain myself a minute, I have a very large issue with people who make assumption never having been in a situation. Theory is always easy to write, type, or say. The reality of the situaition is much more difficult.

Ever been in a situation with everything you had ever worked for; wife, kids, house, assets was on the line? Sure you see some evidence, but what if you are wrong? One press of the button and everything you know and worked for goes up in flames, possibly forever. Not speaking about simply education, or your job, I mean your life, and the lives of your kids, if you have any.

Do you reallt think that people found in this unfortunate situation give a rip about how they are 'untrustworthy'? You said LovelySoul's story was made up, I apoloigize but I've seen quite a few stories like this one myself so far fetched it isn't. In fact, because all these people have are suspicions, somtimes they do up and leave, only to be approached and manipulated into coming home again.

I hear you about that post from Amy's but I'm not talking about regularly going through your spouse's things.

I'm talking about things in life which do not add up and after talking to them about it they lie or even go underground, covering their tracks and continuing their behavior at your expense. Should people leave, just up and go? Of course, but like I had mentioned earlier, before any man or woman puts the nuke button to their family, they are going to find out for sure. Their cheating SO isn't going to tell them.

Money says that these people would rather live with the knowledge that they invaded their SO's privacy and find out they where mistaken than to simply seperate, putting their kids through the wringer in the process because it's better not to stoop to their level.

Patrick, you could possibly destroy everything your children hold dear and just as Lovelysoul stated and you are up in arms over a breach of privacy??? Like my supervisor had stated a while ago, "If I'm going to go to bat for this, I'd better make sure I get my facts straight."

This isn't simply a bf/gf sitch. This isn't simply as leaving.

"So, which is it? Stay or go? Are you really supposed to dump your family on a hunch...a mere suspicion? Wouldn't that be an extremely selfish thing to do to your children? One message completely contradict the other.

Isn't it more logical, where there are red flags, to try to confirm what's going on? It like what MonicaP said - she was 90% sure, but before getting a divorce, and breaking up a family, she need that final 10%."

And that's my point as well. There aren't many people on this site who have no idea of the horrors of divorce in this country. It can take years to get over, financially and sometimes emotionally. My parents are still paying for choices that they made in the 70's when he cheated. If you are going to grind your family into a pulp, you'd better have a good reason for it. And I can bet that a cheating So, be they female or male isn't going to fill you in or think about your best interests.

Which is why I stand by my former statemet as well, weigh it.

"That is mature and reasonable. After all, what if she had been wrong? Not every partner who exhibits signs of cheating is, in fact, cheating. There could be a valid explanation. I think a married partner, with children, must do everything possible to confirm their suspicions before ending the relationship."

I would use the words desperate myself, but I agree completely. Not all cheaters follow the same MO, and some can hide their 'tells' very well. As for the logical explanation, read a case once where a woman had her husband followed by a PI. He was being secretive, working late and misdirecting her when she asked him what was going on. The PI gave her his results.....her husband was building her a cottage for their anniversary.

I wonder what would have happened if she just....left. Also heard that accusing one of cheating when none is present is like taking a powershovel to your relationship.

lovelysoul writes: Patrick, despite your nastiness, I continue to respond reasonably and maturely.

OMG! You??? Responding reasonably and maturely??? Since when?

Some of your choice comments to me and others.

You seem awfully eager to have an excuse to "pulverize" a woman who's probably half your size.

She made this comment because I said that being a woman is not a license to hit someone, and being a man is not a prohibition against hitting back.

God forbid someone should point out that being a woman is no guarantee that if she hits a man, she's not going to be hit back.

To Mike Hunter, in her inability to distinguish one man from another, she conflated his comments with mine.

The person being intimidated by your size has no right to feel angry or strike back if you verbally abuse them, lest you will "pulverize" them. That is an abuser mentality, plain and simple. You have it, gay or not.

Mike Hunter never said he was gay, by the way. I was the one who said that. But you know, all men look the same to her.

And by the way, you don't have the right to hit someone over verbal abuse. Ask any judge.

Here's the "lovely" soul weighing in a woman who poured boiling oil over his genitals while he slept.

The men who get grease poured on them are most likely long-term abusers. Women don't typically pour grease on someone who's been kind to them.

So, of course, if a woman does that to a man, it's the man's fault. He was an abuser, and he deserved it. Lovely mindset she has going on, isn't it? If a man hits a woman, it's the man's fault. If a woman hits a man, it's the man's fault.

To me, she writes: Think how "Gone with the Wind" would've been such a different movie with Patrick directing. Scarlet would slap Rhett, and he'd beat her to a pulp, or pull out his gun. "Stupid Bitch! Frankly, I don't give a damn!"

Yes, lovely, you're just so mature and reasonable. You hurl the ugliest invective you can think of, then imagine you're some kind of victim.

You're the one with the abuser mentality, not me, and not Mike Hunter.

This isn't that thread, Patrick. Things obviously got very heated there, but I apologized for implying you were an abuser. Yet, you completely deny any accountablity for the nasty things you said towards Jody and me, as well as anyone who disagreed with you. You're acting like a petulant child. This s not a DV thread. Get over it.

Amax, I have to say, your last post was ridiculous.

Ever been in a situation with everything you had ever worked for; wife, kids, house, assets was on the line? Sure you see some evidence, but what if you are wrong? One press of the button and everything you know and worked for goes up in flames, possibly forever. Not speaking about simply education, or your job, I mean your life, and the lives of your kids, if you have any.

Do you reallt think that people found in this unfortunate situation give a rip about how they are 'untrustworthy'? You said LovelySoul's story was made up, I apoloigize but I've seen quite a few stories like this one myself so far fetched it isn't. In fact, because all these people have are suspicions, somtimes they do up and leave, only to be approached and manipulated into coming home again.

My question is, do you really think that if it comes to this, the mere discovery, through snooping, that suspicions were unfounded, that this relationship could, in any way, shape or form be saved???

You resort to snooping, regardless of what you find or don't find, that relationship is done!

lovelysoul writes:This isn't that thread, Patrick. Things obviously got very heated there, but I apologized for implying you were an abuser. Yet, you completely deny any accountablity for the nasty things you said towards Jody and me, as well as anyone who disagreed with you. You're acting like a petulant child. This s not a DV thread. Get over it.

I checked the thread, and you did not apologize. To me or anyone else. And call me insane, but I think if someone accuses me of wanting to beat women, I have the right to be nasty in response, don't you? Of course not. I'm a man. Women are the only ones who are allowed to be over the top vicious, but if the man does anything in the response, it's his fault.

As well as anyone else who disagreed with me? Well, lujlp and I disagreed on a few minor points, but I was civil to her, despite this. I didn't say one word to whatever (the one who doesn't observe the rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation). Although she disagreed with me, I completely ignored her, as I said I would.

Very ironic point on that domestic abuse thread. You claim men have the responsibility when the woman initiates the violence with the "defensive slap." You make excuses for her escalating the confrontation, but somehow, you can be as unrepentantly vicious, ugly, hateful and level the most disgusting accusations I've ever seen on this blog, but somehow, I've got accountability for responding in kind...and you were more vicious than anyone on that thread, including me, hands down.

How does that work? Women are allowed to escalate a verbal assault to the physical level, and it's the man's fault. Women are allowed to be as positively vicious, disgusting, and despicable, but if the man even starts to give back what he's getting, it's his fault.

I've never seen this magnitude of blatant sexism so completely ignorant of itself. I have to ask, what the fuck is wrong with you?

"My question is, do you really think that if it comes to this, the mere discovery, through snooping, that suspicions were unfounded, that this relationship could, in any way, shape or form be saved???

You resort to snooping, regardless of what you find or don't find, that relationship is done!"

Didn't answer my question, I asked if you had a family. Not a shot at you if you haven't settled down yet, or not found the right woman. If you haven't, then you are speaking hypothetically. I have indeed reconciled after cheating, bad choice at the time I will say but I did, or I tired. I can tell you from experience, snooping vs cheating, not......even......close.

This is simply an idea you are arguing, not a bad one, but when family and cheating are involved, sorry, some people may not win medals for conduct such as snooping but they are indeed going to do it before going into 'zero hour'. We can bandy about all sorts of 'what if's' and 'what people should do' and 'this is the proper conduct' but when it's your @$$ on the line, s--t changes.

There are much more important issues than invading someone's privacy if possible infidelity is suspected. This is why I asked you if you had a family, if you do, forget your wife for a second and then look into your kids eyes and then drop consider dropping the A-bomb without proof. Consider it.

If you have no kids then you have no idea, anyone can say anything in any situation when they have never been there and have nothing to relate to. Even having a friend being cheated on is still different. When you are done visiting and comiserating, you can go home and leave it behing, they live it 24/7.

Been seperated? I haven't with my spouse, but as a kid my parents did, and I can tell you...it sucked, large. Not sometihng you can forget very easily, let me tell you, and I don't wish it on any one in this world. And you are going to tell me some hypothetical law philosophy about someone's privacy?

It isn't as important....period. Snooper vs Cheater. Not even close

Wow! I think the thread is getting off-topic a little. For the poor man who lost his parents, and is probably going to lose his girlfriend, my sympathy. You're going through a lot.

For the people telling this man to get over the death of his parents after six months because it's natural to lose your parents, I think that's pretty harsh. You need to consider he was watching them die for an additional six months while taking care of them. That's an another load of pain he is processing, plus, he lost both parents at once, which is not exactly typical. And if he was close to them, it doesn't matter if they are "supposed" to die first, it's still painful. Besides, he didn't say his whole life was falling apart; he said he lost interest in sex, which is only one aspect of life (albeit an important one).

LW, I think you should probably break up with your GF, not so much because she snooped (though that's bad), but more because you have a lot on your plate right now and you need to take care of yourself. Even if you feel you can regain trust in her, it sounds like you are both dealing with some bad situations (loss of job and social circle along with loss of parents) which aren't conducive to a healthy relationship. Of course, I am saying this without weighing your mutual feelings or knowing her overall character, but at least you guys need to take a break from one another. Maybe the "misery loves company" principle is in play and you guys are feeding off of each others' unhappiness. Perhaps breaking up would make your GF realize she needs to get herself together and then she'll realize how wrong she was. And if you can find a grief support group to help you, that might be good.

Patrick - I'm divided on the snoop or not issue. To be honest, at first I was totally with you and Amy on this one. I have been fortunate enough to spot the liars and cheaters from talking to them. I don't waste time proving it; I just get out. So far, I've been right about the men in every case.

But LovelySoul and Amax raise some good points for snooping, with the risk of STDs and the importance of family, which I had not considered. So I was quite interested in the debate because I like to be challenged in my views in this way.

However, Patrick, the more I read your posts, the less logical you become. For me, you lose credibility in your stance when you begin to personally attack the other respondents. Perhaps LovelySoul did unfairly malign you in a previous post. But 1) it has nothing to do with this post and you taking the time to go back and pull out quotes to try and prove how right you are and how wrong she is makes you look like a deflector who calls people names when he's afraid he might lose the argument. 2) You both seem to acknowledge that you were pretty nasty about her in that post also. You seem to justify your comments while berating hers. At best, you stooped to her level, and at worst, you think you are entitled to behave in a certain way that you don't entitle her to. I don't get it - you both apparently said some inappropriate things, so let it go. You look really out of control right now.

I agree that no-one has the right to go snooping through their partner's or anyone else's things.

The bottom line is that if you really believe that if you went through their stuff you would likely find much incriminating or compromising, then you have already satisfied yourself that you are with the wrong person. End of story. Walk away.

Also, in my experience the people who tend to be the most suspicious of others are often the very people who are the most deceptive and dishonest in their own lives. That is, they judge others by their own standards and assume everyone else is as untrustworthy as they are.

Meg: But 1) it has nothing to do with this post and you taking the time to go back and pull out quotes to try and prove how right you are and how wrong she is makes you look like a deflector who calls people names when he's afraid he might lose the argument.

No, I did not pull those quotes to prove I'm right. I'm already satisfied I am. I pulled those because her insistence that she is either mature or reasonable, in light of her conduct on that thread, is laugh out loud hysterical.

"Oh, boo-hoo-hoo...I'm being as sweet as candy and Patrick is being so mean to me! Why is he victimizing me? I'm so oppressed!"

She has absolutely zero moral perch to chide others for being nasty. None. And I found her response rather entertaining. First she claimed she apologized, which she did not. Second, she tries to claim that I was nasty as she was. Not by half, and I was provoked.

She doesn't take responsibility for it, and still won't. She minimizes her complicity and exaggerates everyone else's. Every rationalization in the world, but the correct one. She wasn't just out of line. She was way out of line. She revealed enough about herself to prove that there are serious issues in her life, not the least of which is an immense contempt for men. If she was the "lovelysoul" that she seems to think she is, she would have acknowledged, in light of her truly disgusting conduct, that she's got some major league problems.

Amax writes: There are much more important issues than invading someone's privacy if possible infidelity is suspected. This is why I asked you if you had a family, if you do, forget your wife for a second and then look into your kids eyes and then drop consider dropping the A-bomb without proof. Consider it.

Amax, spare us the drama. The way you describe it, everything is ginger-peachy in that relationship, the kids are happy, but she's about to ruin their lives over unspecified doubts.

If you're ready to resort to something like that, more likely the relationship is about to go the way of the Hesperus anyway. I keep saying, you resort to this over your suspicions, regardless of what you find, the relationship is already done. You're convinced that your partner is not trustworthy, and you've proven beyond all doubt that you aren't.

Amax writes: As for the logical explanation, read a case once where a woman had her husband followed by a PI. He was being secretive, working late and misdirecting her when she asked him what was going on. The PI gave her his results.....her husband was building her a cottage for their anniversary.

That case gives me the creeps. Here she is, going behind his back, sinking their money into paying a private investigator to have her supposedly philandering husband followed. False alarm, turns out, and there was nothing even remotely inappropriate in his conduct...now, what do we do about her? Following the rules of "innocent until proven guilty," he's established he's trustworthy, and she's already proven that she isn't.

She better keep that little lapse in judgment to herself. At least until she gets the new cottage, I mean, so she'll have a place to move after the divorce.

After all, she must feel pretty guilty, with good reason. She had far too little reason to do what she did, but she committed a relationship-violating breach of trust. I wonder what she'll do? Confess? Of course. She probably feels terrible about it, especially as she puts on the "Oh, I'm so surprised!" act when she gets the new cottage. "Oh, you're just the best husband in the world!" Yeah, right. But I'm sure she'll just unload her guilty conscience by telling him everything, making her feel better for the confession and making him feel like total shit.

Boy, I bet she felt pretty good about herself after that. Imagine what must have gone through her mind the next time he called home announcing he was going to be late again.

I truly have no sympathy for her whatsoever, and I feel very sorry for him. Making a cottage for his wife, who clearly does not deserve the effort he's putting into her happiness. Surely there was more to his suspicious conduct that might have suggested that he was not on the up and up. Did the sex life suddenly go down the tubes? Any strange fragrances lingering on him? Was he distant, less affectionate than normal, etc.? In light of what he was actually doing, I'm guessing not.

I Googled "signs your mate is cheating," and there must be thousands of sites listing the tell-tale signs. Obviously, she didn't bother to look at any of them.

Wow, this has got a bit heated. I'm already on record as saying that lovelysoul has a point but that it should be treated as an absolute last resort. To tell you the truth, the idea of someone snooping on me gives me the creeps, and I hope I would never want to do it to someone else. I have been cheated on, though that pretty much fell into the category of "there's none so blind that won't see", so not really applicable here, and I was being an asshole at the time so when I found out for sure years later I couldn't blame her. I've had absolute trust in most of my partners, and they in me - even when I screwed up my last relationship by accidentally falling in love with a female friend (yeah, yeah, everyone pile on to that one - I didn't even know myself until it was too late and I have lots of purely platonic female friends, so it seemed ok), when my ex was worried she asked me outright if I was sleeping with my friend, I immediately said no (with eye contact, the sincere look!), and she believed me. It was true - I wouldn't even pursue the relationship until my gf moved out which for various complicated reasons was a few months later - and yes I was wrong, my friend wasn't interested. The point was my gf did trust my word, my actions (spending too much time with someone I was obviously attracted to) were worrying her but she knew I wouldn't or rather couldn't lie to her face.

But here's the problem - some cheaters lie, and do it well, and manipulate you, and blame you for relationship problems. These "tell-tale signs of cheaters" things always make me laugh, yes sometimes that works but the really smooth ones live completely separate lives. I've seen it done, and been put in the position of having to decide whether to tell their partner/my friend. It's all very well to say wait for the right person to come along that you can trust but there are some evil people out there, you can never be 100% sure. Is it something you should do at the first hint of suspicion? No, of course not, but I don't think it's right to entirely rule it out.

In the end, everyone has to protect themselves, and everyone snoops a little bit in some way or another in their lives - whether it's as innocent as asking their friends about them or what they did last night or what their previous partners and relationships were like, or as serious as violating their privacy via phones/computers/PIs. It's something that has to be weighed up given the seriousness of what you're doing - and you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions, which could be alienating an innocent partner. Forgiveness is possible, if you're wrong you can throw yourself on the mercy of the court (metaphorically) - one-time cheaters do this all the time (the impulse guys/girls who regret it and blurt it out I mean) and although some people see this in very black and white, once a cheat always a cheat terms, it does happen that people fix a relationship after an affair. How is this any different?

Having said all that - I still think that in this case the gf wasn't justified, he was/is depressed, not going out and living it up. Does she think that someone who has a bit on the side responds by curling up in grief? If he had an extra sparkle in his eye not put there by her maybe she would have had a point, but not here.

Patrick, I did say that I was wrong to imply you were an abuser, since, obviously, I don't know (or something to that effect). It doesn't surprise me that you can't find the quote because nothing would satisfy you now. You are raging, which, quite honestly, is what prompted my response in the first place. I think your comments pretty well speak for themselves. But this is not the thread to rehash all this. Please accept my apology for the last thread, and let's move on. It's not fair to those who want to discuss this topic.

The bottom line here is that, although snooping is a last resort when one legitimately senses they are not getting a straight answer, it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Health and safety trumps privacy concerns, in my opinion.

Although anecdotal, a gay friend of mine has told me that he attends sex parties, and he said, "You cannot believe the number of MARRIED men who are gay or bisexual in this town."

Hopefully, some of their wives have developed enough suspicion to snoop. Probably a quick search of internet history would clue them in to the fact that their spouse isn't as straight as they believe, and alert them to the health dangers they're being exposed to.

But I was clueless about a lot of my ex's cheating, at least in the beginning. He was a master at turning things around on me ("you're paranoid and insecure!"), and he could lie so convincingly he would even cry.

When my son was a baby, my ex slept with his nanny. This young girl was acting strangely. I'd catch her crying for no reason, or she'd be slamming doors. I thought she was just being emotional. When I'd ask what's wrong, she'd say she was having "boyfriend troubles".

Only later did I discover that she was madly, obsessively in love with my husband and had felt rejected by him (as he'd moved on to another). She was practically suicidal - or maybe homicidal - and here she was IN MY HOME CARING FOR MY CHILD.

She never said a word to me. She could have, but she kept it all secret to the day she left.

I shudder to think what danger my son had been in, and I never would've put him in that danger had there been a way for me to find out what was happening.

So, health and safety trumps privacy. I agree with others who have said that this doesn't apply so much with bf/gf relationships, as it's easier to leave if you don't feel comfortable for any reason, true or not. But married couples, especially with families, have more at stake. They need PROOF before they can move forward.

If you're not getting a straight story - if things don't quite add up - then you owe it to yourself and your children to look around a bit more, dig a little deeper. What you discover can literally save your life.

Start with non-obtrusive means - ask your friends (most of them know or suspect but they WON'T tell you unless directly asked). Ask his/her friends (one of those finally told me). But don't just sit around thinking I can't do anything because it's "wrong". Being cheated on is wrong. Cheaters often get away with it because they rely on the "politeness" of their partners not to check. Empower yourself to take action even if that means snooping.

No, dear. Raging is what you did to every man who dared suggest you were wrong. Again, miraculously, the women who disagreed with you were spared. The soi-disant raging did not prompt your vicious attacks on me and on the other men in that thread. Something else did. And you know exactly what it was.

And by the way, you did not apologize just now. Ironically, what you call an apology closely resembles those of the abusers you claim to abhor. "Oh, I'm sorry I beat you, honey. But you made me so angry."

What's wrong with that apology? The second sentence negated the first. An apology does not attempt to justify itself. It accepts responsibility for wrongs committed, not trying to blame someone else.

Regarding your justification for snooping, so because you're clueless and can't see the signs in front of your face, that justifies snooping? No, it doesn't.

Cheaters get away with it not because their partners don't snoop. They get away with it because their partners are in denial, just like you were.

And if you're not getting a story straight, you owe to yourself and your children to talk to your partner and express your concerns and give them a chance to respond. If you don't like the answers, then you owe it to yourself and your children to get the hell out of Dodge.

"But...but...but...it's so much easier just to rummage through someone's belongings like a common thief than get into all that icky confrontation stuff. I just HATE that!"

Snooping is not empowering. It's craven. And I don't suppose it's ever occurred to any of the pro-snoop squad that just because you've justified yourself into an invasion of privacy, even if your partner is guilty, you're not guaranteed to find anything.

To say nothing of your prospects of a future relationship. No self-respecting human being would become involved with someone who candidly admits to snooping, no matter what justification she thinks she has. They would just as soon not get involved with someone who thinks they have the right to plow through someone's personal stuff. The only relationships in your future are those who think like you do. Do you really want those kinds of people in your life?

And the point I keep making and you would like to keep on denying...snooping's illegal! Is there a word you do not understand in this sentence? In advocating snooping, you are advocating breaking the law. You cannot take your husbands computer, open up his files and check out his history. You do and he'll get the kids because you'll be too busy keeping appointments with your parole officer, or at least made to look like a base thug in court. There is no legal justification for snooping. Not a single thing anyone has postulated will stand up in court.

It's pretty convenient, by the way, how these anecdotes of yours to justify these bizarre stances you have on issues keep coming up with rabbit out of the hat convenience. I wouldn't keep up this tactic. I suspect even some of your supporters will eventually get suspicious.

Patrick, really, are you going to keep doing this in every thread? You know, we debate here, and sometimes, the debates get heated and things are said too harshly. I've been insulted by others here, but part of maturity is the ability to get over being insulted. Rarely does anyone carry it from thread to thread like this. There are people here who generally disagree with me, like Lujlp (who I believe is a male, not female - if I'm wrong, sorry, Luj), but we've found common ground in other threads.

I'm truly sorry I insulted you. I apologize sincerely. Please be big enough to accept that, and move on.

lovelysoul writes: I'm truly sorry I insulted you. I apologize sincerely. Please be big enough to accept that, and move on.

Nicely done. No rationalizations, no justifications, which is exactly what an apology should be.

Apology accepted.

Can we look at this clinically? A spouse or partner is a cheater, or they are not. Their mate is suspicious or they are not.

1. Not a cheater + not suspicious = Happy trusting couple.

2. Cheater + not suspicious = someone chose poorly, and may not ever know that (ie: taken for a ride)

3. Not a cheater + suspicious = snooper who doesn't find evidence, but probably poisoned the relationship

4. Cheater + suspicious = Someone chose poorly, and a snooper who finds evidence.

There are three outcomes here that are bad news. Two of them (#3 & #4) involve one of the pair being suspicious. It's been suggested that this is OK because then the suspicious party will then find evidence that they've been cheated on and will feel justified in leaving.

What I would submit is that if you are suspicious, there are *no* good outcomes at all. And if you decide that that #2 above is reason to be suspicious, well, check on the outcomes 3 and 4. No better.

Lovelysoul writes "If your gut and common sense tells you that you're being lied to, despite your partner's denials, inconsistent alibis, and cover stories, then checking e-mail and belongings can be appropriate."

Nope - I disagree.

If you find the evidence - sure - now you can leave with a clear conscious, I suppose. But if you *don't* find evidence, then what? Your suspicions will be put to rest? Somehow, I doubt it, and then we have #3 above, and a poisoned relationship.

Amy was dead on correct on this issue: The only way out is to find a good mate, and trust them.

Period.

Everyone wants to find a good mate, and usually everyone wants to be a good mate. Yeah, some people "choose poorly", but that's not always how it happens. Sometimes, life changes good people. Is that so hard to accept?

Some good, previously honorable people hit middle-age and, feeling old and fearing mortality, may do things they never contemplated before, such as cheating.

My parents were married 45 years before they got divorced. My dad was always a good, decent, hardworking, law-abiding, faithful man...for 30+ years at least. Then, my teenage brother was killed in a car accident. My dad, wracked with grief, guilt, anger, and remorse, ran into an old flame of his from elementary school, and, in a totally uncharacteristic move, began an affair with her, which lead to the end of his marriage.

I suspect he just felt like starting over. Like if he changed partners it would somehow reverse the horrible events that had occurred. Who knows?

But how is that my mother's "poor choice"? Am I really going to say to her, "Well, you obviously chose poorly. Even though you had a working marriage for 30+ years, YOU SHOULD'VE KNOWN THIS WOULD HAPPEN. You should've seen the signs. Maybe you could've even predicted your son would be killed...or 9/11...or the stock market crash.

Where does this blame game end? I think it's such an oversimplification to believe that everything bad in life results from someone's poor choice, and if only one makes good choices, they can avoid any painful occurrences, such as cheating.

As scary as it is to accept, sometimes there AREN'T signs. We're not traveling down some highway of life with roadsigns saying, "Mid-life crisis Ahead" or "Loss and Grief around the Bend."

People can make the best, most rational choice of mate and still see that mate change radically due to events and circumstances beyond their control.

It's comforting - but completely untrue - to believe that wise decision-making alone is going to provide protection from life's hurts and painful outcomes. It certainly minimizes risk, but it doesn't wipe it out entirely.

Also, the whole "make good decisions and nobody gets hurt" approach doesn't account for people who did, in fact, make a poor decision already.

Yes, I probably could have avoided a world of misery had I chosen well the first time. But I didn't. And I can't go back in time and do it over, so the best I could do at the time was make sure what was happening was what I thought was happening, correct the situation (get a divorce) and move on. Had I not snooped, I'd probably still be married to my ex, letting him convince me I was crazy and wondering what he was really doing after work.

Lovely writes, "It's comforting - but completely untrue - to believe that wise decision-making alone is going to provide protection from life's hurts and painful outcomes. It certainly minimizes risk, but it doesn't wipe it out entirely."

True that.

"Sometimes, life changes good people. Is that so hard to accept?"

Nope. Pretty easy actually (to accept) 'cause I see it all the time. More with some folks than others though.

I would assert though, that building up suspicions, and snooping through personal belongings for evidence of bad behavior, doesn't do anything to help wipe out this 'risk' either. The risk remains, regardless.

But if a person has resorted to this kind of personal invasion in an attempt to reduce or eliminate this risk, they give up an important part of themselves in the process. The wife who employed the PI to look for evidence of her spouse's cheating, only to find out that he was instead preparing a wonderful gift (a cottage) for their anniversary, could probably tell you all about that.

And what if she *had* found out he was cheating? She only would have had confirmed what she already knew. And again has compromised her own integrity in the process.

I know that looking for a quality person, with solid integrity, doesn't remove the risk we run when we place our heart in that person's hands. Such was never my intention to state, or imply.

It's simply the only way to live, and have any real chance of happiness.

Amen, Monica. I wanted to add that someone trying to make you believe you're crazy or paranoid is a HUGE warning sign of cheating. A partner who isn't cheating will likely respond differently. They would gently, lovingly try to show you that your suspicions are unfounded. But if a partner responds by switching accusations around on you - so that the issue becomes your insecurity or doubts, rather than their inconsistent or inappropriate behavior, that's just a way to shift focus.

I had so many confrontations with my ex, and he would use everything in the book to convince me it was all in my head. He'd even use that I'd been teased in high school by some girls to suggest that I was obviously "insecure" and imagining things. I really needed to "deal with" my insecurities, he claimed. It often worked. I'd come away feeling like I was the one with the problem for not trusting him.

Eventually, I understood he was the insecure one -constantly needing affirmation from other women. But it wasn't actually until I knew for sure that he WAS cheating that I could see that.

"And what if she *had* found out he was cheating? She only would have had confirmed what she already knew. And again has compromised her own integrity in the process."

But we didn't know. That's what Monica and I are saying, at least. When a cheater turns it around and claims you're the one with the issue - that you're only imagining things and that their actions are appropriate - it can get really blurry. There were times I thought I was going crazy.

He'd claim he was "just friends" with a woman and nothing was happening, and that only my vile insecurities made me think so. Couldn't I see a man and woman could just be friends? Why did I have ruin his "friendships" with my suspicions?

Gosh, it was awful. But I didn't snoop. Finally, one of his female "friends" took pity on me and told me everything. Even then, he denied and denied. He called her a liar and accused her of trying to break us up because she wanted him for herself. I almost waivered a bit on that one, because it made some sense - after all, she had fucked him too. But I stood firm and said I KNEW it was true - that had other proof (I didn't really). Finally, then, he admitted everything.

But that was after almost 2 years of telling me I was crazy. I'm very grateful to that woman for having the courage to tell me the truth.

Yeah. Awful is right.

There is a concept that I see discussed very rarely, and I think it has bearing on this thread. Everybody talks about trust. All the babbling from Lovely's ex serves as a great example. Most of what he was saying boils down to "Why don't you trust me?" and managing to turn everything around and make it your fault. Yeah - I get it.

However, he missed an important idea - or perhaps it was just inconvenient for him to consider this. If one person is asked to trust, it is contingent upon the one making the request to not put that trust to the test.

A truly loving person would not place themselves in a circumstance that puts a partner's trust to the test. That's *my* half of the bargain when I ask my partner to trust me. Absent that balancing concept, saying 'why don't you trust me?' is a HUGE red flag, and a pretty good indicator that someone has something to hide.

You are so right, railmeat. That is a great point and one I eventually came to - he had an obligation not to even appear suspicious.

It's sort of like how an attorney needs an escrow account. He wouldn't say, "Hey, why don't you just trust me to put it in my checking account?" Sure, you want to trust your attorney, but it's his responsibility to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Otherwise, his behavor is unethical. Spouses have the same obligation to each other.

We seem to have gone down a very scary rabbithole of cheaters who are expert at manipulating the story so that they turn their spouse's head around so much the spouse doesn't know whether she's coming or going. (Our examples here have included women with cheating husbands, so I'm going with that - please consider my attitudes gender neutral).

So we've got this woman doubting her own suspicions and - here's the important part - she seems so isolated she's not able to get a reality check. She doesn't know whether she's coming or going so she feels she has to get proof, whatever the cost. It's the only way to keep her sanity.

Where is a support system, one where the girlfriends say 'sister what he's saying stinks from here to eternity'. I don't hear these women chewing over the situation with therapists/family/friends. I hear their sense of self-questioning isolation.

Why are these women so unable to get a reality check? It seems to me that this taps into something The Monogamy Myth discusses: infidelity is shameful and not discussed. Women with unfaithful husbands (or husbands they think are unfaithful) don't confide these suspicions. It's taboo. This stops the wife from getting a reality check and enables her husband to turn the world topsy-turvy.

Do you think this is fair comment?

Yes, I do, AntoniaB, except that I would add, in my case, that my ex was very wealthy, so, unfortunately, money played a big part. Looking back, I was very isolated because even the women I thought were my friends - who should've told me - secretly wanted to replace me. I didn't have any real friends.

One of my gfs, for instance, had seen him with the nanny, but she only admitted this after I knew the truth. Later, I found out that she had come on to my husband, all the while pretending to be my friend. Sadly, when money is involved, people will sell their soul. Every woman thinks, "I'll be the one to change him. He does that to her, but he won't do that to me."

I've never been famous, but I can imagine it. Everyone selling you out for money. That's what my life seemed like there for awhile.

But, regardless of money, most people just don't want to get involved. That was a big shock to me. I always assumed, especially in a small town, that someone would TELL me. That was partly why I even kept believing him because I thought, if my suspicions were true, surely someone would confirm them. But, no. Most people - even your best friends - will stay quiet. I learned that a scorned lover was more likely to tell you the truth than your best friend.

I have a handful of people I trust today, and it was a long time coming. But I don't think I'm that unique. People simply don't want to be the ones to tell you such an ugly truth, so don't rely on that.

When I became aware of my ex-husband's cheating, we had just moved to a new state. Nobody knew either of us. I had a strong network of friends -- hundreds of miles away. Nobody knew him, nobody knew me, so nobody was going to let me know what was going on. None of my old friends liked him (which should have been a clue), but no one knew enough to tell me what was going on.

However, even if someone had told me, I would have needed solid proof before filing for divorce. I would not have taken a friend's word for it that the person I had vowed to spend my life with was cheating unless I'd seen it with my own eyes -- or found the chat logs of him pretending to be a lesbian smoker, having "sexy time" with other lesbian smokers. That was one of his things.

My best friend hated him from day 1. My other friends thought he was OK until they got to know him. My mother stayed neutral until he tried to choke me on the stairs. People assume its none of their business.

Cheaters forego their right to privacy. They have no defense.

I think everyone agrees that the LW's girlfriend did not have grounds to snoop. His lack of desire is easily explained by his grief. Plus, they aren't married and don't have any kids. If she feels, in her gut, that she just can't trust him, she can leave.

Rozita: Cheaters forego their right to privacy.

Really? What law are you quoting?

Besides, that's a circular argument. If you can't know that a person is cheating unless you snoop, then you can't snoop because you don't know if they're cheating, hence lost their right to privacy.

And let's not call snooping "empowering." Would you call stealing empowering? Because that's basically what you've done. You've unlawfully deprived a person of his privacy.

Snooping is a dishonest and unethical act, done behind someone's back, without their consent, and something you have no right to do.

You have the right to ask if he's cheating, you also have the right to ask if you can access his stuff for your own peace of mind, and base your decisions based upon his answers. And if he says no, you can't go through his belongings, you have every right to assume guilt and leave. (However, that will not stand up in a court of law as proof of infidelity.) But without permission, you have no right to do that sort of thing. And if you're caught doing so, I would support his right to press charges (I certainly would), and kick your ass to the curb.

Sorry, I don't have autoremember on this site. I can't believe I did this, but the last long comment signed by Rozita is actually mine.

That's pretty funny.

I'm confused. Are there two Rozitas here?

See my previous post, Cousin Dave. I absent-mindedly typed Rozita into the name space. The most recent "Rozita" is me.

Dude, just get on anti-depressants already, life's too short, trust me --- been through similar stuff. Your parents, the stress of moving, the stress of a relationship in trouble - it's six months - I doubt you're so much "in mourning" as you are "in depression", that's a lot of crap for anyone to handle. It's not worth spending one extra day like that.

"Ironically, your girlfriend went all Nancy Drew on you, but you ended up making the disturbing discovery -- that you're with a woman who doesn't get you, doesn't appreciate you, and probably never loved you like you thought she did."

Yup, I think Amy is spot on. I've learned the hard way that five years of good times don't truly test a relationship as much as one month of bad times.

Thank you, Amy. I had "Rozita" on the brain when I was filling out the blank, reminding myself it was "Rozita, with a 'z' not an 's'" and I just typed it right out instead of my own name.

Sorry if I inconvenienced you, darlin'. Just finished the section on the progressive vandals on your website. Strangely, I fell honored. They singled us out as your "sack o' shit commenters." Nice to know we loyal Alkaloids (Godless Rose's term for Amy Alkon fans) have made an impression on the bigoted fuckheads.

Lobster writes: Dude, just get on anti-depressants already, life's too short, trust me --- been through similar stuff. Your parents, the stress of moving, the stress of a relationship in trouble - it's six months - I doubt you're so much "in mourning" as you are "in depression", that's a lot of crap for anyone to handle. It's not worth spending one extra day like that.

I think you judge him too harshly. First, he didn't lose one parent. He lost both. Second, he was caring for them for six months prior to their deaths, basically watching them disintegrate before his eyes. I don't know what specifically their illness was, but as one who has been a live in caregiver, I can tell you there's a huge vacant spot in your day when they pass on. Suddenly, what was basically a full time job, is gone. The emotional and physical investment in providing round the clock care pretty much becomes the sum total of your being. And he was doing this for six months, far more than sufficient time to establish this as routine. Then when it's gone, the loss is devastating, which would be the case even if they hadn't been his parents. Add to that the self-absorbed bitch who could have supported and aided him during his recovery probably prolonged it.

Personally, I give the dude a lot of credit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his perceptions, in spite of the fact that he's in mourning. He says he feels violated, and he's justified in that. And he doesn't see how he can trust his girlfriend again. I wouldn't either. there's no reason on earth he should trust this girlfriend again. He also mentions that he doesn't feel he could respect her. That's also completely understandable. It doesn't take the empathy of a Gandhi to understand what this guy's going through, but his ice-queen of a girlfriend can't seem to look past herself.

In Amy's place I might have answered, in part, "You don't need advice from me, or anyone else. You need to act on what you know. Your feelings toward your girlfriend are spot-on."

It's the preponderance of apparent lies that give one the right to snoop. If your health and safety - or your children's health and safety - is at risk, you must find out the truth.

For instance, if you suspect your partner may be a pedophile, you better snoop. Your child's welfare is at stake, and, as everyone typically argues here, you shouldn't go into court and get a protective order based on your word alone. You need to be sure before making such a serious charge, especially if it's against your child's other parent.

In the case of a spouse who suspects cheating, health and safety trumps privacy concerns because of the risk of STDs.

My friend, for instance, did not immediately snoop. She innocently discovered a cheating website on her husbands computer. He "explained" that. Then, his work routine changed, and he was suddenly traveling to different parts of the state. He "explained" that too. Then, there was the work-related conferences. They usually attended those together, to make a little getaway, but with the last one, he insisted she'd be bored because he'd be "so busy", so she should stay home.

Three very suspiscious red flags. Sure, he might've secretly been building her a cottage (with help from Ashleymadison.com women - free labor!), but that is probably the last thing that would come to any wife's mind.

His cheating could've gone on for years, with him explaining everything away when asked, and she would've been at great physical risk. She did the right thing by snooping. Her health and safety comes before his right to privacy. He violated HER right to health and safety FIRST.

This no-snoop rule is a cheater's and pedophile's dream. They depend on your politeness and fear of violating their privacy to violate you and your family.

The Goddess writes: Where she went wrong is in doing this post-hoc investigation -- marrying the guy and reproducing with him without knowing his character. He didn't become a person who cheats -- he is a person who cheats. People's character is revealed in small ways; even the cleverest con will reveal who they are. The thing is, most people would rather believe in love (or "love") than look closely at who they're with. Neediness is the biggest stumbling block to seeing who you're getting together with.

Just to add what you said, Amy, I do not trust the ethics of a person who feels they have a "right" to snoop, based on the self-righteous declaration that "My right to health and my personal safety takes priority over your right to privacy." They're pompously declaring their right to be unethical, and no amount of bluster, all the hot air in the world, will give them that right.

You don't need to invade someone's privacy to protect your health and safety. Just leaving will be sufficient. Right or wrong, your safety against any future infections from STDs are assured. Tough to live without with the 100% certainty? You'll manage with the 90% you have. Consider it your lesson in the school of hard knocks. Thus your "right to health and safety" is a false dilemma. Besides, with that level of uncertainty, if you've already attempted communication and gotten nowhere, you should already be gone.

But, let's say a person did make a mistake. She didn't become a somebody before she became a "somebody's wife," the red flags are there, she's suspicious and uncomfortable, he's being evasive...so what does she do? Compound her mistakes with another one?

Nope. She sits down with him directly and explains what her concerns are, why she has them, and that it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust him. She may ask, if she cares to, permission to see his computer, belongings whatever, but be prepared to hear "no."

And when that happens, she can walk. That's empowerment. The ability to make a decision based on what she knows, deciding what she can and can't live with, and act on it. Not sneaking around behind their back and breaking into someone else's belongings. Criminal acts are not empowering. All snooping would do is prove that she's just as low and underhanded as he is. If he is.

I do a great deal of writing on my computer. And while I don't have anything illegal or anything that would cause my S.O. to suspect me of infidelity, my jottings and thoughts as I've written them are for my eyes only. Anyone who invades my computer, anyone at all, does so at the risk of my extreme displeasure. Distrust of my fidelity is grounds for my S.O. to leave. But if I were to catch him breaking into my computer, our breakup will be accomplished while he's behind bars. I have never said this to him, of course, since I don't need to express my need for privacy in threats, but he understands I value my privacy, and he's never given me any reason to believe he would violate it. And I, in turn, respect his boundaries.

I studied laws in Criminal Justice. Also, business law for the CPA exam. Then, for 10 years I did legal research.

One thing that has been emphasized heavily is nothing is a crime unless there is an actual punishment for it.

That is why if you look at your state criminal codes, you quickly see that all crimes listed have a reference to a punishment level. The way it is worded will differ from state to state.

You will not see a statement that rape or murder are illegal, with no punishment listed.

So, those telling us how illegal it is to snoop on your bf/gf or spouse, refer us to anything which actually shows someone who has been jailed or fined for doing it, and I will stipulate you are correct. Anyone?

I think it was this week in the news that a woman snooped in her husband's computer and found something disgusting, I can't remember for sure, so it must have been child porn. He got busted big time, and SHE DID NOT. And, I bet he does not get the charges tossed out because she 'illegally' snooped in his computer.

I do think in a good relationship one should not be snooping. But, to put up total privacy no matter the justification as some sort of stone tablet from the top of the mountain is a bit too much.

I can speak to this topic. Around 25 or 30 years ago, my wife now of 34 years acted strange one summer. Really strange. We still did the husband/wife stuff, but she acted as if she were far away and distracted while we did it.

I had read that if your spouse is having an affair you will know. And, her behavior, never before nor after this summer, sure acted to me like she was having an affair.

After some thought, I realized her sin was not my sin. She has to live with her own sins. And, I also knew if I investigated and found out she was having an affair, she would NATURALLY get the kids, and I worried about their fate being raised with no father.

So, I decided to let things work out. Eventually, she came back, at least sort of.

Eventually, I sorted out who it would have been if it were true. A 'bad boy', divorced several times, a band member. And, my theory is he broke it off by telling her she had a good marriage and kids and so they better stop. The minute he got bored with it, of course.

I can't say I have never had bad thoughts about it, but I can say they have not been signficant part of my life or our marriage. If she is guilty, she knows it and she has to live with it.

I do consider her to be morally weaker, blow your stacks on that, it is true.

Many of you women assume a woman MUST divorce her husband if he strays. It is a given to you, like not ever snooping no matter what. I think you have watched too many soaps.

And, your attempt to justify it all, because he might give you AIDS, that is more like your ego cannot stand the thought your man did wahoo with another woman and you are digging for another excuse.

This is also more proof that most women do not believe women are morally superior to men as they claim, but believe men are morally superior.

The divorce courts in most states have ruled a woman's adultery does not change the fact she gets the kids; the car; the house; and most of her husband's money, as if she were the injured party. Her private life is not an issue for the court.

Yet, you view adultery by men as the end of your marriage, though clearly if female adultery is her private matter, then it is also his. I doubt many of you are really going to understand what I am saying here, right?

Done deal. And it's not state law. It's federal.

Subsection (a)(2)(C) of 18 U.S.C §1030 states that one has committed a crime if he “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;” In this case, any computer that accesses the internet is involved in interstate communication. Punishment is up to 10 years for a first offense.

Subsection (a)(2)(C) of 18 U.S.C §2510 states that one has committed a crime if he “intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;” This is the whole purpose of the software in most cases. There are exemptions when the interceptor is a party to the communication or when one of the parties has given consent to the interception. This is why you see such wordy logon screens at corporations letting you know that you are consenting to monitoring. Punishment is up to 5 years for a first offense.

Subsection (a)(2)(C) of 18 U.S.C §2701 states that one has committed a crime if he “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided… and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system” This portion refers to things like logging into someone’s webmail account and reading or deleting emails; or signing on to an instant messenger network as someone else and receiving saved Ims. Punishment is up to 1 year for a first offense.

As for snooping into someone's stuff resulting in punishment...You do know who Paris Hilton is, right?

I'm having a little trouble accepting your credentials. For one thing, it took me less than eight minutes to find all this.

Secondly, your unreferenced-story-that-we're supposed-to-take-at-face-value-and-God-knows-why-you-expect-us-to doesn't stipulate whether or not she previously was granted access to his computer.

Thirdly, you used the word "stipulate" incorrectly. Not one definition, not even the legal definition, stipulates that "stipulate" as a synonym for "concede."

The rest of your post is a little bizarre, but you did make one point I agree with.

You said, And, your attempt to justify it all, because he might give you AIDS, that is more like your ego cannot stand the thought your man did wahoo with another woman and you are digging for another excuse.

True that. That's exactly what they're doing. Trying to justify unethical behavior.

Yes, it would be best if everyone chose well, but the reality is that many people don't. During courtship, some people appear much better than they really are, or they're hiding deep dark secrets, or they change during the course of the relationship.

For instance, it's not at all uncommon for couples to marry very young, when perhaps one of them is secretly unsure of their sexuality, and he/she may be a very good person - ethical, caring, etc, just like Greg, and just like my bf -but later, they may realize that they aren't straight. You'd hope they'd come clean, but, because of religious and family pressures, many do not. They choose to live a secret life. This isn't the partner's fault for choosing poorly.

The strongest argument for snooping is when someone suspects child molestation. Okay, okay, they should've chosen better. Yet, that assessment and implication of blame does no one any good when actually confronting that very real situation. NOW, in real time, is it really more ethical to suggest that a partner ignore those suspicions or head straight to divorce court, possibly needlessly breaking up a family, because they can't violate privacy? That's very bad advice.

If you confront the possible molestor, or charge molestation, they will have time to clear all evidence from their computer. Almost all child molestors have kiddie porn on their computer and/or hidden in their closets. So, you can't do that.

You go to the computer or the closet. You confirm your suspicions (or hopefully not). If you do find kiddie porn, then you call the police, so they can take the evidence and protect your children.

That is the most sound and helpful advice that can be offered. To tell a parent to merely leave without confirming their suspicions because they can't ever snoop has far-reaching and potentially negative implications for the whole family. Without proof, that molestor will likely still get visitation of those children and continue to molest them.

So, it's really bad advice. You can't just say "you should've chosen better, too bad." People in these situations need practical advice, not judgement. Trust me, they feel awful enough, but they need to know what to do to protect themselves and their family. Snooping is warranted in certain situations.

Patrick, what Irlandes was saying is that no one is going to prosecute that "crime" - especially if proof of wrongdoing is found. If you find kiddie porn on your partner's computer, no judge in this country is going to prosecute you for violating privacy, Nor, I suspect, would a judge prosecute if you found your partner on "Ashleymadison.com".

Those laws may be on the books, but, just like sodomy laws, they're probably rarely used on couples. Permission is implied if you're sharing the same space and jointly paying the internet bill. I imagine those laws exist for corporate spying.

I just love hearing everyone's credentials, by the way. Some days after reading certain message boards, I feel like I need to get my hip-high waders out.

I remember once I used to work in a grocery store, and I was cleaning my work station at the meat department counter when a gentlemen who looked like he just walked out of a cardboard box beckoned to me with his index finger. I approached, and without a word, he did that same crook of the finger, indicating that I was to follow. He took me to our Thanksgiving Turkey display and pointed to the sign.

"That sign says turkeys are 49 cents each."

I smiled. "That's a mistake. They're 49 cents a pound."

"You have to give a turkey for 49 cents, otherwise it's illegal advertising." That's what he called it. Illegal advertising.

I thought he was putting me on. "I'll have the signs fixed at once," as I started to take the paper sign out of the plastic slot. And he grabbed my wrist...

"Don't touch that sign!" he ordered.

"Let go of me at once, sir," I growled. Which he did.

"I want to talk to a manager," he declared.

"Oh, you're so going to talk to a manager," I assured him, in a way that I can only describe as menacing pleasantness.

After I told the manager what happened, he came with me at once.

"He took the sign away," the man said, pointing a finger at me. Then repeated his bid for a 25lb turkey for 49 cents.

The manager that the sign was a mistake and pointed out that each turkey had already been weighed and the price tags showed the price by weight. The man repeated his illegal advertising claims and said that we were breaking the law.

I said that he was breaking the law by putting his hands on me, which is battery.

"Don't try it!" he said ominously. "I worked in criminal justice for 34 years." And yet he still hasn't saved up enough to buy a bathtub.

"Then you know what I said is true," I replied.

He tried to explain that he only did it to prevent me from taking the sign away. His next mistake: he just admitted to the stock manager that he put his hands on me. With that, he was ordered to leave. The manager also later claimed to me that he smelled alcohol on the man's breath. Not surprised.

I just love all these credentials and stories and stuff that always seem to arise so conveniently. Some people just seem to have a credential for everything!

lovelysoul writes: The strongest argument for snooping is when someone suspects child molestation.

Wrong again. You call the police. They will get a search warrant from a judge and they will do the investigation.

Yeah, after he clears his harddrive, and dumps his nudie photos. Don't you see pedophiles rely on this kind of idiotic interpretation of ethics?

Plus, as many of the male rights activists here will tell you, if unfounded, calling the cops and charging molestation ruins a man's reputation. Just the allegation can destroy lives. You better be sure.

But other than walking in on the molestation itself, or asking him to talk about it (like a pedophile will admit this), the only option is to open your eyes and snoop. Privacy be damned when your child's welfare is at stake.

Oh, so people won't be prosecuted when they go into someone else's email?

Tell that to Lawrence Mendte. That poor sap is under the impression he's being charged with a felony. You better tell him that snooping in emails will never, ever be punished. I've never heard of anyone being charged with a felony not being punished in some way, but you obviously have. HA!

From the article: Mendte is a good example of that. The well-known Philadelphia media personality was charged late last month with intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization and obtaining information in furtherance of a tortious act, a felony. He is accused of secretly accessing one work and two personal e-mail accounts of co-anchor Alycia Lane more than 500 times between March 2006 and May 2008.

In court documents, prosecutors contend that Mendte accessed private e-mail communications between Lane and others, including friends, her attorney and even some between Lane and a friend's wife. Some of the information that was accessed pertained to civil and criminal litigation that Lane was involved in.

On several occasions, Mendte allegedly shared private and legal information obtained from the stolen e-mail documents with a reporter from the Philadelphia Daily News.

Mendte, who faces five years in prison, lost his job over the situation.

You guys make this waaaaay too easy.

lovelysoul Yeah, after he clears his harddrive, and dumps his nudie photos. Don't you see pedophiles rely on this kind of idiotic interpretation of ethics?

Only if some idiot actually adviseshim that they're calling the police.

Mendte did that to a co-worker, not a romantic partner. He was trying to get her fired because he was threatened by her. You're making my point. Those laws are used for corporate or business spying, not couples.

Besides, you start seizing evidence yourself, accessing his private stuff, all he's going to do is accuse you of putting it there. And since you hacked your way into his computer, your lack of ethics and dishonesty has already been established. Whatever you find might even get thrown out because you tampered with it.

Leave investigations to the professionals. Believe it or not, they actually do have experience in busting child molesters.

Also, Mendte hacked into Lane's private e-mail and made nude photos of her PUBLIC. That jerk deserves to be prosecuted. He had no reason, other than professional jealousy, to do what he did. He tried to ruin her reputation, and I believe, he actually succeeded in getting her fired before he was found out. Expect a civil suit there too.

Wrong, lovelysoul. He accessed her private email. It was not corporate spying. I have made my point, and you insisting that I'm making your point is really pathetic. You know perfectly well that snooping is illegal. You also know now that it can be punished. You also know that snooping is more likely to ruin an investigation than help it.

Game, set and match. You lost this one...again.

They weren't a couple. It was, in fact, corporate spying. Find one case where one part of couple was prosecuted, and I will concede game, set, match.

lovelysoul: Find one case where one part of couple was prosecuted, and I will concede game, set, match.

Remember...you conceded! You yourself said it.

From the article: So, is it legal to sneak a peak at your boyfriend's e-mails? You're probably used to my answer: it depends. Angel Lee certainly knows the consequences. Mrs. Lee found herself in the middle of quite a bit of legal trouble after checking her husband's e-mails, instigated by a heated custody batter between her spouse and his ex. Judge Richard Matsen (same District Court judge who presided over the Oklahoma City case) and known for his no-nonsense demeanor said the log on and passwords were obtained without authorization and thereby sentenced her house arrest for 60 days. Ouch, two months of lock up at home sounds like a stiff penalty for snooping-that's enough to keep my eyes on my own computer.

Fine. You win. But if he'd been a child molestor, I'm sure she'd gladly spend 60 days in jail (which no judge would sentence her). And I'm sure that's a very rare case.

"So, is it legal to sneak a peak at your boyfriend's e-mails? You're probably used to my answer: it depends."

I don't know who is writing that, but I think he/she boils it down. It's NOT necessarily illegal. The ends justify the means here. If you find evidence of child molestation or cheating, then I highly doubt you'd be prosecuted. If you're just trying to "listen in" on conversations between your partner and someone else, then that might (in very rare cases) be prosecuted.

The moral here is that you need reasonable grounds to snoop, which is what I've been saying. It's not something you do just for nosiness. It's something you do to protect yourself and/or your children, as a last resort before leaving and tearing your family totally apart or possibly falsely accusing someone.

Oh, come on. I don't want you to feel bad about it. I do understand where you're coming from. You don't like absolutes. And to be honest, neither do I, in most cases. Absolutes are just begging for the exception. I just have ethical stances on certain things, I want my ethics to be inflexible.

Just to let you know, I consider you an ethical person. A little passionate about certain things.

You know, not to bring up previous threads too much, but let me say this: when someone says that they hope that I never find myself in a particular situation (implying that a front row seat to something will prove to me how wrong I am), they're assuming that I've never been in a particular situation before. They assume wrong sometimes.

Lis Wiehl, legal anaylist wrote that article. Here's the link I found this on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297859,00.html

As for someone who snooped on a computer to bust a child molestor, I would hope they wouldn't be charged. But on the other hand, I would also hope that snooping wouldn't be necessary. One call to the police and hopefully they get the warrant and come right over to seize the computer.

For my own part, I trust the wheels of justice more than I trust my own abilities to properly bust someone.

Tampering with evidence allows guilty murderers to go free, after all. Just ask Mark Fuhrman.

I bet most guys here would rather their partner commit the lesser sin of snooping than call the police and have their home raided and their computer seized. Talk about invasion of privacy! The allegation alone can ruin a guy. Snooping is bad, but falsely accusing someone is far worse, don't you think?

I once dated a guy with a very pretty 4 yr old daughter. He liked to sleep with her, curled up in his arms. I was very young then, with no kids of my own, and something about their relationship seemed "off" to me - a little too physically intimate. One night, I came in and found them sleeping entangled together, and his fly was down. I freaked out and expressed my concerns, and he told me I was overreacting.

In retrospect, I was. But what if I'd called the police? He was divorced, so the allegation alone might've impacted his visitation. At the very least, it would've been a horrible ordeal for both of them to go through.

One really needs to be reasonably certain before making an allegation like that. Calling the police should definitely be the last option.

"Yeah, after he clears his harddrive, and dumps his nudie photos. Don't you see pedophiles rely on this kind of idiotic interpretation of ethics?

Posted by: lovelysoul at November 21, 2009 6:21 PM

Oops...LS, your efforts to hide your contempt for men were seriously undermined there. "He" and "his?"

Of course. In your world, the offender is always male, right? Reading through your many posts, one will find ample sentences in support of that argument.

What was that Amy said above? "People's character is revealed in small ways; even the cleverest con will reveal who they are.

You have no business pretending to be a "guardian" ad litem LS.

Perhaps a moniker mentioning "wicked" would be more fitting?

Statistically speaking, A Male, most pedophiles are male, as are rapists. It would be absurd to use the feminine adjectives in discussing either, just to be PC. I'm realistic, not biased.

You, on the other hand, are just being ugly and hateful because I'm a female.

"All but 3% of sex offenders who committed violent crimes against children were male.
- BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991

"The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.
- Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study"

"29% of child sexual abuse offenders are relatives, 60% are acquaintances, and only 11% are strangers.
- Diana Russell, The Secret Trauma, NY:Basic Books, 1986"

Sexual abuse by females is greatly underreported. This is because there is a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of professionals to acknowledge or identify sexual abuse by females.

Research said nearly two-thirds of the claims it received about sex abuse by a female involved the child's mother.

If you don't think females are capable of committing sex offences, then you are never going to be looking for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8347589.stm

""Yeah, after he clears his harddrive, and dumps his nudie photos. Don't you see pedophiles rely on this kind of idiotic interpretation of ethics? Posted by: lovelysoul at November 21, 2009 6:21 PM

Oops...LS, your efforts to hide your contempt for men were seriously undermined there. "He" and "his?"

Of course. In your world, the offender is always male, right? Reading through your many posts, one will find ample sentences in support of that argument.

What was that Amy said above? "People's character is revealed in small ways; even the cleverest con will reveal who they are.

You have no business pretending to be a "guardian" ad litem LS.

Perhaps a moniker mentioning "wicked" would be more fitting?"

Ok. This is ridiculous. I have issues with the argument that has raged over the last hundred-or-so posts, and I'll deal with them shortly. Firstly, though, I have to pull up A Male on his absurd attack on lovelysoul for her use of the masculine pronoun.

Do you seriously expect that everyone write 'he or she'; 'his or her'; 'him or her' in every situation where a gender-neutral pronoun is most appropriate?

I wonder how you feel about the laws in your country - if you read any of them (as Patrick did - see his earlier posts about anti-snooping law), you'll find that - to my knowledge - all law is written using the masculine pronoun. It's just easier.

I think your use of Amy's quote there was perhaps a little unfortunate. You seem inclined very quickly to jump on what really was an innocent and common use of language as evidence of some kind of "wicked" character. I feel your post has somewhat backfired....

To the LW, I think you've got all the advice you need from the responses on the thread, though you may have to dig to find it. For a number of reasons, including lack of trust and respect for your partner; your partner's infidelity; your partner's lack of understanding and support; your current need for more space than you can find in a relationship; and your partner's evident need to improve her own relationship with herself, I think you should break things off with her.

I'm painfully sorry to hear of your loss. My mother died a little over two years ago when I was 23 and I still haven't got over it. I live my life and get on with things and can smile with genuine pleaure at memories of my mum. However, I know that every now and then I will find myself so overcome with the grief at losing the one person in my life who I felt understood me and loved me without reservation that I will sit quietly in a room and cry to myself for a time. I hope you manage to come to terms with your loss.

Someone earlier mentioned anti-depressants and Patrick jumped on them for being harsh. I don't think the post was meant harshly, but rather was made out of concern. I'm not necessarily advocating them, but rather just suggesting you keep the possibility open.

As to the second argument that has taken over the thread, I'm amazed it lasted so long. After about the second or third post by both lovelysoul and Patrick, everything had been said that would eventually be said. I think I agree with Patrick and Amy in this - although I would have agreed with lovelysoul before reading through the posts. I do think it's important to remember that while it's one thing to discuss something like this in a hypothetical world in a chat forum, it's quite another to actually act on your principles when it comes down to the nitty gritty. I know that while I agree with Patrick I have previously snooped on a girlfriend's personal life, many years ago. I still remember her outrage - in spite of the fact that what I found justified - to my mind - my snooping. (Actually, we're still close friends. Perhaps I owe her an apology for that!)

I think there are loose ends and flawed arguments used throughout but, in the interests of sanity, I don't think it's worth reopening the discussion. I'm just glad everything seems to have ended so amicably.

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread!

Thank you, Donald. I'm really sorry about your mom and was very moved by what you wrote about her. I hope my son feels the same way towards me. You were lucky to have such a close relationship.

@Donald

You're certainly entitled to your opinion Donald, and if you choose to believe my quote "backfired", you're entitled to that as well.
Some people simply aren't what they present themselves to be.

I stand by what I said, and based it on comments posted over a significant period of time.

I'm not the type who picks one "generalization" out of one thread for the purpose of arguing.

Contrary to her claim that I'm being "ugly and hateful" because she's female, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm simply tired of the misrepresentation of truth.

At what point does one stop accepting excuses for bad behavior? Usually after it's too late. That's precisely how someone ends up married to the type of person the LW is describing. Cut and run friend, for tomorrow may be too late.

Patrick: "I think you judge him too harshly."

Huh? How is saying someone is depressed a "judgment"?! You might think there is a value judgment there, but I don't - that reveals more about your value system than mine.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion Donald, and if you choose to believe my quote "backfired", you're entitled to that as well. Some people simply aren't what they present themselves to be.

I stand by what I said, and based it on comments posted over a significant period of time.

I'm not the type who picks one "generalization" out of one thread for the purpose of arguing.

Contrary to her claim that I'm being "ugly and hateful" because she's female, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm simply tired of the misrepresentation of truth.

At what point does one stop accepting excuses for bad behavior? Usually after it's too late. That's precisely how someone ends up married to the type of person the LW is describing. Cut and run friend, for tomorrow may be too late.

Ok, I'm coming from a position of ignorance here. I'm not aware of your previous posts and I tend not to pay so much attention when I read the threads that I can attribute everyone's past posts to them, though I can generally pick up an running theme that shows some of a person's character.

It could be that you're right in what you say. My thoughts are limited entirely to the simple fact that I found your timing - or your choice of catalyst for your written response - a bit weak.

*Shrugs*

Ok, I've just gone into the previous seven or eight threads, and A Male hasn't posted on any single one of them.

I stand by what I said, and based it on comments posted over a significant period of time.

I'm not the type who picks one "generalization" out of one thread for the purpose of arguing.

I take it that you've been reading and reading and have just never bothered replying before? Or have you been replying but changed your name to avoid... pffft, I-don't-know-what?

I'm confused.

I've been here for probably a year, and I don't recall "A Male" ever posting. At least he's not a regular. Maybe he's using an alias, which doesn't seem quite fair when accusing someone else of misrepresentation.

@Donald
You asked,

..."Or have you been replying but changed your name to avoid... pffft, I-don't-know-what?"

@LS
You said,

"Maybe he's using an alias, which doesn't seem quite fair when accusing someone else of misrepresentation."

I do agree that it's not fair, but it is what it is. I felt compelled to throw a flag and I did.

I apologize for posting under an alias at this time, but not for my perception which forms the basis of my previously stated opinion.

'A Male' would seem to be Patrick, based on the response and references to previous posts. I've stayed out of this one thus far, because I didn't want to go off on Patrick for doing the same thing he accuses lovelysoul of doing, i.e.: I just love all these credentials and stories and stuff that always seem to arise so conveniently. Some people just seem to have a credential for everything! Posted by: Patrick at November 21, 2009 6:12 PM

He does the same thing he says lovelysoul does, to wit, from the same post: I remember once I used to work in a grocery store, and I was cleaning my work station at the meat department counter when a gentlemen who looked like he just walked out of a cardboard box beckoned to me with his index finger. I approached, and without a word, he did that same crook of the finger, indicating that I was to follow. He took me to our Thanksgiving Turkey display and pointed to the sign.

"That sign says turkeys are 49 cents each."

I smiled. "That's a mistake. They're 49 cents a pound."

"You have to give a turkey for 49 cents, otherwise it's illegal advertising." That's what he called it. Illegal advertising.

I thought he was putting me on. "I'll have the signs fixed at once," as I started to take the paper sign out of the plastic slot. And he grabbed my wrist...

"Don't touch that sign!" he ordered.

"Let go of me at once, sir," I growled. Which he did.

"I want to talk to a manager," he declared.

"Oh, you're so going to talk to a manager," I assured him, in a way that I can only describe as menacing pleasantness.

After I told the manager what happened, he came with me at once.

"He took the sign away," the man said, pointing a finger at me. Then repeated his bid for a 25lb turkey for 49 cents.

The manager that the sign was a mistake and pointed out that each turkey had already been weighed and the price tags showed the price by weight. The man repeated his illegal advertising claims and said that we were breaking the law.

I said that he was breaking the law by putting his hands on me, which is battery.

"Don't try it!" he said ominously. "I worked in criminal justice for 34 years." And yet he still hasn't saved up enough to buy a bathtub.

"Then you know what I said is true," I replied.

He tried to explain that he only did it to prevent me from taking the sign away. His next mistake: he just admitted to the stock manager that he put his hands on me. With that, he was ordered to leave. The manager also later claimed to me that he smelled alcohol on the man's breath. Not surprised.

Seriously, people. Here's the thing: the LW suffered some horrendous shit this past year, and his girlfriend, instead of acknowledging this and providing emotional support, sought to find proof of his infidelity. Rightfully so, he feels he cannot trust and/or respect her anymore, and who could blame him? Regardless of whether or no she was wrong (which she was, of course), the LW has to somehow come to terms with the hand he has been dealt, with her or without her. (My preference would be without, but your mileage may vary.) In any case, Patrick's tenacious-terrier-on-the-postman's-pantleg act notwithstanding, and lovelysoul's attempt at justification for the lw's girlfriend's snooping, are not relevant to the current dilemma. LW needs to understand that his girlfriend is not sympathetic towards his justifiable reluctance to engage in a sexual relationship with her just now, and he needs to know that even so, he IS allowed to feel how he feels, no matter what SHE may or may not suspect about him. To turn his crisis into a platform for Patrick to justify his anal retentiveness about his ethical stance, and to criticize lovelysoul's for hers, is just so much bullshit. That it took so many posts for Patrick to chastize and eventually extact an undeserved and unnecessary apology from lovelysoul because of mispercieved slights on another thread is just so ridiculous. LW, I, for one, am so sorry for all the crap you've been through lately. I sincerely hope the future holds something much better for you.

PS Patrick, save your breath (or posts, whatever.). Your endless shrieking doesn't justify your self-righteous bullshit.

Just sayin'.

Ah, yeah, extRact, not extact. I really should use a spellchecker, but they're not always what they're cracked up to be either.

>.>

But even so, Amy, Patick put a little too much effort into going after lovelysoul for her stance, when the whole thing was about whether the LW could trust his self-absorbed girlfriend after she so egregiously and unjustifiably snooped through his things. And even though we all agree that she was wrong, the bottom line is that it's the LW who has to deal with it, and the fact that Patrick chose to make this particular column as his personal venue to go after lovelysoul for her stance and to malign her for previously misperceived slights on another, totally different thread kind of defeats the purpose of this thread to begin with. Maybe 'A Male' is Patrick's paramour? Not that it matters. Bottom line is, LW wrote to you looking for advice, and Patick hijacked the thread to disparage lovelysoul and shove his holier-than-thou ehtical stance down everybody else's throat. It really wasn't necessary for him to do so, in the long run.

Sorry. PatRick. I missed the 'r' twice. I hate when that happens!

Damn. I missed "ehtical" too. I know you know I meant "eThical". Dang. This freakin' algebra class Im taking is frying my brain. Either that, or I burnt through that whole wing in my brain that retains memory of mathematical functions at a Pink Floyd concert.

Which shouldn't surprise anyone.

o.O

I didn't think it was Patrick. He and I finally came to an understanding.

I think some here don't realize that I often play devil's advocate. Patrick is right about me - I don't like absolutes. So, when I hear everyone taking an absolute stance of, "this is always and in every case wrong", I'll challenge it with situations where the absolute might not apply.

This makes for a more lively and interesting debate, which I think happened here. But some take it too seriously and presume that I'm 100% on one side and can't see the other.

Truth is, I'm not particularly pro-snoop. I've been snooped upon. I was just interested in exploring times when it might be necessary.

I got that lovelysoul. I think there are times when it might be necessary, too, but I don't think I would snoop unless and until it was a last resort. As it happens, I've been snooped upon as well, and didn't like it all that much, so I wouldn't want to do it to someone else, knowing how it feels. That said, if I suspected someone of holding out on me for some reason, and that it put either of my children in danger, I probably would do some snooping, in order to protect them. In the LW's case, it simply wasn't warranted for his girlfriend to. She owed him some compassion, not suspicion.

This is an excellent article that someone posted on a previous health-care thread, and it addresses what Jennifer is saying about how we pay doctors:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true

Ooops. Wrong thread.

Having been previously married, i can attest to having thought i chose well the first time around, however, i was so wrong. As the months went by, he started calling me names, belittling & ridiculing me, & being very unsupportive. It was a total character switch from before we were married. Seven years later, he commited hs 1st physical assault on me, repeated twice more before i got out. How was i to know that he would start battering me? In counselling, he denied his assaults on me, trying to make me think i was going crazy, trying to make himself look good in the counsellor's eyes, trying to soothe himself for whatever reason. Bottom line: no one knows what the future holds. People who dupe others in order to gain the upper hand (it is usually for control issues) are the lowest of the low, & they usually start to show their true colours shortly after the ceremony. The whole intent: to get someone to marry them that they otherwise couldn't get if they acted like their true self in the courtship rituals. They are dishonest. Don't blame the real victims who sometimes have to do what they have to do in order to learn the truth, even if it means snooping through mail.

Hello, everyone. I pretty much abandoned this discussion after the "Mark Fuhrman" comment. A Male, while I freely admit I can see why some would mistake me for him since we take the same side on the issue with the same tenacity and the same animosity toward lovelysoul, is not me. As far as lovelysoul is concerned, I believe we've effected a truce...at least for now. I have, in the past, absent-mindedly signed the name of the person I was replying to in the name box. I have more than one message board that I participate on, and each forum is a little different. For instance, I did sign myself Rozita in this thread while replying to Rozita. Which is rather amusing, since I was refuting her statement, so it would appear that Rozita was arguing with herself. But Amy graciously fixed it for me. Perhaps future incarnations of this blog will have an edit feature, so I can edit my own stuff.

Regardless of how I feel about anyone on this blog, I do respect Amy enough to not indulge in cruel manipulative games like pretending to be someone else. (Besides, as she's shown, she would know if I did.) I used to participate in chatroom where we eventually learned that one person was pretending to be a whole plethora of individuals. Some left over the months, one actually died on us. Suffice to say, in the time I spent consoling people over the phone about it, it truly was an exercise in cruelty. One person took up a drug addiction that he had previously shaken over the issue.

Call me harsh, call me over-reactive, but don't call me malicious or sadistic. I am not.

If I decide to change my moniker, I will tell you, but I see no reason to do this. I've been calling myself "Patrick" for quite some time as I've been posting on Amy's blog since the inception. Why "Patrick"? For the very good reason that it's my name.

By the way, there are plenty of valid reasons to accuse someone of sexism, but using the masculine pronoun when discussing an unknown is simply standard English. Is it sexist? Probably. But it's just how it's done in English and other languages. Someone's use of the masculine pronoun when discussing a hypothetical person is hardly grounds for the accusation of sexism.

Flynne: Maybe 'A Male' is Patrick's paramour?

I have no idea who 'A Male' is. If he's someone I know in real life, he hasn't told me he's posting here.

Flynne: Patrick chose to make this particular column as his personal venue to go after lovelysoul for her stance and to malign her for previously misperceived slights

Those slights were not "misperceived." And next time, use real words. I'm not going to hash out the various comments thrown my way in that thread, since the author of them has apologized for them. You can go see them yourself.

By the way, I'm sure Amy reads her own blog. I doubt she needs a jaundiced recap from you.

Flynne: Patick hijacked the thread to disparage lovelysoul and shove his holier-than-thou ehtical stance down everybody else's throat.

Everyone on this blog shoves their ethical stances down everyone else's throat, including you. You single me out because you don't care for my methods of calling someone out. Well, tough shit.

Flynne: and lovelysoul's attempt at justification for the lw's girlfriend's snooping

I could be wrong, but I don't think lovelysoul ever said that the girlfriend of the letter writer was justified in snooping. I believe she was trying to bring up circumstances in which snooping might be justified, but she didn't ever defend the LW's girlfriend.

I have a circumstance that would justify going through someone's stuff. If someone was in immediate danger of being hurt or killed, say was tied to a bomb that was set to go off in seconds and the only way to shut the bomb off was to go through someone's computer to find the way to turn off the countdown timer, then I could see going into someone's computer.

Immediate danger.

As usual Patrick, you pick and choose what you respond to, and only see what you want to see. I said attempt at justification.

Whatever. I'm not getting into it with you yet again. I don't have the anal retentiveness that you do, to post such long-winded diatribes all the time. And I don't post anything as an attempt at shoving my particular ethics down anyone's throat. I'm usually content to agree to disagree, for the most part. None of my posts are even close to being as long and drawn out as yours, simply because I lack the tenacity for it and the need that you have to always be right.

@ Patrick Nov 23rd, 3:32 pm ..... i am not shoving my ethical stance down anyone's throat, and i take offense at Patrick's suggestion that we are all here to do that.

Flynne, whatever (not the poster called "whatever;" I'm telling Flynne "Whatever!").

I'm saying that I don't recall lovelysoul ever attempting to justify LW's girlfriend's snooping. She tried to bring up cases in which she feels snooping might be justified, but I don't believe she was trying to justify LW's girlfriend's behavior.

In fact, one of her earliest comments is, "The girlfriend has probably been cheated on in the past. She's taking his grief as an excuse because many cheaters will use excuses. But that doesn't make what she did right."

I don't believe she ever tried to justify her behavior, merely trying to bring up examples in which snooping was justified.

I can understand snooping undertaken to protect oneself from STD's or one's children from a potential pedophile. Long term life threatening dangers require a more aggressive stance than avoiding a broken heart. However, like cheating, snooping is a violation of trust. It should be undertaken, if at all, as an act of last resort, after serious consideration of all the other signals and signs. People who enagage in it need to be prepared for the consequences.

Okay, Patrick, you found a case, apparently involving a couple already involved in a court case, thus under monitoring of a judge, as your summary stated. So, yes, I have to admit that a person can get clobbered for accessing without permission a 'spouse's' mail, at least if it happens in an existent court case. But as lovely soul pointed out, it is going to be rare.

(Just how long did it take you to find that case? Just curious. Or, do you have Westlaw? And, are you an attorney? No, I don't think so. Attorneys well know, except the most incompetent ones, that laws have little value until a high court declares a precedent, which is why so much money is spent on legal research to find out what the courts are actually doing, as opposed to just reading the codes and calling it a day as one can do here in Mexico. No, I am wrong again. A lot of attorneys know this very well, but try to throw their weight around by quoting the laws, not the applications by judges. assuming correctly that the great unwashed are going to be intimidated.)

Would I be pissed if my wife dug into my e-mail? Maybe. Just as she would be pissed if I tossed the contents of her underwear drawer on the floor. Is either grounds to break up a marriage? Not for people with a code of honor.

What I see here, which is totally legal and in our current society considered normal, is a group of people many who have had and will have multiple relationships in their life, and when something happens they don't like, they move on, instead of working through it, as I had to do as I said above.

People do go through hard times. Marriages do go through hard times. Sometimes you have to eat some s**t and sometimes some of your s**t gets eaten by the other person. We are imperfect humans. Good luck to those of you who tolerate nothing less than perfection in your mates.

This is the way marriages have always been, and it is how people can stay married for generations, and in their old age end up happily married after all the fuss it took them to learn how to be married.

I hope Amy and Gregg stay together happily forever. There are marriages and "marriages" like that, and I would wish it for Amy, and in fact everyone here. Most marriages have some hard times, and one or both can do things in the short-term that are unacceptable.

I am reminded of my eldest daughter's final course in her Social Work degree. A group of women I would call feminists did a study of a number of married women, all of whom said their marriages were terrible (not sure of the exact words.)

They checked back some years later, and some of them did get divorced. Most reported they were still not happy with their lives.

Those who stayed married at that time mostly, not all, reported their marriages were great, and they were very happy in their marriages.

There is a phenomenon that as a couple transits from two individuals to a true dyad, that it really hurts, and when divorce is easy, they bail, just before it starts to work. So, did anyone ever tell y'all that?

We knew a sweet old couple in Texas, who admitted when they were younger, they at times really and seriously wanted to murder each other. When we knew them, they were by their own admission a very happy old couple, and when he did die, she was broken-hearted.

irlandes writes: (Just how long did it take you to find that case? Just curious. Or, do you have Westlaw? And, are you an attorney? No, I don't think so. Attorneys well know, except the most incompetent ones, that laws have little value until a high court declares a precedent, which is why so much money is spent on legal research to find out what the courts are actually doing, as opposed to just reading the codes and calling it a day as one can do here in Mexico. No, I am wrong again. A lot of attorneys know this very well, but try to throw their weight around by quoting the laws, not the applications by judges. assuming correctly that the great unwashed are going to be intimidated.)

Not long, once I plugged in the right search terms. I used Google. And you're striking me as as bit of a sore loser.

What do you mean "rare"? It may be "rare" that circumstances actually provide an ideal, cut and dried instance, as this one did. I would venture to say that most spouses have probably used each others computers at one time or another. Even if permission is granted even once, it becomes more difficult. Once that initial permission is granted, proving unlawful snooping can be difficult. On the other hand, if it's clear from the get-go that one another's computers are hands-off, you don't know how rare that's going to be and neither does lovelysoul. You're assuming. Just like you assumed (to your error) that anti-snooping laws had no precedent.

Honestly, I wouldn't stay involved with a guy who said, "My computer is "hands off!" That would be a glaring red flag to me that he was hiding something (unless he worked for the State Dept or had nuclear codes or something).

Irlandes, that was such a nice post. You are right that people give up too quickly on marriage and holding these ridiculous standards of perfection is one reason. Old age tends to humble couples, as they face mortality together, and often they find a renewed joy and comfort in their marriages.

I keep coming back to a point railmeat made. Partners have an obligation not to act suspicious.

If you are consistently where you say you'll be, and act in a loving, attentive manner, (even if you're tired or grieving and don't feel like sex), most partners will feel no need to snoop.

Even the guy who was building the cottage. Although that was a sweet gift, to build it, he told his wife he was working late. She probably called and discovered he wasn't. So he LIED.

Most likely, he had to lie a lot, as cottages take a while to build. In the meantime, he was unraveling the trust in their marriage...which is sort of a sad parallel: while building something for them, he's tearing down the foundation of the relationship.

I can understand, then, why she snooped or hired a PI, and I think any loving husband would too. Hopefully, they'd sit on the cottage porch and laugh about it - not get a divorce.

BTW, the cottage-building thing is pretty funny. From now on, when one of my friends thinks their husband is acting suspicious, I'm gonna say, "I bet he's building you a cottage!"

They'll probably be pretty pissed off when they find out the cottage is named, "Teresa", but the good news is that they'll be less angry over the cheating than that they're not getting a new house! lol

lovelysoul: Honestly, I wouldn't stay involved with a guy who said, "My computer is "hands off!"

Really? You don't care if a person does his own private journaling, perhaps a writer who prefers not to show his work until it's ready?

I wouldn't stay with a person who insisted that they had the right to go on my computer any time they wanted, either. They would quickly learn differently if I caught them.

On the other hand, "My computer is hands-off!" shouldn't even need to be said. Certain things should go without saying. You enter a relationship, and you respect the other's property. This means, no use without permission and if permission isn't granted, you respect it.

If you find yourself resentful over being denied permission, you have a misplaced sense of entitlement. I wouldn't dream of going on someone else's computer.

Irlandes: Would I be pissed if my wife dug into my e-mail? Maybe. Just as she would be pissed if I tossed the contents of her underwear drawer on the floor. Is either grounds to break up a marriage? Not for people with a code of honor.

I love the use of pre-emptive ad hominem attacks you seem to relish. "This is the way it is, and if you don't agree with me, then you have no code of honor!"

A person with a code of honor wouldn't go digging into a person's email in the first place. And I would consider catching a partner on my computer without permission to be grounds for a breakup. It shows a certain lack of respect and presumption that I find a huge turn off.

Better late than never I guess. So very sorry about the loss of your parents. One thing I hung on to when it happened to me was the advice of a friend. The hole in your heart never goes away, but it does get smaller. It worked for me 19 years ago when my Mom died, I hope it helps you. And you're better off alone than with Miss "why are you crying, that was 6 months ago?"

Will non-lawyers PLEASE stop pulling statutes out of the air and quoting out-of-context snippets out of cases! You will nearly always interpret them incorrectly, and that's dangerous. I am a lawyer, and I would never, ever, just find a statute or a case, look at one or two sentences that seem to support a position, and simply assume that they do! It's almost never that simple!

Patrick, 18 USC 1030 (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) doesn't have anything to do with reading cheating people's private emails. Nada. Zippo.

That Act governs cases with a compelling federal interest, where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved, where the crime itself is interstate in nature, or computers used in interstate and foreign commerce.

Note the term "protected computer" in the snippet you quote. That term is specifically defined in the Act to mean a computer that is either (1) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (2)which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States. (How's that for some legalese?)

Anyway, unless the dude's computer fit that definition -- and I'm betting it didn't -- the Act has absolutely squat to do with anything.

As for the custody case that someone mentions above (I've forgotten who and can't be bothered to look), I can't opine for certain because I haven't read it and I'll bet the person who posted it hasn't read it either. However, I'd be willing to bet some serious money that the ruling is strictly limited to the facts at issue in the case.

Also, Irlandes, I completely disagree that laws have "little value until a high court declares a precedent". They're laws. They're legally enforceable. You won't have any court case interpreting them -- much less a high court case -- unless someone challenges either the law or a particular application of the law. There are plenty of laws out there with no high court cases interpreting them, and trust me, they are enforced. That said, a lawyer is being irresponsible if he or she gives an opinion to a client or a court about a particular law without looking at whether and how courts have interpreted that law.

All that said -- it sucks to read someone else's email. It is at any rate a crime against trust and that particular relationship. If, while violating your significant other's trust by reading their email, you discover that he or she has violated yours by cheating on you -- sure, he or she sucks, but so do you. If you don't trust her, don't snoop. Dump her and find someone you do trust.

I have not read every post here, so my apologies if I missed anything pertinent. Although it troubles me to do agree with LS, in one instance I do find myself in agreement with her - I would definitely check on any man I had living in my house to give me some evidence that my children were safe with him.

I say it troubles me because I, also, have concluded that LS makes statements that are simply not true to further whatever agenda she is pushing at that point. I had debated with her on a previous thread which she simply opted out of, after I had quoted from LS's own posts and made it impossible for her to continue stating an untruth.

Anyway, to get back to the point - I would have not the slightest compunction on checking the credentials and laptop of any man - or for that matter woman - who was going to be spending a lot of unsupervised time around my children. Do I think this is honourable? No. Do I care? No. The simple, biological fact is that - to me - my children's safety trumps everything else. Everything. It trumps every person's right to privacy, or even to life. If I felt my children were under threat I would do whatever I had to to protect them. I do not claim this is morally acceptable, or ask anybody to endorse it, it is simply a factual statement of my biological imperative. One that I am very open about whenever it is pertinent.

However, I would do whatever I could to avoid getting to the point where I felt it would be necessary to get so drastic.

Which brings me to my main point, one which I think has been missed in this thread? If I was to split from my husband (the father of my children) I wouldn't be bringing a man, woman or any other permanent live in to my home at all. The only men I would even have to stay over would be my fil and my husbands brothers, who all also have a vested biological interest in my children and whose background and character I know almost as well as my husband's.

If you have young children and are single, and if you really care about your children's safety - stay single.

Belatedly, may I express my condolences to the original author of this thread. Grief, as I believe has been said in this thread, is very personal. Please take whatever time you need to grieve, and I do hope you will find support to help you through it.

Regards

PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME AND READ THIS GREAT TESTIMONY.

BE CAREFUL HERE, NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVE BACK,ANY TESTIMONIES OF MOST SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORED.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM AND I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY WIFE KATARINA BACK AFTER SHE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2YEARS WITH MY 3YEARS OLD SON JERRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 7 DIFFERENT SPELL CASTER HERE I MET ON THIS BLOG AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM SOUTH AFRICA, I WAS SO CONFUSED AND I WAS ALWAYS SICK BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM AND I WAS SO DESPERATE TO HAVE KATARINA BACK TO ME I LOVE HER SO MUCH AND COULD DIE FOR HER. I SAW THIS Email Online ABOUT DR USMAN KERIM THE GREATEST SPELL TEMPLE, (dr_usman.spiritualist@outlook.com) TEMPLE OF BLACK AND WHITE IN NIGERIA, AND I DECIDED TO MAIL HIM.HE TOLD ME THAT ALL MY PROBLEM ARE OVER SINCE I HAVE DECIDED TO CONTACT HIM FOR HELP, HE TOLD ME TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN ME AND MY EX WIFE KATARINA AND I DID, I TOLD HIM ALL THAT HAPPENED FROM THE BEGINNING. AND HE SAID TO ME MY CHILD WHAT YOU JUST EXPLAINED TO ME NOW IS A LITTLE PROBLEM TO HANDLE COMPARE TO SERIOUS PROBLEMS I HAVE HANDLED, I WAS SO SHOCKED AND I SAID TO MY SELF WHAT PROBLEM COULD BE MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS. HE TOLD ME WHAT I NEEDED TO DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT WHAT HE SAID LOOK SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAVE HEARD IN THE PAST, I WAS HAVING DOUBT ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF PAST EXPERIENCE, BUT I DECIDED TO TRY SINCE HE IS FROM NIGERIA HE COULD BE REAL AND DIFFERENT. SO I GAVE HIM 50% OF MY TRUST. THIS WAS LIKE I MAGIC AND DREAM COME TRUE TO ME, AFTER TWO DAYS WHEN THE SPELL HAS BEEN CASTEED, KATARINA FLASHED ME AT ABOUT 9.PM I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I REALLY LOVE KATARINA AND WANT HER BACK. BY 7.AM THE NEXT MORNING SHE GAVE ME ANOTHER MISSED CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK, AT ABOUT 10.AM THAT MORNING SHE CALLED AND I PICKED SHE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO SHE ENDED THE CALL IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK SHE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME WERE TO MEET HER, I WAS STILL ON SHOCK, BEHOLD WHEN I GOT THERE I SAW KATARINA CRYING WITH TEARS ALL OVER HER EYES, AND SHE SAID TO ME MY HUSBAND, I AM SO SORRY IMMEDIATELY I HUGED HER AND KISSED HER WHICH I HAVE MISSED ALL THIS YEARS. ALL THANK TO DR..USMAN KERIM. IF YOU ARE A MAN OF A WOMAN READY THIS AND YOU ARE PASSING THROUGH SIMILAR PROBLEMS LIKE MINE, DO NOT FAIL TO CONTACT THIS GREAT MAN DR.USMAN KERIM HE IS REALLY INDEED A REAL SPELL CASTER.

HE SPECIALIZE ON THE BELOW PROBLEMS

(1) If you want your ex back.
(2) To care HIV/AID or related illness
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women/men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) Are you a contractor and you want to win contracts
(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be
yours forever.
(8) If you need help spiritually.
(9) How you been scammed and you want to recover you lost money.
(10)Stop Divorce
(11)Invoking of Money Ritual
(12)Win Elections

And many more..
Mobile number...+2348057756157
Email...dr_usman.spiritualist@outlook.com
website...http://dr-usmankerimspiritualtemple.yolasite.com