I know two long marriages that both ended when the H decided to ‘hook up’ with a former GF (both of these guys connected with them via facebook, if he or she was the aggressor - there was a definite decision that this is who the H wants now), and both men were decidedly doing things in their best interest - one set up an apt and ‘played house’ while deciding if he should leave his wife; the other started hiding assets (wife was able to see all the emails, got a forensic accountant). Wife1 was able to go from PT to FT work in a technical field; they sold the family home and she was able to buy a nice place. Wife2 was able to get divorced in 6 months - they both wanted it done and his shenanigans and attempts at deception probably cost him $$; they both were under the same roof until the divorce (he got the house - she didn’t want and it also is an issue to get sold). Emotionally wife2 is having to rebuild her life more and try to move on; plans to go to a different city where she has old connections.
Situation 1, the new GF has children, and the dad thinks they all can be friends (his daughters don’t want anything to do with the GF and her kids). GF left her H for her new guy too. Situation 2, the gal was never married - sort of a princess who has decided now she wants this man and hot sex with him.
For many of these guys, it is primarily about the sex and how this new woman makes them feel like. I know a grandfather whose new wife conjured up a beef with his grown daughter, and grown daughter would not apologize - so grandfather has totally cut himself off from his daughter, SIL, and two wonderful grandchildren. Grandfather and his wife are all about their relationship/sex.
When one alienates the kids because they get so whacked out hating their soon to be ex, that is a real tragedy. In some circles, the opposite of love is selfishness, and you can have one spouse having the situation be where the other spouse then also deciding (subconsciously or consciously) to being selfish.
Now that dstark has indicated the gf did not exist for his friend while his friend was married, I believe that in all fairness, all future posts must assume his posting is true. Imo, future posts should either disregard the idea of a new gf, or be tempered with the knowlege that it was the wife’s mistaken idea that there was a new gf.
I still suspect the wife’s atty repeating so many already answered questions and documented answers is merely a negotiating tactic. Heck, there are some here that already have indicated H should pay more to end this. That proves the effectiveness of the tactic!
My MIL has a wealthy and wretched cousin. His son and the son’s wife divorced after the wife found the husband having an affair (with her best friend) in MIL’s house that he was supposedly looking after. As you can imagine, the feathers were flying. Husband and wife had many assets, but they were all in his father’s name! MIL testified in court on behalf of the wife. It turns out the the husband and his Dad had visited prostitutes together and charged it on Daddy’s credit card. Wife was lucky, very lucky, to get primary custody of their two young children and permission from the judge to move with them back to her home state. He got all the money, which was Daddy’s money.
For years afterwards, the kids moved from living with Mom in a tiny apartment next to the RR tracks, to Dad’s house in the summer with it’s tennis court and his expensive Italian sports car. Mom kept her lips buttoned, at least around the kids. But the truth will out, as they say, and by the time they were older teenagers the kids knew what had really happened and saw their father, stepmother, and paternal grandparents for the people that they are. The only people that the daughter invited to her wedding from her father’s family were my MIL and her children and spouses. That included me, I’m happy to say.
maybe it’s my interpretation, but if the question of post 57 is, “is there a gf?” And the answer in post 58 is “nope, but I won’t say any more” then I interpret that as no gf, but that he will not comment further. A non-committal answer might be- No, I won’t answer your question, or simply- I won’t answer the question. dstark did not say that.
They are written as 2 separate thoughts, “Nope” answers the question, then the second part he will not discuss it further. I will assume dstark meant what he/she wrote and that the answers are truthful.
I don’t understand when people give up other people. Unless it’s an abusive or toxic relationship of course. But your own children??? For sex with some hot new thing???
It seems anti evolutionary too. The biological imperative that drives us should make us ensure that our genetic offspring thrive. At least that would be logical.
And I would say, after reading several hundreds, possibly thousands of dstarks posts, I know what the answer is.
Don’t get him in trouble.
Maybe this is enough about the GF, I think the point is made.
That point being…guys, don’t mess around on your wives! Because if you do, they are going to rip out your throat, and your… and your wallet right out of your pants! B-)
@younghoss I took that answer to mean…no, I won’t answer that question because this is an ongoing case. If the wife were to see this thread, and see that I’ve written something that indicates that her H has had a long-term GF, then all heck will break loose.
"
I’m not going to talk about details in the case. There is a real case going on and I was reticent about even posting.
My questions were answered. I don’t mind if posters speculate.
Of course there are two sides. I am well aware of this"
Then when asked “is there or is there not a GF?”
“nope, I am done now.”
This reminds me of a recent burglary at one of my condo complexes (the police were called out, a witness gave a statement, etc). This is a gated community where security guards and cameras are present. When heard about it a few hours later, I went to the complex to see the property manager. I asked if there had been a burglary that day. The PM said, “I’m not at liberty to acknowledge that.”
lol…I quickly responded, "Well, you’ve just admitted that there was a burglary because if there hadn’t been one, you would have said, “oh no, Mrs M2CK, there hasn’t been a robbery in this complex. We have security officers that ride around the complex constantly. We have cameras. There have been no recent crimes here.”
I understand, mom2, that dstark may not be telling us the whole truth. But I will assume in future posts I may offer, that he/she has written the truth, and will tailor my posts accordingly.
I don’t agree with your comparison, mom2k, because dstark did not answer like the property manager did. Dstark answered No, then added that he would not discuss it further. That is very different than the property manager only saying he would not discuss it.
I can certainly believe dstark may have discussed an ongoing case prematurely, without giving it thorough thought, and wants to shade/color/withhold what he/she says here. I understand he/she may not want to give further details that may affect the outcome. I only say my comments should be based on what we are told- assuming it is true- rather than assuming what we are told isn’t true.
<<<
don’t know that it is “never really about the money”. Maybe in some high income circles. In the cases I know, it is about being able to retire someday, about affording college for offspring, being able to own a home again. There is the hurt of the affairs, the nastiness, the promises broken. And then there is the descent from a two income lifestyle to a far more sparse single income and taking your kids’ lifestyle down in the process. I’d say it is very much about the money. Money for some is very tied to power.
<<<<
this is very true. In most cases, there isn’t enough money to support two households. And often, if there have been kids, the mom’s career has taken a back-seat to the dad’s, and courts don’t always compensate for that. So, it’s not unusual for the courts to think, “oh, she can live on the $40k she makes, so she doesn’t need any of the $160k her H makes.” A result that leaves one spouse with a modest income and one with a healthy income is going to cause a lot of anger, particularly if that larger income is now being spent on someone who was not a part of “growth and support” of that income.
And few couples have enough for retirement to allow for two households.
thank you for the clarification. I understand now that what you wrote is not what you intended to convey.
My compliments to busdriver and any others that understood what dstark really meant. Certainly, to be clear, to the question of is there a gf? dstark should not have answered “Nope” then went on to say he/she wouldn’t answer further. Only saying he/she refused to answer would have been much clearer.
So now, as dstark says, we can speculate. And now since this answer is clarified, yes, momof2k, dstarks answer IS very similar to the pm’s. Well done!
@mom2collegekids
Later when the spouse with the higher income decides to cut off all support to the kids (and pretends they never existed) it is the parent with the lower income that is responsible for all the costs of raising children- college, health insurance and everything else. For the parent with the higher income their standard of living goes up while the parent with the lower income and fulltime kids goes down. So they may have won the battle but they have lost a relationship.
My desire was to read and respond to dstarks post as written. I understand now that what he/she wrote wasn’t what he/she meant. My intent was a willingness to believe that H that had been falsely accused of having a gf while married, based on dstarks’ writing. Sort of- innocent until proven guilty- sort of thing. Now that dstark has clarified there was no answer to the question, we can only speculate on the answer.
that is easy to see now that dstark has made the clarification. My compliments to busdriver, and harvestmoon, and any others that understood what dstark really meant.
I interpreted No- I am done now as 2 separate thoughts; an answer to the gf question, then further comment that he/she will say no more. It is clear what dstark really meant was only one thought- I will not comment further. It is the starting out with “nope” then adding the second part that confused me. It would have been so much clearer if dtsark had only said “no further comment” or such an answer.
<<< @mom2collegekids
Later when the spouse with the higher income decides to cut off all support to the kids (and pretends they never existed) it is the parent with the lower income that is responsible for all the costs of raising children- college, health insurance and everything else. For the parent with the higher income their standard of living goes up while the parent with the lower income and fulltime kids goes down. So they may have won the battle but they have lost a relationship.
<<<<
I often wonder about those situations. Some people think very short-term. I can’t imagine not supporting my kids. I can’t imagine growing old and having lost my relationship with them because I had abandoned them. I also wonder about these people’s extended families. Do their relatives act like everything is hunky-dory when their relative has abandoned his/her children? I can’t be friendly to people who’ve abandoned their children. To me, it’s along the lines of cruelty to animals.