looking for other perspectives (very long)

On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:09:57 GMT, Paula
wrote:
sue shared the following perspective and opinions:



Paula wrote:
sue shared the following perspective and opinions:


...snip...
The relevance? You said you could never forgive a deliberate,
intentional lie, yet the basis of your entire relationship is a lie. He
didn't tell you he was married. That was a lie, yet you are trying to
make all kinds of plans and have all kinds of hopes for this
"relationship" based on the pipe dream that 'at least he hasn't lied.'
He lied to you, he lied to his wife, and he lied to his kids.

If you are saying he has never lied to you, then he must have told you
he was married, and you decided to have sex anyway.


Alright, I see what you're saying now.

While I agree that a lie of ommission is still a lie, it is not what I
was referring to as a 'deliberate, intentional lie' (which would be
actually telling me something as fact that one knows not to be true).
Hair splitting, maybe ... but to me the world is hardly ever black and
white, always shades of grey.

It was certainly a deliberate and intentional lie, because the effect of
withholding the information was that you believed he was single. If a
man invites you to spend the night, or even to date, then the assumption
is that he is single, and his not saying so was a deliberate lie. He
certainly knew that you wouldn't have even taken the trip with him, let
alone slept with him, if he had told you he was married from the start.


I never said 'at least he hasn't lied' ... he has lied to her and most
likely to me too (although I have no example or proof).

You already have proof. You simply refuse to believe it was a lie.
When he invited you out, he allowed you to believe he was single.


I'm sorry that our difference of opinion with respect to what we
consider a "deliberate, intentional lie" strikes you as me refusing to
believe ... the only thing that I refuse to believe is that your
definition is any more correct than mine. It's really a matter of
opinion.

If you don't believe that conveinently omitting the fact that he was
married to get into your pants was a lie, then I guess this guy is home
free with whatever he want to tell you (or maybe forget to tell you).

If you want to keep your head in the sand with regards to this man's
honesty (even forgetting for a moment that he cheats on his wife) then
please carry on.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Ignoramus25241 shared the
following perspective and opinions:

In article , Paula wrote:
"Auntie Em" Auntie shared the following
perspective and opinions:
So what? Does that justify the next 17+ years of living in an environment
that is not healthy for the child? How many "men" is this child going to
get attached to, only to have them walk out on their mother (or worse, beat
her and possibly them also). This woman does not know how to pick men. Can
you honestly say that this kid wouldn't be better off in a loving, family
environment.

Em

Excuse me, but who are you to say that I create "an environment that
is not healthy for" my child? You have no idea what her environment
is.

I will agree that the current situation with her father is not healthy
... that is why I asked for input. But aside from that, you have no
clue what you are talking about.

To be fair, you knoew exactly what was going on, all along, when you
decided to conceive and give birth to that child.


So following through with my original dream of becoming a mother is
unhealthy in some way? Or is it that I believe that it is important
to have my child's father be involved in her life that's unhealthy?
Or maybe it's unhealthy that I want to consider what's best for his
wife and family when I decide what choice to make for my daughter and
myself?

Help me out here, I'm a little confused as to your point.

I've already stated that I've spent years of my life alone in order
to learn about myself in an attempt to grow past where my childhood
led me. I have achieved a great deal with respect to that. I also
already stated that I was speaking with a counselor, who happens to
be a nationally-reputable child psychologist. He is also the
counselor that my daughter's father and I went to talk to about what
was best for her and for his family.

Just beware that counseling does not help, very often.


I believe that you get from counseling what you are able to put into
it ... assuming that you choose a person who know his/her area of
expertise and in whom you can develop the trust necessary for true
investigation and evaluation of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

I won't dispute that I have a history of picking men and relationships
that don't work out for whatever reason. But if what ultimately is
best for my child is that I am single for the rest of my life, then
that is the way it will be.

That would be a rather sound decision, to avoid men until your
daughter grows up.

And that may be what's necessary. But with some more work on myself
it also may be that I'll find the right (kind of) person and teach her
what it is to have a healthy relationship.

Paula

"Now the peace you will find, in your own you have found,
the lights of the city are the stars on the ground.
'I may not be a quaalude living in a speed zone,'
But I could be restful, I could be someone's home,
if I fell down"
When All the Stars Were Falling - Lisa Loeb


** remove NOBS_ to email me **

Tony Miller shared the following perspective and
opinions:

Sure. Trying to determine if he was the kind of guy who would lie even if
the truth was easier.

I hadn't really thought about that ... it's a very interesting
question that I'll have to think about.

This is exactly why I posted. Thank You!

Paula

"Now the peace you will find, in your own you have found,
the lights of the city are the stars on the ground.
'I may not be a quaalude living in a speed zone,'
But I could be restful, I could be someone's home,
if I fell down"
When All the Stars Were Falling - Lisa Loeb


** remove NOBS_ to email me **

Paula writes:

Ignoramus25241 shared the
following perspective and opinions:

In article , Paula wrote:
"Auntie Em" Auntie shared the following
perspective and opinions:
So what? Does that justify the next 17+ years of living in an environment
that is not healthy for the child? How many "men" is this child going to
get attached to, only to have them walk out on their mother (or worse, beat
her and possibly them also). This woman does not know how to pick men. Can
you honestly say that this kid wouldn't be better off in a loving, family
environment.

Em

Excuse me, but who are you to say that I create "an environment that
is not healthy for" my child? You have no idea what her environment
is.

I will agree that the current situation with her father is not healthy
... that is why I asked for input. But aside from that, you have no
clue what you are talking about.

To be fair, you knoew exactly what was going on, all along, when you
decided to conceive and give birth to that child.


So following through with my original dream of becoming a mother is
unhealthy in some way? Or is it that I believe that it is important
to have my child's father be involved in her life that's unhealthy?

If you believe it is important for the father to be involved, yet you
chose to have a child with a man whose primary commitment was
elsewhere, that was _very_ unhealthy behavior on your part.

Tony Miller shared the following perspective and
opinions:

If you don't believe that conveinently omitting the fact that he was
married to get into your pants was a lie, then I guess this guy is home
free with whatever he want to tell you (or maybe forget to tell you).


I didn't say that I don't believe that it was a lie ... it was, a lie
of ommission.

Believe me, I do a lot of thinking about what I would/do think about
him treating our "relationship"/me in the same fashion as I've
witnessed him treat his marriage/wife.

If you want to keep your head in the sand with regards to this man's
honesty (even forgetting for a moment that he cheats on his wife) then
please carry on.

Again, believe me, I never forget for a moment that he cheats on his
wife.

And to repeat something that I posted earlier, the "carrying on"
stopped months ago. What's left is emotions ... those of more than a
few people. I am trying very hard to decide what I think is
right/best for all of us.

Paula

"Now the peace you will find, in your own you have found,
the lights of the city are the stars on the ground.
'I may not be a quaalude living in a speed zone,'
But I could be restful, I could be someone's home,
if I fell down"
When All the Stars Were Falling - Lisa Loeb


** remove NOBS_ to email me **

"Paula " has written about having sex with
a married man (who never told her he was married). This is such a huge
lie of omission that it screams out at a million decibels, but she has
written:

While I agree that a lie of ommission is still a lie, it is not what I
was referring to as a 'deliberate, intentional lie' (which would be
actually telling me something as fact that one knows not to be true).
Hair splitting, maybe ... but to me the world is hardly ever black and
white, always shades of grey.

It was definitely a "deliberate, intentional" attempt by him to mislead
you. Maybe it doesn't match some dictionary definition of "lie" -- but
so what? He was intentionally deceptive just to get you into bed.

Suppose he has sex with a woman and picks up an STD, but doesn't bother
to tell you. That wouldn't be a "deliberate, intentional lie", by your
definition. But his lie of omission would leave you just as infected,
wouldn't it?

Maybe he will never lie to you by "presenting as fact something known to
be false" -- but he has already deceived you, and will certainly do so
again. He has deceived his wife, and will do so again -- whether that
wife is you or not.


You wrote that "with communication comes honesty", which is the real
point at issue. There are lots of ways to be dishonest besides just
"present as fact something known to be false". He has already been
dishonest to you. He will be again.

Here's a story you might want to think about:

A little boy was walking down a path and he came across a elderly
rattlesnake. He asked the boy, "Please little boy, can you take me
to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time
before I die." The boy answered "No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you
up, you'll bite me and I'll die." The rattlesnake said, "I promise
I won't bite you. Just please take me up to the mountain." The
little boy thought about it and finally picked up that rattlesnake
and took it close to his chest and carried it up to the top of the
mountain.

They watched the sunset together. Then the rattlesnake asked, "Can I
go home now? I am tired, and I am old." The little boy again
picked up the rattlesnake, and held it carefully on his way back
down the mountain.

Just as they got back to the bottom, the snake bit the boy. The boy
screamed and asked "Why did you do that?" The rattlesnake replied
"You knew what I was when you picked me up."


If you want what's best for your daughter, don't pick up a snake.


Darren Provine ! ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Maturity is reached the day we don't need to be lied to about anything."
-- Frank Yerby

Dr Nancy's Sweetie shared the following
perspective and opinions:

It was definitely a "deliberate, intentional" attempt by him to mislead
you. Maybe it doesn't match some dictionary definition of "lie" -- but
so what? He was intentionally deceptive just to get you into bed.

Suppose he has sex with a woman and picks up an STD, but doesn't bother
to tell you. That wouldn't be a "deliberate, intentional lie", by your
definition. But his lie of omission would leave you just as infected,
wouldn't it?

Maybe he will never lie to you by "presenting as fact something known to
be false" -- but he has already deceived you, and will certainly do so
again. He has deceived his wife, and will do so again -- whether that
wife is you or not.


You wrote that "with communication comes honesty", which is the real
point at issue. There are lots of ways to be dishonest besides just
"present as fact something known to be false". He has already been
dishonest to you. He will be again.

Here's a story you might want to think about:

A little boy was walking down a path and he came across a elderly
rattlesnake. He asked the boy, "Please little boy, can you take me
to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time
before I die." The boy answered "No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you
up, you'll bite me and I'll die." The rattlesnake said, "I promise
I won't bite you. Just please take me up to the mountain." The
little boy thought about it and finally picked up that rattlesnake
and took it close to his chest and carried it up to the top of the
mountain.

They watched the sunset together. Then the rattlesnake asked, "Can I
go home now? I am tired, and I am old." The little boy again
picked up the rattlesnake, and held it carefully on his way back
down the mountain.

Just as they got back to the bottom, the snake bit the boy. The boy
screamed and asked "Why did you do that?" The rattlesnake replied
"You knew what I was when you picked me up."


I've always heard this as "The frog and the scorpion" ... so you feel
that people never change, or that he won't/can't?

And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm saying he will/can
for me, I am not. Just asking for clarification.


If you want what's best for your daughter, don't pick up a snake.


So is your point that I should never be in any relationship other than
a co-parenting relationship with him? Or that he should not be
involved in her life at all?

Paula

"Now the peace you will find, in your own you have found,
the lights of the city are the stars on the ground.
'I may not be a quaalude living in a speed zone,'
But I could be restful, I could be someone's home,
if I fell down"
When All the Stars Were Falling - Lisa Loeb


** remove NOBS_ to email me **

On Sun, 30 May 2004, Paula wrote:

Tony Miller shared the following perspective and
opinions:

If you don't believe that conveinently omitting the fact that he was
married to get into your pants was a lie, then I guess this guy is home
free with whatever he want to tell you (or maybe forget to tell you).


I didn't say that I don't believe that it was a lie ... it was, a lie
of ommission.

Believe me, I do a lot of thinking about what I would/do think about
him treating our "relationship"/me in the same fashion as I've
witnessed him treat his marriage/wife.

If you want to keep your head in the sand with regards to this man's
honesty (even forgetting for a moment that he cheats on his wife) then
please carry on.

Again, believe me, I never forget for a moment that he cheats on his
wife.

And to repeat something that I posted earlier, the "carrying on"
stopped months ago. What's left is emotions ... those of more than a
few people. I am trying very hard to decide what I think is
right/best for all of us.

That might be the problem. Hint: There is no solution to this mess that
will be right or good for everyone. Someone is going to be hurt. Someone
is going to be sad. Someone will always have questions and doubts. But
there might be a "close" to best and IMO that is: Let go. Leave the
man to repair his marriage and take responsibility for the additional
life he has created. Tell him you're moving on but you want him to
be a part of the child's life. Draw up a plan both of you can live with,
have a lawyer finalize it, and move on. If he says he doesn't want
to be a part of her life you can acccept that and move on or you can
seek legal assistance and move on.

Whatever you do, it's time to move on.

If, when his children are grown, he gets a divorce and comes looking
for you and you are still unattached, fine. But don't waste away
waiting for the day. You and your daughter both deserve more.

Doug Anderson shared the following
perspective and opinions:

If you believe it is important for the father to be involved, yet you
chose to have a child with a man whose primary commitment was
elsewhere, that was _very_ unhealthy behavior on your part.

Ultimately, yes, I chose to have child with a man whose primary
commitment was elsewhere.

But, please remember that I honestly did not think that I _could get_
pregnant based on some pretty strong evidence (ref original post).
Other things that I chose to do was keep, try to protect, and do the
best I can for the blessing that was given to me.

Paula

"Now the peace you will find, in your own you have found,
the lights of the city are the stars on the ground.
'I may not be a quaalude living in a speed zone,'
But I could be restful, I could be someone's home,
if I fell down"
When All the Stars Were Falling - Lisa Loeb


** remove NOBS_ to email me **

Paula writes:

Doug Anderson shared the following
perspective and opinions:

If you believe it is important for the father to be involved, yet you
chose to have a child with a man whose primary commitment was
elsewhere, that was _very_ unhealthy behavior on your part.

Ultimately, yes, I chose to have child with a man whose primary
commitment was elsewhere.

But, please remember that I honestly did not think that I _could get_
pregnant based on some pretty strong evidence (ref original post).

Actually, your OP included very weak evidence that you couldn't get
pregnant. And it included a conversation where you and he decided
that if you did get pregnant then so be it.

So again, there is a contradiction between your belief that it is
important to have the father involved, and your behavior.