If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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 ** |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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 ** |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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 ** |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
"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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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 ** |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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 ** |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
looking for other perspectives (very long)
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Difficult Move Cross County (long) | risa bernstein | General | 2 | March 11th 04 11:08 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
ER visit -- part vent, should I complain? Long, as usual | Tina | General | 40 | September 23rd 03 01:36 PM |
(MA.) Murderer's rep as rat preceded long rap sheet | [email protected] | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:36 PM |