husband had sex w/my best friend

[Jennifer]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:10:00 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

The couple, my old friends, are long over it - they have children and a good marriage.That is excellent. You don't really know if they are "over it." Thismay be pain that your former friend carries with her for the rest ofher life.

She and I are friends now, as I wrote; he and I aren't as much so,
other than that he's her husband, we were once friends, and grew up
togteher.

"Over it" isn't the best phrasing and I think actually an
understatement. Their relationship is stronger for it. It didn't
take long for her to be glad to see an indicator of an underlying
problem that they could address, and did. They are a very compatible
couple.

I was wrong. He, too, was wrong, though no one thought so.Is that really true? Or did their anger at you just mean they weren'tinterested in letting you deflect the blame which landed on you?

Well, they actually, all together had a group meeting and made a
decsion not to speak to me ever again, which they didn't. I accepted
blame and felt horrible. He accepted his, and actually felt somewhat
bad everyone turned on me. They all remained friends and are to this
day though. The two of them are the only two I still consider on
friendly terms. At the time, he and I didn't speak while she worked
things out for herself and with each of us.

So, yes, no one expressed ill feelings toward him, only me. However,
my friend and I worked hard at our friendship and have talked a lot
about this openly.

A better point for the OP, though, is one Tony Miller picked up on -
that she put her marriage first and her friendship with me second.
She handled it well - after an initial but brief bad time. They had
counseling to discuss their relationship. His looking elsewhere, she
felt nearly instantly, was symptomatic. And I can see, because I know
them, that they worked it out quite well and are a wonderful couple.

I did get brushed aside in the fall out, hated, and all things he
didn't. I saw a double standard. But I certainly learned my own
lesson.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:10:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

She and I are friends now, as I wrote; he and I aren't as much so, other than that he's her husband, we were once friends, and grew up togteher. "Over it" isn't the best phrasing and I think actually an understatement. Their relationship is stronger for it. It didn't take long for her to be glad to see an indicator of an underlying problem that they could address, and did. They are a very compatible couple.

Well, they actually, all together had a group meeting and made a decsion not to speak to me ever again, which they didn't. I accepted blame and felt horrible. He accepted his, and actually felt somewhat bad everyone turned on me. They all remained friends and are to this day though. The two of them are the only two I still consider on friendly terms. At the time, he and I didn't speak while she worked things out for herself and with each of us. So, yes, no one expressed ill feelings toward him, only me. However, my friend and I worked hard at our friendship and have talked a lot about this openly. A better point for the OP, though, is one Tony Miller picked up on - that she put her marriage first and her friendship with me second. She handled it well - after an initial but brief bad time. They had counseling to discuss their relationship. His looking elsewhere, she felt nearly instantly, was symptomatic. And I can see, because I know them, that they worked it out quite well and are a wonderful couple. I did get brushed aside in the fall out, hated, and all things he didn't. I saw a double standard. But I certainly learned my own lesson.

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, and
friendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standard
to you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:10:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

She and I are friends now, as I wrote; he and I aren't as much so, other than that he's her husband, we were once friends, and grew up togteher. "Over it" isn't the best phrasing and I think actually an understatement. Their relationship is stronger for it. It didn't take long for her to be glad to see an indicator of an underlying problem that they could address, and did. They are a very compatible couple.

Well, they actually, all together had a group meeting and made a decsion not to speak to me ever again, which they didn't. I accepted blame and felt horrible. He accepted his, and actually felt somewhat bad everyone turned on me. They all remained friends and are to this day though. The two of them are the only two I still consider on friendly terms. At the time, he and I didn't speak while she worked things out for herself and with each of us. So, yes, no one expressed ill feelings toward him, only me. However, my friend and I worked hard at our friendship and have talked a lot about this openly. A better point for the OP, though, is one Tony Miller picked up on - that she put her marriage first and her friendship with me second. She handled it well - after an initial but brief bad time. They had counseling to discuss their relationship. His looking elsewhere, she felt nearly instantly, was symptomatic. And I can see, because I know them, that they worked it out quite well and are a wonderful couple. I did get brushed aside in the fall out, hated, and all things he didn't. I saw a double standard. But I certainly learned my own lesson.

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, and
friendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standard
to you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

[Jennifer]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:18:01 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, andfriendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standardto you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

Do you really think it was sensible for my friends to shun me? Why do
you say "her" friends?

They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her to
them when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married,
and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my only
friends; we were in our 20s.

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood
on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and
not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I
think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by
not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they
aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he
thought the standard was different for each of us.

[Jennifer]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:18:01 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, andfriendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standardto you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

Do you really think it was sensible for my friends to shun me? Why do
you say "her" friends?

They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her to
them when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married,
and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my only
friends; we were in our 20s.

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood
on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and
not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I
think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by
not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they
aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he
thought the standard was different for each of us.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:10:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

She and I are friends now, as I wrote; he and I aren't as much so, other than that he's her husband, we were once friends, and grew up togteher. "Over it" isn't the best phrasing and I think actually an understatement. Their relationship is stronger for it. It didn't take long for her to be glad to see an indicator of an underlying problem that they could address, and did. They are a very compatible couple.

Well, they actually, all together had a group meeting and made a decsion not to speak to me ever again, which they didn't. I accepted blame and felt horrible. He accepted his, and actually felt somewhat bad everyone turned on me. They all remained friends and are to this day though. The two of them are the only two I still consider on friendly terms. At the time, he and I didn't speak while she worked things out for herself and with each of us. So, yes, no one expressed ill feelings toward him, only me. However, my friend and I worked hard at our friendship and have talked a lot about this openly. A better point for the OP, though, is one Tony Miller picked up on - that she put her marriage first and her friendship with me second. She handled it well - after an initial but brief bad time. They had counseling to discuss their relationship. His looking elsewhere, she felt nearly instantly, was symptomatic. And I can see, because I know them, that they worked it out quite well and are a wonderful couple. I did get brushed aside in the fall out, hated, and all things he didn't. I saw a double standard. But I certainly learned my own lesson.

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, and
friendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standard
to you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:10:00 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

She and I are friends now, as I wrote; he and I aren't as much so, other than that he's her husband, we were once friends, and grew up togteher. "Over it" isn't the best phrasing and I think actually an understatement. Their relationship is stronger for it. It didn't take long for her to be glad to see an indicator of an underlying problem that they could address, and did. They are a very compatible couple.

Well, they actually, all together had a group meeting and made a decsion not to speak to me ever again, which they didn't. I accepted blame and felt horrible. He accepted his, and actually felt somewhat bad everyone turned on me. They all remained friends and are to this day though. The two of them are the only two I still consider on friendly terms. At the time, he and I didn't speak while she worked things out for herself and with each of us. So, yes, no one expressed ill feelings toward him, only me. However, my friend and I worked hard at our friendship and have talked a lot about this openly. A better point for the OP, though, is one Tony Miller picked up on - that she put her marriage first and her friendship with me second. She handled it well - after an initial but brief bad time. They had counseling to discuss their relationship. His looking elsewhere, she felt nearly instantly, was symptomatic. And I can see, because I know them, that they worked it out quite well and are a wonderful couple. I did get brushed aside in the fall out, hated, and all things he didn't. I saw a double standard. But I certainly learned my own lesson.

My point was that her friends also put her marriage first, and
friendship with you second. That may have felt like a double standard
to you, but it is a sensible thing to do.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:18:01 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

Do you really think it was sensible for my friends to shun me? Why do you say "her" friends? They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her to them when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married, and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my only friends; we were in our 20s. They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he thought the standard was different for each of us.

I don't care about what "even he" thought.

A marriage is supposed to be your primary life committment. So yes, I
think it makes sense for friends to decide to do what they think is
right to support other friends' marriage.

It is interesting to me that you percieve you were treated unfairly.
My perception is that _you_ didn't have a marriage at stake. Your
friends did. And your mutual friends may have been angry enough to
want to shun your friend's husband too, but if they had done that they
would have been undercutting your friend's effort to rebuild her
marriage.

You seem to be putting your friendship with her at the same level as
her marriage. She probably doesn't put those things at the same
level. And neither do your former mutual friends. And neither would
I.

[Doug Anderson]

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:18:01 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

Do you really think it was sensible for my friends to shun me? Why do you say "her" friends? They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her to them when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married, and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my only friends; we were in our 20s. They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he thought the standard was different for each of us.

I don't care about what "even he" thought.

A marriage is supposed to be your primary life committment. So yes, I
think it makes sense for friends to decide to do what they think is
right to support other friends' marriage.

It is interesting to me that you percieve you were treated unfairly.
My perception is that _you_ didn't have a marriage at stake. Your
friends did. And your mutual friends may have been angry enough to
want to shun your friend's husband too, but if they had done that they
would have been undercutting your friend's effort to rebuild her
marriage.

You seem to be putting your friendship with her at the same level as
her marriage. She probably doesn't put those things at the same
level. And neither do your former mutual friends. And neither would
I.

[Tracey]

Doug Anderson wrote:

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

I agree with Doug that it was a sensible thing for the other people
to do. Or at least that's what I would have done in the same situation.
For a couple of reasons.

First, it would have been counterproductive for them to have
shunned her husband if their goal was to remain friends with the
wife. When my husband had his affair, I didn't tell many people
at all (except for the hundreds and thousands of people on Usenet
<grin>) and still haven't but the ones I told I was sure wouldn't
treat my husband badly and wouldn't hold a grudge against him. I
*definitely* didn't tell anyone who I thought would give him a
hard time or would keep bringing up the affair for years whenever
the least little thing would pop up. They may think he's the scum
of the earth, but to show that that's their thoughts about him
would endanger their friendship with the wife, IMO.

Second, when a person does something to another person they
consider a friend, there's the possibility that they will do that
same to you. I used to be of the opinion that if a person was my
friend and that they had never done anything bad to me, then what
they did to other people they considered friends wasn't much of an
issue. Or at least what they did to other people didn't affect my
relationship with them much. After a few instances when, eventually,
that person would turn around and do something to *me*, I finally
got it through my head that how a person treats other people they
call 'friends' will be how they treat me when the conditions are
right. I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who had slept with
one of their friends' husband because that's a history, a pattern
of behavior that I wouldn't want to be brought in to.

They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her tothem when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married,and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my onlyfriends; we were in our 20s.

You know, it seems that you want to view what happened in a bubble.
As if it only affected you, the husband, and his wife. That it is
nobody else's business what happened and, as long as the husband
and the wife have gotten past what happened, then no one else should
have anything to say about it. That's not the way life works though.

There are just some things that some people find unforgivable. While
I don't believe things like this are excuses for doing things like
pouring sugar into your gas tank or spraypainting 'Adulteress' all
over your house, it's not a character flaw on their part, IMO, that
they decided that they don't want to continue to associate with you.

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stoodon principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me andnot speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more Ithink they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that bynot speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage theyaren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even hethought the standard was different for each of us.

Not knowing what your friends think, I can't say that the standard
was different for you and the husband. You don't know and he doesn't
know just exactly what the friends think of him. You and he only see
how they treat him. And, again, it just may be that they treat him
differently because they feel that's the only way to continue being
friends with her. I sure wouldn't hang around much with someone who
treated my husband badly or made snide remarks or who openly showed
they didn't like him.


Tracey

[Tracey]

Doug Anderson wrote:

someone@internet.com (Jennifer) writes:

I agree with Doug that it was a sensible thing for the other people
to do. Or at least that's what I would have done in the same situation.
For a couple of reasons.

First, it would have been counterproductive for them to have
shunned her husband if their goal was to remain friends with the
wife. When my husband had his affair, I didn't tell many people
at all (except for the hundreds and thousands of people on Usenet
<grin>) and still haven't but the ones I told I was sure wouldn't
treat my husband badly and wouldn't hold a grudge against him. I
*definitely* didn't tell anyone who I thought would give him a
hard time or would keep bringing up the affair for years whenever
the least little thing would pop up. They may think he's the scum
of the earth, but to show that that's their thoughts about him
would endanger their friendship with the wife, IMO.

Second, when a person does something to another person they
consider a friend, there's the possibility that they will do that
same to you. I used to be of the opinion that if a person was my
friend and that they had never done anything bad to me, then what
they did to other people they considered friends wasn't much of an
issue. Or at least what they did to other people didn't affect my
relationship with them much. After a few instances when, eventually,
that person would turn around and do something to *me*, I finally
got it through my head that how a person treats other people they
call 'friends' will be how they treat me when the conditions are
right. I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who had slept with
one of their friends' husband because that's a history, a pattern
of behavior that I wouldn't want to be brought in to.

They were my friends since junior high school; I introduced her tothem when she returned from college - she dated one, who she married,and became friends with all. They were my closest friends, my onlyfriends; we were in our 20s.

You know, it seems that you want to view what happened in a bubble.
As if it only affected you, the husband, and his wife. That it is
nobody else's business what happened and, as long as the husband
and the wife have gotten past what happened, then no one else should
have anything to say about it. That's not the way life works though.

There are just some things that some people find unforgivable. While
I don't believe things like this are excuses for doing things like
pouring sugar into your gas tank or spraypainting 'Adulteress' all
over your house, it's not a character flaw on their part, IMO, that
they decided that they don't want to continue to associate with you.

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stoodon principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me andnot speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more Ithink they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that bynot speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage theyaren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even hethought the standard was different for each of us.

Not knowing what your friends think, I can't say that the standard
was different for you and the husband. You don't know and he doesn't
know just exactly what the friends think of him. You and he only see
how they treat him. And, again, it just may be that they treat him
differently because they feel that's the only way to continue being
friends with her. I sure wouldn't hang around much with someone who
treated my husband badly or made snide remarks or who openly showed
they didn't like him.


Tracey

[Ellie]

Jennifer wrote:

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he thought the standard was different for each of us.

Jennifer,

Doug and Tracy have already addressed your point very well. I am going
to give a more general view which has to do with the concept of
marriage, society, and people's responsibilities.

Very often when there is an affair we hear people say the person who is
to blame is the spouse who went out of marriage, because he/she is the
one who made the vows and promised to be faithful. The "other" person is
not to be blamed because they didn't promise anything to anyone. This
would be true if marriage was *only* an arrangement between two people
and totally disconnected from society. It is not!

Traditionally, marriage has been a social contract in which two people
are publicly acknowledged to have a unique relationship with each other,
with responsibilities towards society (mainly in providing support and
care for each other and the children), and in return society gives them
the support that they need to keep this valuable union together. In a
sense EVERYONE in society is implicitly expected to support their union,
or at least NOT do anything to damage it.

Of course being human and subject to error, society also recognizes that
each of the couple may be tempted to do something wrong that damages
their union. That is why aside from punishments for adultery (in the
past), there has also been support and help to get them back together
and maintain their union. That is why many times when people stray, if
they are remorseful and want to make the marriage work, people are quite
sympathetic towards them. After all, they want to do what is deemed VERY
important from society's view (keeping the marriage together). On the
other hand, the "other" person is viewed as nothing but a home-wrecker,
and one who has betrayed the "society" by endangering a marriage --
which is a very important societal institution.

That's why no matter how illogical it may seem, many times the spouse
who has committed adultery but wants to make things right is forgiven
and helped, but the outsider isn't. There is no redeeming value in
forgiving the outsider, as their role is viewed ONLY as a destructive
one. The spouse, though having done something destructive, is in a
position to fix things and put it together, so they deserve support!!

[Ellie]

Jennifer wrote:

They're still married - and she and I are still close - people stood on principle about me and decided, collectively, to be angry at me and not speak to me. The more you argue it, and I revisit it, the more I think they were wrong. I don't know what would make you think that by not speaking to me other people are putting first a marriage they aren't part of, is strong, and the couple hasn't shunned me. Even he thought the standard was different for each of us.

Jennifer,

Doug and Tracy have already addressed your point very well. I am going
to give a more general view which has to do with the concept of
marriage, society, and people's responsibilities.

Very often when there is an affair we hear people say the person who is
to blame is the spouse who went out of marriage, because he/she is the
one who made the vows and promised to be faithful. The "other" person is
not to be blamed because they didn't promise anything to anyone. This
would be true if marriage was *only* an arrangement between two people
and totally disconnected from society. It is not!

Traditionally, marriage has been a social contract in which two people
are publicly acknowledged to have a unique relationship with each other,
with responsibilities towards society (mainly in providing support and
care for each other and the children), and in return society gives them
the support that they need to keep this valuable union together. In a
sense EVERYONE in society is implicitly expected to support their union,
or at least NOT do anything to damage it.

Of course being human and subject to error, society also recognizes that
each of the couple may be tempted to do something wrong that damages
their union. That is why aside from punishments for adultery (in the
past), there has also been support and help to get them back together
and maintain their union. That is why many times when people stray, if
they are remorseful and want to make the marriage work, people are quite
sympathetic towards them. After all, they want to do what is deemed VERY
important from society's view (keeping the marriage together). On the
other hand, the "other" person is viewed as nothing but a home-wrecker,
and one who has betrayed the "society" by endangering a marriage --
which is a very important societal institution.

That's why no matter how illogical it may seem, many times the spouse
who has committed adultery but wants to make things right is forgiven
and helped, but the outsider isn't. There is no redeeming value in
forgiving the outsider, as their role is viewed ONLY as a destructive
one. The spouse, though having done something destructive, is in a
position to fix things and put it together, so they deserve support!!