Fair question
-
I mean, this was just discovering the cheating, not like, chasing them down for vengeance.
She was clearly complaining about her being at "HER" boyfriend's place. Asking what she was doing there, but really implying why she was there, cause the man is already taken.
-
This post did not contain any content.
are the x's EOL or something?
-
She was clearly complaining about her being at "HER" boyfriend's place. Asking what she was doing there, but really implying why she was there, cause the man is already taken.
It's not unreasonable to think the "homewrecker" might know, in which case it would be pretty despicable.
But if they clarify they didn't, it should be the end of that (assuming they dump his ass for not telling them he has a gf)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Let me borrow that top.
-
are the x's EOL or something?
carriage return?
-
are the x's EOL or something?
YEH I DO BABE STOP
-
I never understood complaining to the person your partner is cheating with. You don't have any agreements with that person, go "complain" to your partner.
Eh, it depends on circumstances and the people involved. In all cases, the original couple now has a beef, so that's where we agree.
Where things get subtle is whether or not the other girlfriend here knew that the boyfriend was cheating or not. If that's established beyond doubt, then yeah, I can see how a confrontation would make sense. It's still not a good idea though; they've demonstrated a skewed moral compass already so that could go poorly and for probably little gain in the end.
Even murkier is how different people practice non-monogamy. Some folks are free to have multiple partners without them ever meeting each other face-to-face. Others prefer to interactively collaborate and vet partners instead. Even then there's all kinds of variations, agreements, limitations, and so on. Which is to say if someone is up front and vocal about being one of those situations, do you really know that's true? And, if on that trust you wind up accidentally crossing a boundary with someone, how would anyone parse out the truth?
So, yeah, probably don't start a beef with the third party just to be safe, unless you're absolutely, positively, 100% sure that's not going to blow up on you.
-
It's not unreasonable to think the "homewrecker" might know, in which case it would be pretty despicable.
But if they clarify they didn't, it should be the end of that (assuming they dump his ass for not telling them he has a gf)
wrote last edited by [email protected]This opinion might get some hate, but it still isn't their problem. I don't blame people for picking money off the ground, even though it rightfully belongs to someone else. It's not their fault for picking it up. The problem is with the cheater for getting with them. They're the homewrecker, not the person who was doing their own thing not a part of that relationship.
It's probably a bad idea to persue someone who you know is in a relationship, but it isn't your problem if they cheat.
-
This opinion might get some hate, but it still isn't their problem. I don't blame people for picking money off the ground, even though it rightfully belongs to someone else. It's not their fault for picking it up. The problem is with the cheater for getting with them. They're the homewrecker, not the person who was doing their own thing not a part of that relationship.
It's probably a bad idea to persue someone who you know is in a relationship, but it isn't your problem if they cheat.
I agree it's not their problem or fault tbh.
It definitely says something about a person who is willing to do that though.
-
Eh, it depends on circumstances and the people involved. In all cases, the original couple now has a beef, so that's where we agree.
Where things get subtle is whether or not the other girlfriend here knew that the boyfriend was cheating or not. If that's established beyond doubt, then yeah, I can see how a confrontation would make sense. It's still not a good idea though; they've demonstrated a skewed moral compass already so that could go poorly and for probably little gain in the end.
Even murkier is how different people practice non-monogamy. Some folks are free to have multiple partners without them ever meeting each other face-to-face. Others prefer to interactively collaborate and vet partners instead. Even then there's all kinds of variations, agreements, limitations, and so on. Which is to say if someone is up front and vocal about being one of those situations, do you really know that's true? And, if on that trust you wind up accidentally crossing a boundary with someone, how would anyone parse out the truth?
So, yeah, probably don't start a beef with the third party just to be safe, unless you're absolutely, positively, 100% sure that's not going to blow up on you.
But what is even the point of arguing with them? Assuming they are a stranger, of course, and not a person you have a personal relationship with, too. You just make a mental note that the person is ok with something you consider immoral and move on.
-
Let me borrow that top.
Get in line x
