"Adultery" site sued

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Comparing vows made between two people entering into marriage with a terms of service agreement. Was that meant to be a joke?

There is evidently no point in my trying to break through the wall you've put up to keep people like me out. Your prejudices are too apparent (and too apparently ingrained) for me to even bother trying. Even if I managed to break through that wall, I could easily end up being accused of exposing what I suspect are very fragile emotions.

In other words, if I lose I lose but if I win I also lose... so there is really nothing to be gained here, other than you continuing to maintain an illusion of your own superiority. If that's what it takes for you to hold your life together, then be well and go in peace...


... backs slowly away from victim of imagined abuses

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I have used more than one account here at RHP over the years, although never simultaneously, and never to cheat at chess, but I would never dream of breaking my marriage vows or of committing adultery or of getting divorced. As an anecdote (things you often seem to like to use to make points) what does my story tell you about my promise of fidelity and permanent companionship to my spouse? Should my spouse of 21 years be worried about the fact that, aside from the screen name FMF, I have in the past used the names Nick Bourbaki and John W Booth as well?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Sexual matters, in the US at least (I'm not sure about Europe, or even other parts of the world), prompt the most horrific displays of emotions. I suspect this is why vows of faithfulness are included in nearly every wedding ceremony I have ever seen.

I've had two engagements cancelled by me after catching my fiance (red-handed, as it were) in bed with other women, once two days before the wedding. If that also makes me a dogmatic, sanctimonious reactionary, then so be it. Not many Americans could be taken to task for not being tolerant, understanding or humane, in these circumstances. Not that this was adultery, but it certainly shows an inability to remain faithful, or even respectful, to one's vows.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Should my spouse of 21 years be worried about the fact that, aside from the screen name FMF, I have in the past used the names Nick Bourbaki and John W Booth here at RHP as well?

Originally posted by FMF
Should my spouse of 21 years be worried about the fact that, aside from the screen name FMF, I have in the past used the names Nick Bourbaki and John W Booth here at RHP as well?

If she didn't want to justify your existence with an answer to your "me, me, me" question the first time, I'd say the chances are she doesn't want to answer you the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh time, either, so just stop now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If she didn't want to justify your existence with an answer to your "me, me, me" question the first time, I'd say the chances are she doesn't want to answer you the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh time, either, so just stop now.

Well it's hardly surprising that Duchess64 would want to dodge it when you consider how utterly fatuous his analogy/juxtoposing/parallel is.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I agree with all you wrote here. Yes, even the preliminary bit about abortion. (As you say, it "depends on the situation".) And even the bit at the end, sort of a twist on "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Yes, in many ways, love could be construed as "carelessness". It is extremely pragmatic to assume that I might share some blame in these two circumstances, but one could hardly expect their outcomes to be the same.

And, as you say, breach of promise was never really considered in these cases. I felt lucky to be rid of such a man, and so there was no "tort" suffered, at least none worth hiring an attorney for. 🙂

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Who is it that you think advocates NOT "treating adulterers more like people with understandable human weaknesses than like evil criminals"? If you believe lemon lime ~ the person to whom the above text was addressed ~ advocates treating adulterers "like evil criminals", can you point out which of his posts he did this in?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Would you describe yourself as a poster who opposes ~ and refrains from ~ making personal remarks about fellow posters?

Originally posted by FMF
Well it's hardly surprising that Duchess64 would want to dodge it when you consider how utterly fatuous his analogy/juxtoposing/parallel is.

"His"? I'll let that one go, since the work involved in throwing in that cheap shot had to be minimal.

I think it's especially hardly surprising she wouldn't want to answer you, considering how your own analogy/juxtaposing/parallel is even more fatuous.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think it's especially hardly surprising she wouldn't want to answer you, considering how your own analogy/juxtaposing/parallel is even more fatuous.

What is fatuous about what I said? Do you also think ~ like Duchess64 ~ that there is some kind of link between having two RHP accounts and breaking one's marriage vows? This strikes me as one of the most fatuous 'debating points' about marriage that I've ever heard anyone try to make here. Do you think it's a point well made or that it's a downright weak point to make in a discussion about the sanctity of marriage vows?