found a text from him to her

@lisa1471,

What the hell business is it of yours? You claim to love your husband, correct?

The true definition of love is to set someone free and to let them do as they wish. That you simply, admire, in a way, the fact that they even exist at all and you happened to be a fortunate witness. You love him? Then let him be.

Controlling someone isn't love.

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

I disagree... I think she has a right to know why her husband is talking to someone he has an affair with which is suppose to be over.

I think you should have a talk with your husband to see what is going on.

1 Reply

@lisa1471,

lisa1471 wrote:

What was the point?

they're staying in touch.

what was the point of him giving you his phone to read texts?

2 Replies

@KnowingIt,

What is this mysterious 'right' you speak of? If this exists, it would no doubt have to be self-appointed. Could we make a list of self-appointed 'rights' and so long as we all agree about them, put them into practice?

The trouble here is, you speak as if 'rights' were an object in the sky which are the 'property' of all those deemed worthy be being 'human'.

From my point of view, if you truly love someone you let them do as they please. Anything else is just a psycho-pseudo controlling 'act' which portrays itself as 'caring' for someone.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

From my point of view, if you truly love someone you let them do as they please. Anything else is just a psycho-pseudo controlling 'act' which portrays itself as 'caring' for someone.

I disagree. You let them "be themselves", accept them for who they are but there are two people within a relationship not one. Letting someone do what ever they want to do, doesn't constitute a relationship if cheating is one of those things..

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

'Relationship' in this(or any context) is fictitious because you're still treating 'it' as if it were a 'concept' which as different elements for it to be proven. The elements you are 'using' are as follows:

1.Two people, not one.
2.One of them must not 'cheat', otherwise the 'relationship' - concept is proven fallible.

So see how you've up-ended this conversation into an attempt to defend and 'prove' the idea you've always had of the 'relationship' - concept. Regardless of your arbitrary classifications there are only individuals on this planet and the 'relationship' label is proving less and less useful.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

FS

Quote:

let them "be themselves", accept them for who they are

JP

Quote:

there are only individuals on this planet

Tell me where there is a difference here...

.

Quote:

Two people, not one.

A relationship may be a concept but it does constitute two people. Off course you can have a relationship with yourself but what fun would that be.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

Tell me where there is a difference here...

There is no point in the identification or defining of 'relationship' in the first place. You are an individual, your 'soulmate' can't go in the casket with you.

Quote:

A relationship may be a concept but it does constitute two people. Off course you can have a relationship with yourself but what fun would that be.

I already know you're a liar, but if you're attempting to tell me you don't have a relationship with your 'self' then you've let everyone else here know it as well. In traditional thinking 'relationship' is of course constituted by two people, but the goal here is to think through common sense and see what may come of it. So far you've contributed nothing.

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Let me see.

Quote:

Tell me where there is a difference here...

Let me ask you that again.. Because it had nothing to do with relationships of two people...

So if you believe there is a "soulmate" then do you believe there is a soul.....

Quote:

I already know you're a liar, but if you're attempting to tell me you don't have a relationship with your 'self' then you've let everyone else here know it as well

So from 2 posts you know my identity, my inner thoughts, how I work, operate.. Ahha.

Quote:

Off course you can have a relationship with yourself but what fun would that be.

I'm not attempting to tell you anything... Telling is controlling...or attempting to control someone elses thought pattern..

The only thing I agree with you on is the bit you totally missed and took out of context. We should be ourselves, to elaborate, we belong to ourselves, we should love ourselves, be happy in our own company... Why would anyone purely only be happy with all of that and be comfortable in their own presense only, for the rest of their lives.. if not for sharing it.

Quote:

but the goal here is to think through common sense and see what may come of it. So far you've contributed nothing.

This is a topic of cheating, you've contributed nothing to the OP..

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

Let me ask you that again.. Because it had nothing to do with relationships of two people...

So if you believe there is a "soulmate" then do you believe there is a soul.....

There is no 'soul', hence the 's that I put around 'soulmate'.

Quote:

I'm not attempting to tell you anything... Telling is controlling...or attempting to control someone elses thought pattern..

The only thing I agree with you on is the bit you totally missed and took out of context. We should be ourselves, to elaborate, we belong to ourselves, we should love ourselves, be happy in our own company... Why would anyone purely only be happy with all of that and be comfortable in their own presense only, for the rest of their lives.. if not for sharing it.

Your statements are redundant and meaningless. Of course we are ourselves. What is this mysterious 'I' who is separate from myself that which could be it? I suggest that most people are un-happy in their own company, as evidenced by so many being worried about 'cheating' in the first place. If you're happy being with yourself then 'relationships' can go to hell. Or you can take it, either way. People who are un-happy with themselves will never be fulfilled by someone else, regardless of how 'faithful' they are. I'm sure this isn't the first 'problem' she as run into in her daily life, won't be the last either until she learns to be 'good' alone.

Quote:

This is a topic of cheating, you've contributed nothing to the OP..

He who is losing the argument changes the topic. This is your attempted rabit-trail and attention diversion with hopes I'll go down a road you're more 'comfortable' with.

Ain't happenin' Sally.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

lisa1471 wrote:
What was the point?

they're staying in touch.

what was the point of him giving you his phone to read texts?

I was talking to a couple of ladies the other day, and we all agreed it would never occur to us to look at our spouses phone for any reason.

Sometimes his phone rings and he's sitting outside. I don't even bother to go tell him it's ringing.

I got bigger carp to fry.

2 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

I got bigger carp to fry.

or salmon to fillet

1 Reply

@chai2,

Thanks for offering nothing to the discussion matter and showing us all that you think you're too cool to actually give a crap about the one you supposedly 'love'.

I mean my gosh, it's already bad enough that you apparently only married him to keep the conception you've always had as the 'perfect life' in line but now you've got to be a jerk and come on here just to show everyone you've got bigger things to do?

Get real.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

There is no 'soul', hence the 's that I put around 'soulmate'.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Of course we are ourselves.

Not true at all. We should "be" ourselves, but alot of people are not. They try to be someone else, or what someone else wants them to be.

Quote:

If you're happy being with yourself then 'relationships' can go to hell.

There is no soul, but there is a hell.

Quote:

People who are un-happy with themselves will never be fulfilled by someone else,

People who are un-happy within themselves, for the most part don't believe in themself and are very in-secure, such as the OP, consequently, accept all sorts of crap because of fear. Fear of loss , "he didn't love me?".. " I have to go on my own", fear of rejection, of being alone, un-happiness breads negativity and fear.

People that are un-happy with themselves can be fulfilled by someone else, if that someone else guides them and spends time showing them what they are worth... So that is not correct either.

Quote:

He who is losing the argument changes the topic. This is your attempted rabit-trail and attention diversion with hopes I'll go down a road you're more 'comfortable' with.

Just like you assumed I am a lier, you assume I am a man Wink

Not at all, this isn't a philosophy thread, it's a cheating thread, and you are off topic apart from your last statement regarding the OP.

I'm comfortable with any thing you say, because I am happy in myself... Again don't assume.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

In your opinion.

Show me your soul. What is this nonsense you speak?

Quote:

Not true at all. We should "be" ourselves, but alot of people are not. They try to be someone else, or what someone else wants them to be.

Each person, for all intents and purposes 'is' him/herself. Regardless of any personality/"being" argument you want to put forth. Every man is born as many men but dies as a single one.

Quote:

There is no soul, but there is a hell.

This is obviously horseshit, see 'rabbit trails' above. I used 'go to hell' metaphorically and you know it.

Quote:

People who are un-happy within themselves, for the most part don't believe in themself and are very in-secure, such as the OP, consequently, accept all sorts of crap because of fear. Fear of loss , "he didn't love me?".. " I have to go on my own", fear of rejection, of being alone, un-happiness breads negativity and fear.

People that are un-happy with themselves can be fulfilled by someone else, if that someone else guides them and spends time showing them what they are worth... So that is not correct either.

All of that up there is nothing but your re-hash of popular conceptions and phrases regarding the topic matter. People like you have founded their lives on gaining the knowledge of the general consensus on any given subject matter and presenting it as 'their' opinion. That's all you've done here, please inbox me when you've un-covered something new sweetie.

Quote:

Just like you assumed I am a lier, you assume I am a man

Not at all, this isn't a philosophy thread, it's a cheating thread, and you are off topic apart from your last statement regarding the OP.

I'm comfortable with any thing you say, because I am happy in myself... Again don't assume.

Once again the words I used were done so metaphorically,when people speak of 'man' it means mankind. Not just 'men' as opposed to women. So it's the same here with 'he'. I assumed you were older than 10 so that you could be able to figure this out, if not then I apologize.

Who said anything about philosophy? Why must you go on labeling everything that is said?

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

What the hell business is why my husband is texting his mistress? Are you even paying attention before being quick to respond.Post starts with my husband.Read carefully before you TRY to take shots.You haven't a clue

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Thank you but person above obviously didn't read the post correct to understand that I'm the wife and he had a mistress which hes still contacting.

2 Replies

@lisa1471,

I think people understand the relationships. What you're reading is different reactions.

I don't understand why you're reading his texts.

The question of why you're in a relationship with a man who also had/has a mistress is a separate one.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Quote:

Show me your soul. What is this nonsense you speak?

There is no soul. In your opinion.. There is, in my opinion.. Stick around, you'll get to see my soul.

Quote:

Each person, for all intents and purposes 'is' him/herself. Regardless of any personality/"being" argument you want to put forth. Every man is born as many men but dies as a single one.

To a degree, but there is an arguement. I claim that alot of people are not themselves, they mimic others therefore, they are not being themselves at all. Nothing to do with personality.

FS

Quote:

There is no soul, but there is a hell.

Quote:

This is obviously horseshit, see 'rabbit trails' above. I used 'go to hell' metaphorically and you know it.

Interesting, as that should have read, "There is no soul, but there is a Hell? " however, you got it, exactly how I meant it.

Quote:

People like you have founded their lives on gaining the knowledge of the general consensus on any given subject matter and presenting it as 'their' opinion.

Didn't you call yourself God in another thread?

So what you speak of, your mighty, is correct. You didn't have to gain the knowledge and come to an opinion, you know it all.. I see.

Quote:

Once again the words I used were done so metaphorically,when people speak of 'man' it means mankind. Not just 'men' as opposed to women. So it's the same here with 'he'

An antonyms.. No, I call you a lier. You thought I was a he.

Not that it matters, just pointing out your third assumption of the day...on a thread that you've hi-jacked.

1 Reply

found a text from him to her

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know