# Radio show- "Cheaters have intimacy issues"



## daggeredheart (Feb 21, 2012)

I was listening to this radio program with a marriage therapist- 

Q- How does the BS deal with the anger and lack of "remorse or ambivalence of reconcilition of the WS" Lack of initiative of the WS while the BS is more pro-active in reconciliation?"

A- "Insensitivity towards the BS from the cheating spouse is very very normal, there is not always a high level of commitment to rebuild trust. There is a need for the cheating spouse to maintain distance, a cheating spouse has a difficult time with intimacy. A affair is never never never a intimate relationship. The person who has a affair has a issue of being close,letting someone know who they are or really truly knowing someone. Affairs are relationships of emotional distance believe it or not" 

"When the cheating spouse comes back into the marriage they still have tremendous difficulty with intimacy. They will not know how to be intimate with the partner they wounded. "


"A affair is the escape of the root of the problem- wheather you are with your affair partner or married partner. The purpose of an affair is to maintain some level of distance in your relationships. " He goes on to say that you have to find the root of the the intimacy problem in that person or you will have a repeat. 


Dr. Huizenga posted a link to this interview on his twitter feed today. I found it to be fascinating.....thoughts?


----------



## Lovingwife315 (Dec 10, 2012)

I have to read the entire thing before I post my thoughts on it, except to say, it seems to ring true , but doesn't really help if the WS doesn't realize it......


----------



## BackOnTrack (Oct 25, 2011)

daggeredheart said:


> I was listening to this radio program with a marriage therapist-
> 
> Q- How does the BS deal with the anger and lack of "remorse or ambivalence of reconcilition of the WS" Lack of initiative of the WS while the BS is more pro-active in reconciliation?"
> 
> ...


While some of that may be true, it's really not that simple. Prior to my affair, I craved an emotionally intimate relationship with my wife. But due to years of resenment on both sides, we could not get there. I had also felt that I could not really be myself with my wife. 

Within the affair, I felt that I could be myself and express my emotions and romantic nature without being rejected as had been the case for many years of marriage. Of course, given the nature of affairs and the perpetual infatuation/ lack of reality, I guess that we were never completely as open nd honest about our selves as it may have seemed at the time.

Ultimately, the theory of the 5 love languages was key to repairing our marriage after the affair. I guess what I'm trying to say is that both spouses can be eaqually guilty of not allowing themselves to be completely open and intimate.


----------



## daggeredheart (Feb 21, 2012)

BackonTrack- It reads in your first two paragraphs as if you confirm what the radio program states, you couldn't be emotionally vulnerable/intimate with your spouse based on fear of rejection and you "thought" you were being authentically intimate within your affair but realize now that you weren't.  

Here is another tidbit that he states which I thought was really powerful because I've struggled with true forgiveness and I didn't know what that felt like. 

"Ultimate test of forgiveness is when you see your spouse as a human being who attempted to cope with their own sense of inadequacy, emptiness or pain and to see your cheating spouse as no different from you or anyone else"


----------



## Acabado (May 13, 2012)

BackOnTrack said:


> While some of that may be true, it's really not that simple. Prior to my affair, I craved an emotionally intimate relationship with my wife. But due to years of resenment on both sides, we could not get there. I had also felt that I could not really be myself with my wife.


The fact that affairs are not real intimate relationship doesn't deny the fact the marraige may lack intimacy. Not mutual exclusive. Even when you have problems in the marriage and what you crave is that intimacy affairs resolve nothing because they are by thier own nature a poor substitute of the real deal. Picture surrogate coffee with saccharin.
I've brought this a few times, being an atheist.
_"To a starving man, even what is bitter tastes sweet"_


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm going to disagree. 

I respect the opinions of Dr Huizenga and have read virtually everything he has written over the years but, this statement...

"A affair is never never never a intimate relationship. The person who has a affair has a issue of being close,letting someone know who they are or really truly knowing someone. Affairs are relationships of emotional distance believe it or not"

Is awful, and largely false on every account. In many cases, I would contend that affairs particularly 'love' affairs are exactly the opposite. They are highly charged emotionally and quite intimate. 

Regardless the 'sustainable quality' of that intimacy, a DS experiences overwelming emotional intimacy in an affair even if it is with just the 'ideals' they have of the AP.


----------



## canttrustu (Feb 22, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> I'm going to disagree.
> 
> I respect the opinions of Dr Huizenga and have read virtually everything he has written over the years but, this statement...
> 
> ...


While I see what youre saying Pit- I would say this it is true in that the participants in the affair arent their authenic selves therefore TRUE intimacy is NoT there. True intimacy cannot be had in the land of rainbows and puppy dogs, IMO.

Ive read the interaction between my H and his AP. I honest to God, didnt recognize the man on the other end of those emails. He was being what whould attract her just as she was being what would attract him. Always putting on a fascade. Always being perfect. Always being THAT person to the AP. They tuck away their authentic selves. By that definition- intimacy is absent.

However I dont believe in saying "never" either.


----------



## BackOnTrack (Oct 25, 2011)

daggeredheart said:


> BackonTrack- It reads in your first two paragraphs as if you confirm what the radio program states, you couldn't be emotionally vulnerable/intimate with your spouse based on fear of rejection and you "thought" you were being authentically intimate within your affair but realize now that you weren't.
> 
> Here is another tidbit that he states which I thought was really powerful because I've struggled with true forgiveness and I didn't know what that felt like.
> 
> "Ultimate test of forgiveness is when you see your spouse as a human being who attempted to cope with their own sense of inadequacy, emptiness or pain and to see your cheating spouse as no different from you or anyone else"


Well like I said in my innitial post, some of what the DR. said may be true. My point was that though it was inferred that it is the WS that is 100% responsible for the lack of intamacy within the marriage, I beleive that it was due to lack of intimacy from both spouses. 
In my case, I beleive it went well beyond fear of rejection. There was a fundemental difference in how we shared intimacy which lead to further diconnect. Once we were at that point, neither of us could really open up to each other. And going through the motions while both harboring deep resentment prevented true intimacty from ever occurring for either of us.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

I agree with CTU, Pit has a point, there certainly are emotional factors at play in a major way, but a lot of what the affair relationship is built on is the LACK of intimate knowledge of the partner. It's the thrill of the unknown and the enjoyment of the game of finding out... same reason why kids love Christmas morning so much because there are a whole bunch of mystery packages containing unknown gratuitous object to open up.


----------



## BeenthereDunThat (Nov 27, 2012)

I have a hard time squaring that affairs could be based on real intimacy given the fact that they are based on and thrive on secrecy, deception, dishonesty, and so on. How could any true intimacy be founded on this reality?


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

canttrustu said:


> While I see what youre saying Pit- I would say this it is true in that the participants in the affair arent their authenic selves therefore TRUE intimacy is NoT there. True intimacy cannot be had in the land of rainbows and puppy dogs, IMO.
> 
> Ive read the interaction between my H and his AP. I honest to God, didnt recognize the man on the other end of those emails. He was being what whould attract her just as she was being what would attract him. Always putting on a fascade. Always being perfect. Always being THAT person to the AP. They tuck away their authentic selves. By that definition- intimacy is absent.
> 
> However I dont believe in saying "never" either.


I still disagree with this notion. I'm of the opinion that this entire explanation or line of thinking is 'client speak' on the part of the author. It's an attractive perspective to a BS who would like to believe that no "true" intimacy exists in an affairs situation. 

I believe the exact opposite to be true. An individuals reality is subjective and people are layered and complex. The person 'you don't recognize' is a subset of the person you know. This person does exist inside of the DS. The intimacy is quite real in the moment. You ask virtually anyone involved in an emotional affair if the feelings are 'real'. To them, in that moment it was very real and extremely intense. After the fact, ask again and you may get the opinion that it wasn't real or possibly that they didn't know what it was. But, there is no question in the throws of a 'love' affair there is a hyper-intimacy. 

It's easier for everyone involved in the event to re-write the existence of intimacy out of the equation. It's an easy sell. You would like to believe it wasn't 'really' there. The DS would love for you to believe it wasn't there. The DS would even prefer to write it out of their own perspective of reality to diminish or minimize the emotional significance of this person and this experience in their lives. The rug sweeping both internally and externally is much easier when the event is "smaller".

Now I know that this opinion is not going to be eagerly consumed by a BS in R, or seeking R because it stings and as I read it, the opinion offered by the author (Dr. H) is far more attractive. With that in mind, I did research and I can not see any angle for a valid agruement that affairs are void of intimacy. 

These are just my thoughts and my opinions for what they are worth. I would be interested in hearing counter points or a more detailed explanation about how intimacy does not exist in affairs. Perhaps it's a fine tuned or semantic definition of intimacy and Im misunderstanding. 

I don't know and I guess it doesn't really matter. Sometimes I just spew random thoughts as they pop in my head. lol.


----------



## canttrustu (Feb 22, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> I still disagree with this notion. I'm of the opinion that this entire explanation or line of thinking is 'client speak' on the part of the author. It's an attractive perspective to a BS who would like to believe that no "true" intimacy exists in an affairs situation.
> 
> I believe the exact opposite to be true. An individuals reality is subjective and people are layered and complex. The person 'you don't recognize' is a subset of the person you know. This person does exist inside of the DS. The intimacy is quite real in the moment. You ask virtually anyone involved in an emotional affair if the feelings are 'real'. To them, in that moment it was very real and extremely intense. After the fact, ask again and you may get the opinion that it wasn't real or possibly that they didn't know what it was. But, there is no question in the throws of a 'love' affair there is a hyper-intimacy.
> 
> ...


Well, I hold the argument true based on some facts I know to be true.

He doesnt know even some of the most basic things about her. He doesnt know her. He knows what she wants him to know. The surface crap. He doesnt know her middle name, he doesnt know her parents names, he didnt know that she had an abortion in college bc she got pregnant by a married professor. She didnt know that he has mommy issues. She didnt know the he has alot of the issues he has bc he didnt tell her for fear she wouldnt like him....

THAT is not intimacy. I am not saying the 'feelings' werent real. I wish. But they were. I am saying they werent based in reality . A VERY big difference IMO.


----------



## AnnieAsh (Aug 22, 2012)

The intimacy definitely exists. It SHOULDN'T, that's the problem. I told om some details of my marriage that I haven't even told my best friends! The bonding and the closeness came about from the betrayal of my husband.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

canttrustu said:


> THAT is not intimacy. I am not saying the 'feelings' werent real. I wish. But they were. I am saying they werent based in reality . A VERY big difference IMO.


I think I understand the misunderstanding. 

The huge difference is between the words intimacy and intimate. 

As you explained, your husband was not intimate with his AP. But he and his AP had a very high level of intimacy.

Intimacy _(v)_ IS a feeling, while intimate _(adj)_ indicates detailed knowledge of a thing or person.

There can be an overwelming and extremely high level of intimacy without having been intimate. That is the arguement I was making, and could have possibly misunderstood. I was contending that affairs have a very high level of intimacy, but I guess one could argue that they are not intimate.

Probably just a total waste of mental capital for me to have burned up in my head over two letters which change the game completely TE vs. CY.

lol.


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> I still disagree with this notion. I'm of the opinion that this entire explanation or line of thinking is 'client speak' on the part of the author. It's an attractive perspective to a BS who would like to believe that no "true" intimacy exists in an affairs situation.
> 
> I believe the exact opposite to be true. An individuals reality is subjective and people are layered and complex. The person 'you don't recognize' is a subset of the person you know. This person does exist inside of the DS. The intimacy is quite real in the moment. You ask virtually anyone involved in an emotional affair if the feelings are 'real'. To them, in that moment it was very real and extremely intense. After the fact, ask again and you may get the opinion that it wasn't real or possibly that they didn't know what it was. But, there is no question in the throws of a 'love' affair there is a hyper-intimacy.
> 
> ...


I think online affairs points out what the counselor is saying. People fall in "love" with what amounts to be make believe characters. They may not even be the sex they believe they are. Its just fantasy and delusion. 

I do believe it is just not fog but love in some cases. But then some waywards are horrified by what they have done. Others are "kiss my ass and get out of the way" , most are in between.

In the case of "real" in person affairs, look at the post about how men find it so easy to have affairs with married women. I think most affairs are like that with one partner being the seducer and the other buying a load of BS. Nothing real about it ie. not true intimacy. 

I doubt there is never any real intimacy but most is fantasy.


----------



## Acabado (May 13, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach, I disagree, this is not intimacy, it's very intense what ever it is thou. 
I'm with you about not minimizing the reality of those emotions and the intensity of them, what I deny is the value.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

I think on a forum like this people need to delineate things clearly in order to understand and to make decisions. So we work with clear definitions and expectations of 'marriage' and clear definitions of 'affairs' - even the (in)famous EA, that behemoth of fuzziness, is much more clearly defined and treated than it ever was before, and certainly on TAM.

In reality, though, the lines aren't always clear at all. The words 'intimacy' and 'intimate' can apply to any human relationship, in my experience. Many people go into marriage without deep emotional intimacy between them and never really develop it. Some people become emotionally estranged in marriage and lose the intimacy. Some affairs develop lasting intimacy, even given the secrecy that they generally require.

So, for me, these are just human emotions and behaviors playing out to various degrees and in different ways in different situations. The expectations and conditions of married life and affairs are different, so any intimacy that develops, if it develops at all, is of a different flavor.

Semantics? Absolutely, but issues of semantics are unavoidable in a discussion. Indeed, they are sine qua non, no?


----------



## LoveMouse (Apr 22, 2012)

Hmmmmmm, (light a Camel) in my life, the X was looking for an escape of a world of doom she created. Reality became the world she hated, the kids and I became the enemy. Her affairs was the fantasy, and her phone, text, and computer was her white horse in which she rode every waking moment. Her eyes deceived her, the men were ugly, old, married or all three.
Intimacy had nothing to do w/ her affairs, love was never an issue, it was/is self destruction.
And why? Was she abused as a child?.......then it could be a lack of intimacy, or searching for what she could never achieve....... Let's play it safe and just admit, she's nuts. lol
Mouse


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Some of ya'll think way too much!! The argument is in a person's individual belief in what intimacy is. To add fuel to the fire does it matter if it was truly intimate or not?

All affairs are not the same. You have the people who believe they are "Soul mates", the long lost "lovers" from yester year, the ego boost, the fantasy, you have guys that just go see Escorts what's he a cake eater? 

Really, arguing over semantics is silly. Almost everyone I live around is divorced. True intimacy or not my best friends ex wife married her affair partner and they are still married!!

Affairs=Selfish in 99.99% of the cases out there.

To respond to the OP's post I don't think you can label people like that. I know I didn't have intimacy issues when I was a cheater. I just like to bang random woman from time to time. It was meaningless just a notch on the belt like getting cheese on a hamburger.

After years I finally realized the variety wasn't worth the pain it caused and have been faithful for 16 years.

Hope ya'll get to the bottom of the the debate


----------



## old timer (Nov 23, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> In reality, though, the lines aren't always clear at all. The words 'intimacy' and 'intimate' can apply to any human relationship, in my experience. Many people go into marriage without deep emotional intimacy between them and never really develop it. Some people become emotionally estranged in marriage and lose the intimacy. Some affairs develop lasting intimacy, even given the secrecy that they generally require.


Nail/Head...as usual, aD 

The good doctor's depiction of intimacy in an affair could very well describe my 24 years of marriage #2, and likely the 10 yrs of marriage #1.

I never realized how strong my aversion to true intimacy has been in my life until working with my IC. I have never been able to truly "put it out there". 

I'm very outgoing and gregarious - never meet a stranger - but true intimacy? If I'm honest about it - it scares me to death.

..
.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> I think I understand the misunderstanding.
> 
> The huge difference is between the words intimacy and intimate.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is a distinction between "intimacy" and "intimate", dictionary.com defines intimacy as the state of being intimate, among other definitions:



> in·ti·ma·cy
> [in-tuh-muh-see] Show IPA
> noun, plural in·ti·ma·cies.
> 1. the state of being intimate.
> ...


And although sex may be considered an "intimate" act, casual sex of short lived relationships don't really follow many of the themes such as familiarity, detailed knowledge or deep understanding. I think that is what the author of the book is trying to explain. I think intimacy is a description of the quality of the underlying relationship that creates such feelings.

It's kind of like people arguing over "bokeh" in photography, a lot of people think bokeh refers to the _amount_ of degaussian blur seen in portraits and close-ups (ie the blurring of the out of focus background objects), but in fact bokeh technically refers to the subjective quality of the out of focus parts (such as symmetry, edge definition, color, distortion, chromatic aberration etc.).

So really is there a point to trying to argue about this? Regardless if his technical definition of intimacy is correct or not, does the point he is trying to make have any merit? Is it worth addressing intimacy issues with therapy if you are a cheater?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

OhGeesh said:


> To respond to the OP's post I don't think you can label people like that. I know I didn't have intimacy issues when I was a cheater. I just like to bang random woman from time to time. It was meaningless just a notch on the belt like getting cheese on a hamburger.
> 
> After years I finally realized the variety wasn't worth the pain it caused and have been faithful for 16 years.
> 
> Hope ya'll get to the bottom of the the debate


So you think banging random was meaningless? And you only quit because it caused pain - but pain for whom? Obviously not you (because it had no meaning) then you spout that you didn't and still don't have intimacy issues? If you can reconcile that like you did and not feel like there were issues of emotional intimacy that you are dealing with then perhaps what you have is not intimacy issues but rather narcissism.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

daggeredheart said:


> Dr. Huizenga posted a link to this interview on his twitter feed today. I found it to be fascinating.....thoughts?


As someone who has been on both sides of affairs I think Dr.Huizenga is clueless and really shouldn't be advising people on this subject.

Edit:

Pit is on the money throughout this thread.


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Lon said:


> So you think banging random was meaningless? And you only quit because it caused pain - but pain for whom? Obviously not you (because it had no meaning) then you spout that you didn't and still don't have intimacy issues? If you can reconcile that like you did and not feel like there were issues of emotional intimacy that you are dealing with then perhaps what you have is not intimacy issues but rather narcissism.


Nothing like debating in the form of txt on a webpage.......lol. Meaningless as in there was no deep emotional connection, relationship status, or the like. I would go out, meet woman, and have fun like millions of others do..........are you not familiar with just hooking up with people in your youth? 

Pain as in I knew I was acting in a immoral way and couldn't just keep doing that. Obviously to my current GF at the time who is also my wife now it sucked too. 

Hey, but good job and labeling and jumping to conclusions!! Hey for all I know you could be right, but since I don't believe in most of that mental health crap I'll just say I'm not. 

I made many poor decision in my youth as did many and would love to take the experiences back. As my wife and I say now our crazy college days probably have helped us stay faithful these days as we both know the grass isn't greener........it's green where you water it (stolen from a song).

Best of luck!!


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Lon said:


> So you think banging random was meaningless? And you only quit because it caused pain - but pain for whom? Obviously not you (because it had no meaning) then you spout that you didn't and still don't have intimacy issues? If you can reconcile that like you did and not feel like there were issues of emotional intimacy that you are dealing with then perhaps what you have is not intimacy issues but rather narcissism.


Or perhaps he has no problems at all .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

tacoma said:


> Or perhaps he has no problems at all .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is my point, if you can willingly deceive someone you claim to love, in order to have sex with random people without their consent outside of the covenant you made, and you are perfectly ok with that (ie the pain your betrayed spouse has to deal with is their problem not yours) then there are some definite basic human morals you are missing. Intimacy issues being one obvious standout.

And no I have never had random hookups before, but if I did it would be as a single guy, not as a married man.


----------



## daggeredheart (Feb 21, 2012)

I think one of the issues that I've struggled with the most is that I am that BS who does more homework. I read the books, join the online support forums and found a counselor. Husband just sat back and let me do the ground work and I couldn't understand it. I felt like I was more invested in the repair work initially than he was. So the quote from Dr. H made sense, of course he wouldn't be as hard working as me because he had one foot in each world. 

He also never approached me about marital issue until he brought them up as "reasons" for why he strayed. I'm just trying to connect the dots and realize that I played a part but I wasn't the _cause_. He's the same way getting the oil changed in his car, it's been over a year since he's done it because he just doesn't put tend to things. Perhaps immaturity on his part mixed with avoidance of uncomfortable discussions like, "hey I need more affection"


----------



## Labcoat (Aug 12, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> I'm going to disagree.
> 
> I respect the opinions of Dr Huizenga and have read virtually everything he has written over the years but, this statement...
> 
> ...


I'd like to echo what you said about the Dr. in regard to your post. 

Most affairs rarely appear to ever have to stand the scrutiny of real life. That's the acid test of intimacy IMO. Can you still be attracted to this woman after she's stunk up the bathroom? Can you still be attracted to this man after you caught him crying about not getting a promotion?

I haven't heard too much about APs sticking through the hard times... Unless "hard times" are exclusively defined as the WS's complaints about the BS.

My XWF gave me all that horse**** about craving intimacy. Well, she already had it from me, she just wasn't capable of fulfilling her end of the bargain. So, she reckoned she could find it in the form of a drunken business trip screw. She honestly did. But when D day came around and she told the AP about, he blocked her and moved on. Real intimate.

I delve into my story here, because I think it's a lot more common than the affair that has legitimate intimacy.


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

OhGeesh said:


> Some of ya'll think way too much!!


O'rlly?

Yeah, those pesky brains we have are a nuisance. Hope your never cursed with thinking deeply, being smart sucks. lol.

I know our conversations are meaningless to folks at your level of enlightenment. So, for old times sake why don't you go find another random piece of poon to club and drag into your cave? We will just stick around here and continue our silly, trivial debate. K? Thanx.


----------



## canttrustu (Feb 22, 2012)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> O'rlly?
> 
> Yeah, those pesky brains we have are a nuisance. Hope your never cursed with thinking deeply, being smart sucks. lol.
> 
> I know our conversations are meaningless to folks at your level of enlightenment. So, for old times sake why don't you go find another random piece of poon to club and drag into your cave? We will just stick around here and continue our silly, trivial debate. K? Thanx.


God! Im so damned glad you said this! Took the words right outta my mouth. 

Perhaps A REAL thought beyond "uuh, me horny ....." would be novel!?!?!?


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> O'rlly?
> 
> Yeah, those pesky brains we have are a nuisance. Hope your never cursed with thinking deeply, being smart sucks. lol.
> 
> I know our conversations are meaningless to folks at your level of enlightenment. So, for old times sake why don't you go find another random piece of poon to club and drag into your cave? We will just stick around here and continue our silly, trivial debate. K? Thanx.


No problem....... debating if affairs have true intimacy lol. Go right ahead and debate away there is no right answer it's all opinion. I'm a engineer, so I tend to like things that are more finite like (Math) where there is a right answer 

You think there isn't, I think there is, and bob over here is unsure. Your verbal attacks are awesome are you having a bad day? 

I'll go back to my happy marriage of 16 years and leave this topic alone! Maybe go take the wife out on a surprise date or go over some details to our trip in Ireland in 8 weeks.

Bitter much :scratchhead: Cantrustyou great job at labeling for you too. Go read what I did for my wife a few Christmas's ago or even this Christmas. Talk about surprise most husbands can barely wrap a present let alone pull off the surprises I did. 

Me horny!! PLEASE LOL


----------



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

LoveMouse said:


> Hmmmmmm, (light a Camel) in my life, the X was looking for an escape of a world of doom she created. Reality became the world she hated, the kids and I became the enemy. Her affairs was the fantasy, and her phone, text, and computer was her white horse in which she rode every waking moment. Her eyes deceived her, the men were ugly, old, married or all three.
> Intimacy had nothing to do w/ her affairs, love was never an issue, it was/is self destruction.
> And why? Was she abused as a child?.......then it could be a lack of intimacy, or searching for what she could never achieve....... Let's play it safe and just admit, she's nuts. lol
> Mouse


I whole hardheartedly agree with this.


----------



## canttrustu (Feb 22, 2012)

OhGeesh said:


> No problem....... debating if affairs have true intimacy lol. Go right ahead and debate away there is no right answer it's all opinion. I'm a engineer, so I tend to like things that are more finite like (Math) where there is a right answer
> 
> You think there isn't, I think there is, and bob over here is unsure. Your verbal attacks are awesome are you having a bad day?
> 
> ...


Are you "a engineer"? lol

And you only have a marriage at all bc SHE stayed with your lying cheating ass thru all the nastiness. So, Climb down off that there high horse amigo!! Bet she'd give that present back for you to have been honorable at some point in your marriage. Ask her. YOU might just be surprised.

And it's canttrustU. Fyi. And Bob is a proper name and should be capitalized just so you know...


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

OhGeesh said:


> I'm a engineer, so I tend to like things that are more finite like (Math) where there is a right answer


There is a viable argument that mathematics is a human construct.


----------

