Anyone have a revenge affair with MP spouse?

[pkn06002]

Sorry, I don't think it was lust but hurt that motivated him. This is sheer specualtion, of course. I feel little sympathy for someone getting a taste of her own medicine. Perhaps it is the one thing that will make her grow. She clearly had no remorse and merely returned to her marriage as her primary option dried up.

 

What all affairs are about lust? Mine wasn't.

 

You are just giving him an excuse for why his cheating is OK. I will contend we don't know this guy? Do you have any idea how he treated is wife to the point where she felt justified, just like he does? Maybe he did things so badly that is the reason she has no remorse.

 

Her getting a taste of her own medicine fine, trying to justify it sorry no.

[Owl]

There IS no justification for cheating. For sleeping with someone else's spouse...or for doing so out of the sole motivation (to begin with at least) of hurting someone. (But that WASN'T his sole motivation...if you read that first post, he clearly states that they were ALREADY attracted to each other and would likely "do it" if they were ever alone again).

 

This was done with that double whammy in mind.

 

Only NOW...he's in love with the woman!!!

 

Interesting...see...he gets to learn the same way his wife did how addictive affairs are, and how easy they are to start, but hard to end.

 

Hey...we ALL have these little revenge fantasies after we discover our spouse cheating.

 

But most of us have enough moral fiber to be better than to follow through like this.

[signedin2008]

Q: Why don't sharks attack lawyers?

 

A: Professional courtesy.

 

What are you getting at?

 

I'm with Owl on this. A revenge affair is worse than the original affair because it's premeditated.

 

In this case, he did not intentionally have this affair to hurt anyone. He fell for her and vice versa under circumstances that they did not signed up for and under these circumstances that were created by their cheating spouses.

 

Would you call a cop following a thief to catch him with stolen property and then put this thief in prison "premeditated?" Once again, I am not saying that what he did was not wrong, it is just not as wrong as the original affair. Think of it this way, if a someone put a rat into a pot of soup, would it be so wrong to put a cockroach in it and then throw it away? Would you blame the second person who put the cockroach in the soup as the one who ruined the prefectly fine tasty soup?

[Trimmer]

In this case, he did not intentionally have this affair to hurt anyone.

 

Are we reading the same thread?

 

I know it's wrong but I want to have an affair with her. I want her husband and my wife to find out after the fact so they know the pain they inflicted on us. I want to be able to tell the OP to his face that I slept with his wife multiple times and that I have no intention of stopping.

 

It will make us even.

 

The most my wife will do is cry and maybe yell. I think if her xMP took up with another woman that would make her go postal.

 

Now when/if xMP finds out I slept with his wife I hope he cries like a baby.

 

This is about revenge, justice, pay back, whatever you want to call it. I have no real interest in saving my marriage.

[Reggie]

IMO, all affairs are "premeditated". What else could they be?

As for a revenge affair being worse, I understand the arguments: "he knew of the pain it would cause. etc.", "his was motivated out of revenger and not mere selfishness and lack of control, etc"

But, these reasons, upon inspection, simply do not hold up. I beleive anyone having an affair is fully cognizant of the pain it will cause. I don't have to be a member of a murder victim's family to understand that if i kill someone, it will hurt his loved ones.

And, as I pointed out before, seems folks are minimizing the incredible damage done to a BS's thought processes such that exercising the best judgement is tough.

Of course he is using his wife's cheating as justification for doing this. If someone comes along and out of the blue, punches me in the face, am I just as culpable if I smack him back? I don't think so.

[signedin2008]

The original poster had two reasons to have an affair, one is to get back at those cheaters and another is this attraction. While those original cheaters had only one reason. That, alone in and of itself would make the original poster less guilty.

[Trimmer]

The original poster had two reasons to have an affair, one is to get back at those cheaters and another is this attraction. While those original cheaters had only one reason. That, alone in and of itself would make the original poster less guilty.

Wait, originally you were excusing him because he didn't have as many reasons (you were arguing that he didn't want to hurt anyone, which I disagreed with.) Now you are arguing that because he had more reasons, he is less guilty? I don't find this logic compelling.

 

Of course he is using his wife's cheating as justification for doing this. If someone comes along and out of the blue, punches me in the face, am I just as culpable if I smack him back? I don't think so.

Actually, yes - if you sit on your pain for a few days, decide how you want to make your attacker hurt, and then go carry out a return attack on him, even if it is exactly in proportion to what you suffered, then yes, you are culpable.

 

In the physical violence analogy, only if you are defending yourself during an attack (self-defense) are you not culpable.

 

I maintain that everyone is culpable for their own decisions here, nobody gets a pass from me for the bad decisions they made in this situation, and I see no point in even relieving anyone from culpability in a minor way by figuring out who is "less wrong" here. Everyone acted poorly, with disregard for the people around them, and everyone deserves the consequences they brought down on themselves - again, with the exception of a 9 year old boy who didn't have any choice.

[Reggie]

I agree that this was wrong and, perhaps it makes no sense to argue about degrees of "wrongness". The kid is surely getting some screwed up messages here.

As for the retaliation having to be in the heat of the moment or for self defense, perhaps my analogy to being punched was not a good one. Clearly, the type of devestation brought about by an affair has longer lasting effects than a shot to the jowls. It causes one to ruminate and suffer for a very long time. I can understand this type of abuse(most experts consider infidelity the most severe form of emotional abuse) clouding one's thought process. I just think that someone suffering in the aftermath of a spouse's infidelity/abuse is held to a lower standard.

[BUENG1]

Q: Why don't sharks attack lawyers?

 

A: Professional courtesy.

 

I'm with Owl on this. A revenge affair is worse than the original affair because it's premeditated. Add, in this case, Lorenzo's scheming with his evil-doofus lawyer 2 set his W up believing he's interested in recovery when all he's after is taking her 2 the cleaners.

 

And this was before he started his A.

 

-ol' 2long

 

All affairs are premeditated

[Reggie]

His lawyer is a monster. That's what I'm getting at.

 

 

 

At least I didn't have 2 comment on this. Obviously, it's an incorrect statement.

 

 

 

Cheaters never sign up for the circumstances they find themselves in. It's always someone else's fault. Horse puckey. We all create our own circumstances. Lorenzo didn't have 2 choose 2 react with malice 2 his W's affair.

 

-ol' 2long

 

I thought his lawyer merely advised him to hold off on filing untuil his wife would no longer be a candidate for maintenance. This is sound, ethical advise. HE needs to look out for his best interests finanacially. Surely, there can be no argument that a cheater deserves alimony. That's adding insult to injury.

His lawyere was upset at him for having engaged in the revenge affair. Maybe the lawyer was not upset on moral gorunds. Maybe he was. But, clearly, the lawyer realized that by engaging in a revenge affair, he jeopardized the financial settlement.

So, what is it about this lawyre's actions that folks find upsetting. He merely said to hold off on filing and play your cards close to the vest until the cheater becomes more self sufficient. He never counseled him to cheat.

[signedin2008]

This is for 2Long:

 

His lawyer did what he was supposed to do. If his lawyer advice him otherwise (that would result in something financially less favorable to OP), his lawyer is not doing his job and if knowingly so, unethical and constitute malpractice.

 

As his lawyer, he must represent the OP zealously within legal boundaries and that's what his lawyer did.

[Trimmer]

This is for 2Long:

 

His lawyer did what he was supposed to do. If his lawyer advice him otherwise (that would result in something financially less favorable to OP), his lawyer is not doing his job and if knowingly so, unethical and constitute malpractice.

 

As his lawyer, he must represent the OP zealously within legal boundaries and that's what his lawyer did.

I understand that position as literally stated. I don't feel this way about all lawyers - I judge them on a case-by-case basis, no pun intended, because some of my best friends, etc... My thought about this is that there are probably a million ways to be an @**hole quite legally, but just because it's "legal" and "it's your job" doesn't mean you're not still an @**hole for doing it.

[Reggie]

I understand that position as literally stated. I don't feel this way about all lawyers - I judge them on a case-by-case basis, no pun intended, because some of my best friends, etc... My thought about this is that there are probably a million ways to be an @**hole quite legally, but just because it's "legal" and "it's your job" doesn't mean you're not still an @**hole for doing it.

Maybe I missed something as this is a long thread. But, again, what ,specifically, did his lawyer advise or do that you feel is so wrong?

I was under the impression that his attorney merely advised him as to the best time to file for financial reasons. Surely, you don't feel an unfaithful spouse desrves alimony. I thought the timing was to allow her to be more self sufficient and avoid spousal maintenance.

Once a spouse crosses the line and cheats, there are no guarantees that the option to stay in the marriage continues. She assumed the risk of divorce when she violated the contract. The lawyer was simply telling him ot sit tight for a bit to lessen the financial impact on his future.

Did I miss something regarding the attorney or did I get this right?

[Trimmer]

Maybe I missed something as this is a long thread. But, again, what ,specifically, did his lawyer advise or do that you feel is so wrong?

I was under the impression that his attorney merely advised him as to the best time to file for financial reasons.

I don't know... Reading back over it I don't feel as strongly. I had thought I remembered that the lawyer kinda put him up to it...

Given the circumstances I would be crazy not to look out for myself and fake reconciliation. My lawyer and I have a plan. As long as I stick too it I should come out of this marriage financially unscathed for the most part.

...but it's not all that clear now, and I went a little off the deep end with my comments.

 

Surely, you don't feel an unfaithful spouse desrves alimony.

Actually, since we're basing this discussion around the subject of staying within the law and what is legal and ethical, I'll point out that many states (including my own) specifically exclude taking adultery into account when settling a divorce. So, according to the law in such states, the unfaithfulness doesn't factor into the alimony considerations. Surely you aren't suggesting that the lawyer would have fashioned this "plan" as a way to defraud her from getting what the law would have otherwise provided?

 

Anyway, I grant that the lawyer was probably just doing his job, and was likely well within the law in advising or consulting with his client regarding waiting. Just can't help wondering whether it would have been OK if it was the lawyer's idea to fake reconciliation, and he talked his client into it. I suppose there's no law against lying...

 

Lawyer aside, somehow the fake reconciliation thing still just doesn't sit right with me, though. Yes, I know she cheated; yes, I know she screwed up "first"; yes, I know she doesn't deserve to be in the marriage any more. I don't feel this way because of what she does or doesn't deserve, but I think how you respond to those things is still a measure of your character, irrespective of the fact that some people feel entitled to treat it as a free coupon to take a few punches back.

[Reggie]

Yes, I realize that in no fault states , infidelity is not considered in awarding support. And, no fault is very prevalent. But, on a strictly moral level, it's difficult to digest a cheater being awarded support.

In any case, looks like we agree. His lawyer was advising him on ethical tactics to mitigate any potential financial loss.

I do agree that Lorenzo's was an extreme reaction, one I could never pull off. I hate to admit it , though, but seeing his wife face the same type of betrayal does not really offend me. There is a certain symetry to it. Seems so many cheating spouse walk away unscathed, at least relative to the destruction they leave in their wake.

[Trimmer]

Ah, so here we have an interesting question; lawyers may need to chime in, if any are reading... I assume it is illegal (or actionable in civil court, or whatever...) if you lie under oath, or lie on a document that you sign your name to, and therefore that it would be unethical for an attorney to advise a client to do so.

 

But is it "unethical," as defined by established ethics guidelines for attorneys, for an attorney to advise a client to lie (not by omission, but by clear misrepresentation) to an opposing party for the purpose of gaining advantage in a case, not under oath, not in a sworn document?

 

I don't propose to know the answer, and I'm sure individuals will have opinions as to whether they think it's ethical in their own views, but I'm most interested in any attorney comments about established ethical guidelines.

[Trimmer]

But...

 

regarding spousal support. Is his STBXW more or less entitled 2 spousal support now that Lorenzo is also guilty of having an affair?

 

I would agree that his lawyer probably is pretty miffed that he did what she did, as it messed with "the plan."

 

-ol' 2long

Interesting point. If the whole purpose was to "even things up", then aren't they back to even in that respect too?

 

Now, she'll probably get a lawyer who will figure out a way for her to position herself to still be eligible for spousal support. Maybe she doesn't graduate on time or something. After all, he would only be zealously advising and representing his client's best interests - legally, and within the boundaries of ethics, of course. That's his job, isn't it?

[Owl]

I've got a GREAT idea!!!! /smacks forehead!!!

 

Lorenzo just needs to go get his name legally changed to that of OM. And OM needs to get his name changed over to Lorenzo's.

 

Then they can just swap houses and jobs...and EVERYONE will be happy!!!!

 

NO NEED FOR DIVORCE!!!

 

What a thought!!

[Reggie]

I checked. Seems his lawyer simply told him about the ramifications of filing before she gets her degree. No indication he advised him to lie.

As for the hypothetical, I'm not sure. I never advise my clients to lie. Contrary to the public perception, most of the lawyers I know are extremely ethical.

I doubt advising a client to lie to another party, so long as it is not under oath or as an inducement to contract would be something a lawyer would have to worry about. It's immoral, but, just as infidleity, the fact that it is immoral does not make it illegal.

In any case, it's interesting how, despite the post having said he merely got advice on the timing, some folks made the leap to the conclusion that the lawyer either advised him to lie or encouraged him to cheat/

I did not read the whole post as it was quite long. But, the part about the lawyer's advice that i did read mentioned nothing about being dishonest.

Perhaps the mere mention of the word "lawyer" makes folks jump to conclusions like this. Maybe that says something about lawyers. Maybe it says something about folks having preconceived ideas.

[signedin2008]

And ethical boundaries. If he advised that he lie, then he did so unethically.

 

-ol' 2long

 

I see it as an advice to the client not to file yet, which is a strategic legal move.

 

We don't know if the OP lives in a fault state and if that's the case, yes, both parties are at fault and I guess that would cancel each other out.

[signedin2008]

2Long,

 

Well, I think you should just report her to the IRS without tell her. You can remain ananymous.

 

What's up with the excessive use of "2" to replace two, too, to, etc.?

[Trimmer]

I checked. Seems his lawyer simply told him about the ramifications of filing before she gets her degree. No indication he advised him to lie....

 

In any case, it's interesting how, despite the post having said he merely got advice on the timing, some folks made the leap to the conclusion that the lawyer either advised him to lie or encouraged him to cheat/

I did not read the whole post as it was quite long. But, the part about the lawyer's advice that i did read mentioned nothing about being dishonest.

Perhaps the mere mention of the word "lawyer" makes folks jump to conclusions like this. Maybe that says something about lawyers. Maybe it says something about folks having preconceived ideas.

 

Well, in retrospect, it was this section for me, and I admit that there is no direct indication that the lawyer specifically generated the idea to "fake reconciliation" or advised his client to lie, but the OP's statement about faking reconciliation followed immediately by "my lawyer and I have a plan" makes it sound like the lawyer had an active role in developing the plan.

Given the circumstances I would be crazy not to look out for myself and fake reconciliation. My lawyer and I have a plan. As long as I stick too it I should come out of this marriage financially unscathed for the most part.

Maybe not, and I admit it's an inference on my part that is not fully proven by the statements. In the end, I don't really care about the lawyer; this is about the OP.

 

As for the hypothetical, I'm not sure. I never advise my clients to lie. Contrary to the public perception, most of the lawyers I know are extremely ethical.

Actually, that's my experience also.

[In Like Flynn]

If he doesn't the world will blow up!!! Sort of like the TV series LOST and the series of numbers they had to keep typing in at that station ot the Island would blow up. They stole that idea from old 2Long!!

[signedin2008]

Oh no! A spoiler!

 

My wife and I haven't been watching the show in real time, just started recently on DVD.

 

Heroes is better that way, 2!

 

-ol' 2long

 

How are you and your wife doing? Hwo do you ensure that there are no longer any contact between her and the OM?

[BUENG1]

But...

 

regarding spousal support. Is his STBXW more or less entitled 2 spousal support now that Lorenzo is also guilty of having an affair?

 

I would agree that his lawyer probably is pretty miffed that he did what she did, as it messed with "the plan."

 

-ol' 2long

 

Why would this be the case? They don't have any kids together and she is able to work full time.