Here is another question...

[AnotherRound]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

Edited March 12, 2013 by AnotherRound

[wisernow]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

 

 

I'm sure some WS stay for the children

I'm sure some BS stay for the children

I'm sure some WS divorce when there are children

I'm sure some BS divorce when there are children

it could all be "rubbish"

it might not be "rubbish"

 

And I can't even believe that you're seriously asking if children are a consideration. Well, duh.

[AnotherRound]

I'm sure some WS stay for the children

I'm sure some BS stay for the children

I'm sure some WS divorce when there are children

I'm sure some BS divorce when there are children

it could all be "rubbish"

it might not be "rubbish"

 

And I can't even believe that you're seriously asking if children are a consideration. Well, duh.

 

You don't think it's common to hear people say that it's ridiculous to believe a WS who says he/she is staying for the children? I've heard that response a lot, that it's just a bs reason they give. But I never heard it used the other way- and wondered why.

[beach]

Children aren't a bartering tool.

 

Children don't cease being the child to the parent(s) just because divorce happens.

 

People believe what excuses they are given.

 

IF someone REALLY intends to get out - they make it happen - no matter what!

[spice4life]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

Whaat?....lol. Quite a confusing bunch of questions you're asking there. I know this isn't an answer, but I'm ready to stop thinking about the why's and how's of the WS, the BS, the OW/OM, the MM/MW...Oy. All I know is that it's a crazy freaking situation to be involved in to begin with and in the end do any of these questions matter if it's not a good way to cope anyway? All of these questions about staying, not staying, for the kids, not for the kids will drive you absolutely bonkers if you let them.

[wisernow]

You don't think it's common to hear people say that it's ridiculous to believe a WS who says he/she is staying for the children? I've heard that response a lot, that it's just a bs reason they give. But I never heard it used the other way- and wondered why.

 

I divorced my husband after his infidelity, we had a young child. Was my child a consideration, of course. Did I divorce? I most certainly did. There is no never or always. Every situation, person, relationship, marriage, divorce, is different. There are likely just as many BS or WS that divorce or stay together, and many reasons for those decisions. Are the children the reason for either decision? Who knows?

 

My magic 8-ball said: " ask again later."

[eleanorrigby]

Neither of us stayed for the kids, in fact things got better when they both moved out!

 

 

<-----Tired of parenting.

[AnotherRound]

Whaat?....lol. Quite a confusing bunch of questions you're asking there. I know this isn't an answer, but I'm ready to stop thinking about the why's and how's of the WS, the BS, the OW/OM, the MM/MW...Oy. All I know is that it's a crazy freaking situation to be involved in to begin with and in the end do any of these questions matter if it's not a good way to cope anyway? All of these questions about staying, not staying, for the kids, not for the kids will drive you absolutely bonkers if you let them.

 

Yeah, which is why I'm so glad I'm 2 years past it all (even with minimal contact, it feels like a solid 2 years!). I just keep seeing things that people post, and it hits me - and then I'm curious. My few free days are pretty much over - so, I will have to get back to work and stop pondering things for a while.

 

I don't know, just seemed to be a common thread that it isn't believed that a WS stays for their children, but not only believed but understood and accepted as truth that a BS stays for their children. So, if it is legit for one, I am guessing it can be legit for the other too. Ya know?

[spice4life]

Whaat?....lol. Quite a confusing bunch of questions you're asking there. I know this isn't an answer, but I'm ready to stop thinking about the why's and how's of the WS, the BS, the OW/OM, the MM/MW...Oy. All I know is that it's a crazy freaking situation to be involved in to begin with and in the end do any of these questions matter if it's not a good way to cope anyway? All of these questions about staying, not staying, for the kids, not for the kids will drive you absolutely bonkers if you let them.

 

Edited to add, all that truly matters is that any of the people mentioned above stop with the faulty coping mechanisms and start dealing with their lives honestly FOR THE KIDS.

[SidLyon]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

I will only answer from the WH/BW side of things – ie a MM/WH having an affair, and claiming to stay married for the sake of the children. This is in fact what my own fWH did. After d-day he repeatedly apologised to me for putting this in emails/PMs to the OW and kept saying to me that “you were never supposed to read them”, and “it was a gross exaggeration of the truth”, and “I needed to give the OW a reason for not leaving you and I thought that would be more acceptable to her”.

 

First of all, I know it’s a generalisation but I believe that as a general rule a MM/WH in an affair is considerably more selfish than a BW. Therefore it seems more likely that the BW, if anyone, might make sacrifices to stay in the marriage for the sake of the children. There’s a dissonance between a MM/WH having an affair (a very selfish and abusive act that can severely damage the family life of children) who at the same time is claiming to be sacrificing himself for those very same children. So I prefer to resolve this inconsistency by taking into account that the man is obviously selfish so his words are most likely not anywhere near the truth, even if he seems to believe that it is the case. This fits in with my own experience of a BW whose fWH used this particular excuse.

 

So no I don’t think it’s just one of perception, nor is it a double standard. The difference (if there is one) arises merely from the personality characteristics and behaviour that go hand in hand with being a WH and a BW.

Edited March 12, 2013 by SidLyon

[Furious]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

Most cheaters use the "I can't leave my children" line to the OW/OM, pretty standard in the cheaters handbook.

 

Two thirds of divorces are initiated by women, so the theory that BS's stay with a cheater for the kids or for the money is out the window.

 

I'm surprised that as a "psychologist" your knowledge on the subject of infidelity is rather weak.

[AnotherRound]

I divorced my husband after his infidelity, we had a young child. Was my child a consideration, of course. Did I divorce? I most certainly did. There is no never or always. Every situation, person, relationship, marriage, divorce, is different. There are likely just as many BS or WS that divorce or stay together, and many reasons for those decisions. Are the children the reason for either decision? Who knows?

 

My magic 8-ball said: " ask again later."

 

Okay, now see - this is what is frustrating to me about this whole thing. When I try to point out that no situations are the same - I get jumped on! Like, "we KNOW that, stop trying to participate and poke at people! Your situation is different!". But then, I ask a question about a generalization that I see on here and I get... this. ????

 

Why are generalizations and assumptions allowed to be made about APs - but not WS's or BS's? I don't understand this rule - AT ALL.

 

Do you disagree that it is a standard reaction of many people that when a WS says he/she is staying "for the kids" that it is made fun of by many BSs? That many of them claim that it is NOT the "real" reason that the WS stays? That the "true" reason the WS stays is because they want to be with the BS and just use the kids as an excuse to the AP?

 

And, since I see that as a standard response to that claim from WS or APs, it was curious to me to see BSs saying that they were staying "for the kids". Wouldn't the logical reaction to that be (if following the reaction to APs stating that is why their MM/MW stayed is to be applied both ways) "no, you are staying bc you want to be with the WS, it has nothing to do with the kids". ??? Why is it different? What is the difference?

 

Why is it accepted when a BS says it - that we all just go, "well of course they would consider their children!". But when a WS says it, or tells that to an AP, most posters say, "oh bull, they are LYING - they are in the marriage bc they want to be! Not for the kids! That's just an excuse they tell you to get their way!".

 

????? Is that not super contradictory?

[SidLyon]

Okay, now see - this is what is frustrating to me about this whole thing. When I try to point out that no situations are the same - I get jumped on! Like, "we KNOW that, stop trying to participate and poke at people! Your situation is different!". But then, I ask a question about a generalization that I see on here and I get... this. ????

 

Why are generalizations and assumptions allowed to be made about APs - but not WS's or BS's? I don't understand this rule - AT ALL.

 

Do you disagree that it is a standard reaction of many people that when a WS says he/she is staying "for the kids" that it is made fun of by many BSs? That many of them claim that it is NOT the "real" reason that the WS stays? That the "true" reason the WS stays is because they want to be with the BS and just use the kids as an excuse to the AP?

 

And, since I see that as a standard response to that claim from WS or APs, it was curious to me to see BSs saying that they were staying "for the kids". Wouldn't the logical reaction to that be (if following the reaction to APs stating that is why their MM/MW stayed is to be applied both ways) "no, you are staying bc you want to be with the WS, it has nothing to do with the kids". ??? Why is it different? What is the difference?

 

Why is it accepted when a BS says it - that we all just go, "well of course they would consider their children!". But when a WS says it, or tells that to an AP, most posters say, "oh bull, they are LYING - they are in the marriage bc they want to be! Not for the kids! That's just an excuse they tell you to get their way!".

 

????? Is that not super contradictory?

 

I just explained why it's not contradictory in my opinion and experience.

[beach]

Why are you still processing about the MM?

 

I thought it was great with the new guy - yet you seem so unsettled and uneasy that the end has come with your MM.

 

Please explain why you're still questioning HIS situation in his M?

[wisernow]

Okay, now see - this is what is frustrating to me about this whole thing. When I try to point out that no situations are the same - I get jumped on! Like, "we KNOW that, stop trying to participate and poke at people! Your situation is different!". But then, I ask a question about a generalization that I see on here and I get... this. ????

 

Why are generalizations and assumptions allowed to be made about APs - but not WS's or BS's? I don't understand this rule - AT ALL.

 

Do you disagree that it is a standard reaction of many people that when a WS says he/she is staying "for the kids" that it is made fun of by many BSs? That many of them claim that it is NOT the "real" reason that the WS stays? That the "true" reason the WS stays is because they want to be with the BS and just use the kids as an excuse to the AP?

 

And, since I see that as a standard response to that claim from WS or APs, it was curious to me to see BSs saying that they were staying "for the kids". Wouldn't the logical reaction to that be (if following the reaction to APs stating that is why their MM/MW stayed is to be applied both ways) "no, you are staying bc you want to be with the WS, it has nothing to do with the kids". ??? Why is it different? What is the difference?

 

Why is it accepted when a BS says it - that we all just go, "well of course they would consider their children!". But when a WS says it, or tells that to an AP, most posters say, "oh bull, they are LYING - they are in the marriage bc they want to be! Not for the kids! That's just an excuse they tell you to get their way!".

 

????? Is that not super contradictory?

 

It's getting late, and I apologize for being a bit daft, but I'm confused. Truly. I'm not sure how telling you a bit about my way back past brings up this response.

 

When you say-"When the BS says it- that we all just go, well of course they would consider their children", what does that mean?

 

Of course the BS (if at all a fit, caring parent) cares about their kids and their well being. I also think the majority of the WS care as well, especially once there is a D-day and there is a real possibility of their world blowing up, possible divorce and shared custody.

 

I think what you may miss here, is that in the majority (excluding yours) of affairs, the BS is blindsided. And if there are children involved the BS become mama/papa bears and go into protective mode for the kids sake (cause their world is likely going to be blown up too).

 

I don't think it really matters if they divorce or not, they protect their kids at all cost. At least I did.

 

I also am not naive to think that a great number of WS tell the AP that they can't leave the marriage because of the kids. This could be true or not. But the WS tell a whole lot of lies about why they can't or wont leave their spouse. Bottom line, if they want to leave they will. Kids, spouse, mortgage, etc., be damned.

[eleanorrigby]

 

Do you disagree that it is a standard reaction of many people that when a WS says he/she is staying "for the kids" that it is made fun of by many BSs? That many of them claim that it is NOT the "real" reason that the WS stays? That the "true" reason the WS stays is because they want to be with the BS and just use the kids as an excuse to the AP?

 

And, since I see that as a standard response to that claim from WS or APs, it was curious to me to see BSs saying that they were staying "for the kids". Wouldn't the logical reaction to that be (if following the reaction to APs stating that is why their MM/MW stayed is to be applied both ways) "no, you are staying bc you want to be with the WS, it has nothing to do with the kids". ??? Why is it different? What is the difference?

 

Why is it accepted when a BS says it - that we all just go, "well of course they would consider their children!". But when a WS says it, or tells that to an AP, most posters say, "oh bull, they are LYING - they are in the marriage bc they want to be! Not for the kids! That's just an excuse they tell you to get their way!".

 

 

I've been on the infidelity forums for years and the majority of times i've read "WS is staying for the kids" it's coming from an OW. I can't think of any instance where I read that a BS is staying for the kids.

 

I think part of this is because many WS's will tell their AP a version of the truth of their life. My husbands OW called me after d-day to convince me that my marriage was not real etc. She said "he basically only married you because you were pregnant."

 

However I was there and I remember the big grin on his face when I told him I was pregnant. I remember him and I going around to our friends and family telling them we had eloped and again, the big smile on his face and how he threw his arm around me and pulled me close when he told people.

 

He didn't tell the OW those things. He also didn't tell her that we had already planned to get married when we got pregnant, getting married was always part of our plan and we had been talking about it since we were teenagers.

 

He gave her the impression that we had a shotgun type of marriage and that he was just staying in it for the kids.

[AnotherRound]

Why are you still processing about the MM?

 

I thought it was great with the new guy - yet you seem so unsettled and uneasy that the end has come with your MM.

 

Please explain why you're still questioning HIS situation in his M?

 

I'm not questioning my exMM - this was a general question. I'm not still processing about him - I'm processing about other people's take on it. I would like to have these things explained - these cognitive dissonances and how people come to that conclusion. How they rectify in their mind that it is a lie when a WS says it - but the truth when a BS says it (if that is what someone believes in MOST cases).

 

I'm curious about that. Just like when I am jumped on for pointing out an exception to the rule (which in my mind means that there is no "rule" per se, just a "norm" maybe) but yet when I ask about a generalization that I have seen - I get jumped on and told that "of course no situations are identical and it depends on the situation and the people in it". Which is odd to me - bc that is EXACTLY What I believe and was saying about affairs in general and WSs and OWs - but was told I was being antagonistic and such.

 

So, why is it antagonistic to have generalizations (and I even mention some and not all!) about BSs, but not about WSs or OWs? Is that a double standard? And if so, why? Why are most people okay with the generalizations about those involved in an affair and not those who are the "victim" of an affair? Choice? But yet - all are still human, right? All are still making choices the best they can - and most likely, all ARE considering their children in those choices if children exist - even WS's - and maybe they really and truly are staying "for the children".

 

If all BS's consider their children, and WSs are parents too in a marriage, then wouldn't it be logical to say that WSs also make decisions to protect their children? So - if they thought divorce would be harmful, despite being unhappy, that they would stay in the unhappy situation for their children? The same way that a BS might after an A - to give their children the benefit of avoiding divorce?

 

It seems very contradictory to me. And I can see what was pointed out about "why" - somewhat - except it's such a broad rejection of the idea that a WS would stay for their children ( unhappy or not themselves) yet so accepted that a BS would stay for the same reasons.

[wisernow]

I've been on the infidelity forums for years and the majority of times i've read "WS is staying for the kids" it's coming from an OW. I can't think of any instance where I read that a BS is staying for the kids.

 

I think part of this is because many WS's will tell their AP a version of the truth of their life. My husbands OW called me after d-day to convince me that my marriage was not real etc. She said "he basically only married you because you were pregnant."

 

However I was there and I remember the big grin on his face when I told him I was pregnant. I remember him and I going around to our friends and family telling them we had eloped and again, the big smile on his face and how he threw his arm around me and pulled me close when he told people.

 

He didn't tell the OW those things. He also didn't tell her that we had already planned to get married when we got pregnant, getting married was always part of our plan and we had been talking about it since we were teenagers.

 

He gave her the impression that we had a shotgun type of marriage and that he was just staying in it for the kids.

 

That just breaks my heart ER. What a douce. You're one strong woman.

[AnotherRound]

I've been on the infidelity forums for years and the majority of times i've read "WS is staying for the kids" it's coming from an OW. I can't think of any instance where I read that a BS is staying for the kids.

 

I think part of this is because many WS's will tell their AP a version of the truth of their life. My husbands OW called me after d-day to convince me that my marriage was not real etc. She said "he basically only married you because you were pregnant."

 

However I was there and I remember the big grin on his face when I told him I was pregnant. I remember him and I going around to our friends and family telling them we had eloped and again, the big smile on his face and how he threw his arm around me and pulled me close when he told people.

 

He didn't tell the OW those things. He also didn't tell her that we had already planned to get married when we got pregnant, getting married was always part of our plan and we had been talking about it since we were teenagers.

 

He gave her the impression that we had a shotgun type of marriage and that he was just staying in it for the kids.

 

That is truthful, thank you!

 

I actually just saw a BS post on another board here that they were staying for their children - that's what brought up the question. Because when they said it, everyone was accepting of it and praising and thought it was very noble - and it just struck me that it is a TOTALLY different response when a WS says the same thing - most times.

[eleanorrigby]

That is truthful, thank you!

 

I actually just saw a BS post on another board here that they were staying for their children - that's what brought up the question. Because when they said it, everyone was accepting of it and praising and thought it was very noble - and it just struck me that it is a TOTALLY different response when a WS says the same thing - most times.

 

Again, I've have not seen this.. but if people are praising it, I think maybe it's because it sounds more selfless to stay in a bad marriage and make the best of it for the kids, rather then stay in a bad marriage and make it worse by having an affair and say that you are doing it for the kids.

[LadyGrey]

Something is quite simple but yet overlooked in your contradiction statement is the WS is a liar. The Affair itself makes him a liar. One must lie to have an affair..........unless it's an open marriage, so please don't bring non affair situations into it as it's not applicable. So why wouldn't he lie about the statement, "I'm staying for the kids". I mean hell-o maybe they tell that lie to themselves sometimes and really believe it, but how is that for a contradiction, the man that says he is staying for the kids and convinces himself that it's true, completely overlooks the fact that he is damaging those very same children by having the affair and let's not get into the semantics of if they don't know it's not damage. It is damage, I'm proof of that and so are many other women here, although you don't want to acknowledge that and you think if we say it, we are crying victim.

 

Do some women stay in a marriage solely for the children, I'm sure it sometimes happens and in those kind of situations, that is really sad for all involved because the woman who continues to be disrespected by a cheating man in front of children is frankly going to f them up, more so than divorce would probably. I would guess that a woman who makes that choice is frozen by fear. Very sad.

 

Any woman, BS or OW should be highly suspicious of anything that a man says that is having an affair because the affair itself makes him a liar to one of both women. It's that simple.

[beach]

I'll never get surprised at all the lies surrounding affairs. Lies are frequent. Rewriting history and reality is expected.

 

They do it to convince themselves of their own lies.

 

How sick is that?

 

Some compartmentalize more than others... Common trait is always selfish and self centered... Who wants a partner like that? It would suck right from the start.

[MissBee]

It is often said that the WS's do not really stay in marriages "for their children" or "because of their children", that this isn't "truly" a factor for them, but that they are staying for themselves. And then it is often said that a BS often/sometimes stays for their children or because of their children. Or at least considers their children when making their decision to stay.

 

What do you all say? Is it a double standard? Or, is it a perception issue - depending on which side of the fence you are on? Are the children a factor for "most" WS's and a reason that they stay? Or not - is it all rubbish? And if that's so - then are they a consideration for the BSs decision to stay, or not? And if so - why is it different (if it is?). Why is it accepted that a BS would stay after an A for their children, but not that a WS would stay before/during an A for their children?

 

Not sure if this is related to OW/OM issues, probably General Relationship.

 

But in any case, I think a lot of people in affairs don't go in planning to exit their marriages. Those who do, have exit affairs. Many others seem to end up in As for all kinds of other reasons but never planned to divorce and subsequently don't. The reason they stay is for their life, kids included, and that they don't want to change it.

 

People who have kids divorce all the time, everyday, so it stands to reason that when a MP is saying they can't leave because of their kids, usually this is true, but not the sole reason...but for many, they never planned on leaving anyway, and that is a plausible reason they can give as to why not without it seeming like they are cake-eaters.

 

A marriage with kids is also a family and not just a romantic relationship; so of course both BS/WS factor their kids in and maybe some make the wrong decision to stay "for the kids" but having an affair isn't "for the kids" and people do it anyway and many times it hurts and scars their kids when found out and affects their own relationships, it sure did for me. My dad however never had an A with the intention of it being an exit affair. He has never left and even now as an adult, he is still having affairs and there are no little kids to stay for. I'm not sure what he tells his OW, but if he told them he was staying for us, it wasn't true.

[stevie_23]

I was a WS for almost 2 years, and I don’t have children BUT I do have 2 cat “sons”. Now, please don’t knock me for this. You can laugh, but it IS serious to me. These cats are my babies and I ADORE them and my partner and I kind of have one each. One is her’s and one is mine though they’re both really our’s together. BUT if we did break up, I’d never see her cat again, and although it hurts me to say, I actually have more of a close bond with him than my own beautiful cat (who I do love dearly of course). If we broke up, she’d move to another state (the state she came from before we got together) and I’d never see him again. I don’t want that.

 

It wouldn’t STOP me if everything else was right and not too much of a sacrifice to be with my ex-MM if he wanted to and was able to be with me fully. But…it IS a consideration for me staying and not leaving her and being with him. A consideration. Among many, MANY others.

 

But of course, we (and many other couples) may break up for other reasons not related to any sort of affair or wanting to be with someone else. And in that case, you DO go through with it.

 

So at the end of the day, although kids (and cats) ARE a consideration, they aren’t EVERYTHING in terms of why some married people in an A don’t leave the marriage.

[LadyGrey]

A marriage with kids is also a family and not just a romantic relationship; so of course both BS/WS factor their kids in and maybe some make the wrong decision to stay "for the kids" but having an affair isn't "for the kids" and people do it anyway and many times it hurts and scars their kids when found out and affects their own relationships, it sure did for me. My dad however never had an A with the intention of it being an exit affair. He has never left and even now as an adult, he is still having affairs and there are no little kids to stay for. I'm not sure what he tells his OW, but if he told them he was staying for us, it wasn't true.

 

I relate to this as well.......I don't know what my father told the main ow, but I know he strung her along for years and she allowed it, but I bet that classic line was mentioned more than once, (I can't leave because of the kids), but little did she know what an abusive ass he was to us. He and my mother finally did divorce when I was in my early 30's. I think it had a lot to do with my mother getting more of a backbone. He married the last ow and drumroll, he lied to her about being divorced. He wasn't yet. I'm pretty sure that he married her while still being married to my mother. I think she was completely clueless about that part of it, although she worked with my father for years and had to be quite familiar with his reputation. I dunno.