SP- come on now. She has your number. The cleavage was for you, you *?!#.
That would be nice to believe, but in fact I was supposed to be out on my long run.
I have in this house a very balky dishwasher, that does about a dozen loads and crashes, and I have a house-sitter coming on Thursday so I called the service company for another visit. In any event, I got put on a long hold. My schedule said that I was out the door at 0700 for a 2.5 hour run; the kids' day camp starts at 0800, so WAW had little reason to believe I'd be in the house. As it happened, I didn't get out of the house until 0930, which had the effect of bolloxing up my whole day. How did I get talked into this marathon thing????
Quote:
Dressed "to the nines" in the morning...your inane (and I CAN'T believe you said that) comment about her "hot date" (that actual reminds me of Shmedlap, yikes)...on the spot over the date we DON'T actually have...you don't have to guess because she already showed you.
She *did* have a date. Or, as she prefers it, a "first meeting." That was the point of the entire exegesis over holding one's self out as a married person.
Quote:
I don't know about the whole friends with benefits deal you've got going with your lady friend(s)...if it works for you. However, after how many 10s of years ML to one woman, you think there is nothing significant about crossing that threshold with another woman?
Didn't say there was nothing significant. Said I don't believe there's anything significant in the context of my divorce. And it's worthwhile, I think, to write the sentence complete -- "after how many 10s of years ML to one woman and 3 years of almost no ML to the same woman."
Quote:
I DO think it is possibly disingenuous to try to play it off as no biggie (probably why it has inspired so much conversation here).
It is...possibly...but whatever the reason it has created a dialog, from my POV the dialog is the most important outcome. @fb2:
Quote:
if you had to file your taxes today you would file as "married filing jointly/separately".
Actually we're filing individually. (And she got the accountant in the separation, too, d*mmit.)
@stuck
Quote:
The thing about sex being a part of GAL is pretty shallow IMHO.
You're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But I think I am to mine, as well. Why is it shallow in your point-of-view? If it is very important to me, and has not been part of my life, and I am getting-a-life, why should I exclude it? I've always been a very sexual (sensual?) -- physical -- person. That part of me has been denied for at least 3 years. Why shouldn't I get it back?
Quote:
I mean, do you really need it that bad that you could hurt the person you're doing it with? I mean, screwing around just to get your rocks off is pretty petty and just seems like you're playing your W's game in her field.
I don't quite get this. How can I hurt someone (presumably one of the Florence Nightingales) who has offered it in full knowledge of the situation? Or maybe you mean WAW? I'd be happy to have some clarification there.
@Puppy:
Quote:
I also think SP could get his wife back, right now, IF he still wants her (and I'm not at all sure that he should).
Yes, well that has become THE question, sir. Do I want that? Should I want that? (Okay, two questions. Or one compound question.)
