This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

What a weird scenario by ndtnguy

A few thoughts, in which I will try to do something other than simply replicate things already said:

1. If you marry a person, and that person then goes out and cheats on you, that's one thing. You made a promise, and the promise isn't conditional; if both parties intended to keep their promises when made, they're still binding even if one party acts in a manner incompatible with them. That's part of the deal. Marriage isn't like a contract for the manufacture of widgets, where A's obligations are discharged by B's first material breach.

2. But this scenario is different: John and Ellie got married when Ellie had cheated before and John didn't know it. That goes to the premise of the marriage; John probably doesn't need to settle for divorce, he probably has grounds for annulment based on fraud. The question he faces isn't just "should I stay married to a person who wasn't faithful," but "would I have been willing to marry someone who already wasn't faithful and who had hidden that from me"?

Obviously only John can answer that second question for himself. Certainly if---as is entirely reasonable---his answer is "no," then he should do as he is doing.

3. (Cue tangent): at the same time perhaps people generally oughtn't to date for seven years before getting married. I guess if John and Ellie were high-school sweethearts and spent some time dating long-distance during college that wouldn't be as long a time as it sounds. But without running through an entire set of assumptions, I bet they're not 24, and that this might have played out differently had (a) they gotten married years ago or (b) they had thought more carefully about the question "do I want to marry this person" from the outset of their relationship.