2 ms·

You thought all of that by yourself. There are a lot of ways to breach a "contract" that is marriage, including a voluntary termination. However, being unfaith

You thought all of that by yourself. There are a lot of ways to breach a "contract" that is marriage, including a voluntary termination. However, being unfaithful is a good way to ruin your marriage, so if it means things to you please don't cheat your wife, unless explicitly being on different terms (and even then...). This one is totally reasonable. It does not grant you any protection for the other cases, though.

throwaway211116 5y ago
You claim I made that up. Then lets analyze your comment. > The condition of staying in good relations with your wife You do not say "one of", you say "the". > where she does not take the children and blast off You define having "good relations" as merely "she does not take the children and blast off". > is not having a romantic life on the side. Define romantic. Actually, also define cheating. Where is the boundary. Do not wiggle out of this. You made a crap comment. If it is not what you believe than amend it, but don't claim it is not stating what it is obviously stating. As for your last comment: I never claimed that "being unfaithful is a good way to ruin your marriage" is not true. I put you on the spot because your comment claimed that is all that matters. Also, voluntary termination of a contract is not breach of contract. And while granted, having the initiative is beneficial in a divorce, depending on the culture and jurisdiction, the outcome of "the women taking the children" may have the same probability. Also, this assumes, the case of a male in a hetero relationship, being the one who cheats. I find all variants of cheating (man on woman, woman on man, woman on woman, man on man, etc.) equally plausible. Up until your comment there was no assumption on the genders of the partners. Your comment assigned genders to the cheater and the cheated.

throwaway211116 5y ago

You claim I made that up. Then lets analyze your comment. > The condition of staying in good relations with your wife You do not say "one of", you say "the". > where she does not take the children and blast off You define having "good relations" as merely "she does not take the children and blast off". > is not having a romantic life on the side. Define romantic. Actually, also define cheating. Where is the boundary. Do not wiggle out of this. You made a crap comment. If it is not what you believe than amend it, but don't claim it is not stating what it is obviously stating. As for your last comment: I never claimed that "being unfaithful is a good way to ruin your marriage" is not true. I put you on the spot because your comment claimed that is all that matters. Also, voluntary termination of a contract is not breach of contract. And while granted, having the initiative is beneficial in a divorce, depending on the culture and jurisdiction, the outcome of "the women taking the children" may have the same probability. Also, this assumes, the case of a male in a hetero relationship, being the one who cheats. I find all variants of cheating (man on woman, woman on man, woman on woman, man on man, etc.) equally plausible. Up until your comment there was no assumption on the genders of the partners. Your comment assigned genders to the cheater and the cheated.