Would you date a separated but still married person?

[Inika]

Originally Posted by olhosdeamendoa

If you meet a great guy (or girl) with whom you have a great connection and chemistry with, have a great time together, but they are still married, would you date them?

I have met a great guy, but he's got separated only 7 months ago. He lives on his own on a separate house, and according to the law in England, people need to be separated for 2 years before they can fill in for divorce. So, he'll only be able to do so after 1 year and a half.

I mean, on one hand you have this 5D great soul connection, and on the other hand, the implications of 3D physical life, as in legally he's commiting adultery even if separated, and his ex can create problems, etc.

Would you risk it?

no. not I. but many others would.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by LostintheLore

When I was first with my girlfriend she was married and still lived in the same apartment. We surely have had our ups and downs and worked through a lot. That was a few years ago and we are doing great. If it feels right, go for it.

As long as you kept your trousers on you are forgiven of your sins

.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Raziel

The 12 year old boy inside my mind was screaming in the name of everything for me to just cup & squeeze but the mature adult channelled an inner Gandhi

Hello Raz,
LOL...I assume it was just this side of too weird amongst all the ladies.
But regardless, it's nice Gandhi prevailed.

Skipping over the really scary bits...

I'm all for loving relations - I'd advocate it purely after marriage if I were to think conservatively & honourably but my standards cannot be applied to the world as it isn't mine alone.
Any religious group with similar beliefs often fail elsewhere in their system of dogma or house rules.

.

Yes my beliefs are not based on religion and certainly not on the patriarchy they underwrite, LOL.

I don't need a book or a priest to tell me that what is most aligned with spirit for me is authentic love and freely given declaration of love and public commitment (of whatever kind, so long as partners and children are cared for).

I also think it's not the either/or your post makes it seem. You're right, there is a world of difference between copulating on the rebound whilst married...or copulating for a man's pleasure so that you can be in a (so-called) "relationship", without love or commitment...and waiting until after married to copulate, but these are not the only options. Many might feel that with authentic love and commitment, sex is meaningful to both parties even if you've not yet tied the knot.

Waiting until married itself is meaningless IMO if there is no mutual authentic love and no mutual, freely given commitment. In many cultures (and in our own history) marriage is and has been a harsh institution where the man held the control and the woman was treated as property and was often badly used (neglected, beaten, cheated on). Marriage may be the best of our limited options in protecting the vulnerable (women and children) but IMO in many ways still needs to be wholly re-established within a framework of parity, equity, respect, dignity, and true partnership in authentic love, in order to be serviceable going forward.

It's really coming to a place of mutual authentic love and freely given commitment. If you don't have that, then the rest is pointless. Both the sex and the formal paperwork. The point is the authentic love IMO. The sex and commitment come after that IMO...or it's pointless.

Authentic love seeks the highest good of the other, equally to the self. And vice versa. Not because you're getting something or they do things for you. But just like any beloved friend or fam, simply because you love them and want their best, full stop. Authentic love happens when you take time to get to know and love another first and foremost as a person and as a beloved friend. There's no shortcut to authentic love, because it's REAL.

And this is where some gents get very upset. Because they know 9 of 10 women they've shagged and dated in their lives were not women they loved authentically as life partners. And certainly there was no life partner commitment, LOL. They want to continue to shag freely and not be bothered with committing to all but the 1 or maybe 2 they may marry. But nearly all 9 of those 10 women got involved physically thinking this would be their mate for life -- yes it's naive but that's how women are wired, to be stupid and trusting in this way, to be tender-hearted and easily exploited by predators. And gents know that every time they kicked the can down the road regarding the talk and where is this going, etc., with all those 9 of 10 women.

The current set-up is hugely exploitative for most women, particularly for women past the age of innocence, who are not looking just to see what it's all like. They've got past that by 18 or 20, etc. Until women are past having kids, they pervasively feel at the mercy of men's whims (demands for loveless sex) and predations (esp violence, rape, and coercion) and generally that they have little relationship leverage in today's society.

If a woman doesn't prostitute herself for gents, 95%+ leave and move on to those who will. Because too many gents are greedy, addicted, and overly domineering in their power and their leverage, and because too many gents don't see any other purpose to knowing or having women in their lives, aside from family. Women exist to please and service men sexually and to bolster them, and if a woman is not putting out she is a waste of their time. There is no room for authentic love and true partnership in this view of women and their place in the world of men. There is no reaching, giving, or meeting in the middle in a place of mutual love and respect.

We know there are scary exceptions and fringe predators amongst women, but the OP and the vast majority of women I know are not like this. Naive perhaps, but predatory, no. It's been so unfortunate that the naivete and trusting nature which is a part of our central wiring as women has been so harshly detrimental to a woman' well-being in a predatory, utilitarian age.

But as times change, and they are changing even as we speak, more and more women are coming to realise just how exploitative and utilitarian so much of it is. They are coming to realise the power of no AND their right to authentic love in partnership. The ones past kids already have. They are seeing the truth. Which is, No...we won't be shagging our way to authentic, not now, not ever. Not with you, not with any other gent. That's just not how it works. You engage your feelings and open your heart to being vulnerable and to authentically loving and committing to us, just like the vast majority of women do or are willing to do for you, or you don't. All the shagging in the world doesn't take you there. Again, if that were the case, we'd all be with our first partner.

When women have a voice in the world, this is what the future looks like...we want and will seek and will prioritise authentic love in committed partnership, and we will honour first and foremost those men who are capable of authentic love for women first and foremost as people and as friends, full stop. So that a man's love for us in partnership is unique and personal, is not self-serving, and is not interchangeable with hordes of others. A man who loves us first and foremost as people and as equals, and as friends -- perhaps as beloved friends. This IMO is the only kind of man who is worthy of a woman's physical intimacy.

So like I said above, It's really coming to a place of mutual authentic love and freely given commitment. If you don't have that, then the rest is pointless. IMO. And if the OP were someone I cared for and loved authentically, like beloved fam or friends, this is exactly what I would tell her...to look for authentic love and for blokes who are free and able to partner with her if that decision is jointly taken. To look for gents who will take the time to get to know her before jumping in the sack or pressing her to do so, so that authentic love can come into being. Whether they later decide to partner and then have sex or not would ideally be a separate decision taken in great love, but without the ground of authentic love for one another as people and as friends, it's rather pointless, IMO. You have to suspend disbelief (pretend there is authentic love) so as not to find the entire thing repulsive as a woman...but once awakened, you just can't naively suspend disbelief like when you were 18.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Raz,
LOL...I assume it was just this side of too weird amongst all the ladies.
But regardless, it's nice Gandhi prevailed.

Skipping over the really scary bits...

Yes my beliefs are not based on religion and certainly not on the patriarchy they underwrite, LOL.

I don't need a book or a priest to tell me that what is most aligned with spirit for me is authentic love and freely given declaration of love and public commitment (of whatever kind, so long as partners and children are cared for).

I also think it's not the either/or your post makes it seem. You're right, there is a world of difference between copulating on the rebound whilst married...or copulating for a man's pleasure so that you can be in a (so-called) "relationship", without love or commitment...and waiting until after married to copulate, but these are not the only options. Many might feel that with authentic love and commitment, sex is meaningful to both parties even if you've not yet tied the knot.

Waiting until married itself is meaningless IMO if there is no mutual authentic love and no mutual, freely given commitment. In many cultures (and in our own history) marriage is and has been a harsh institution where the man held the control and the woman was treated as property and was often badly used (neglected, beaten, cheated on). Marriage may be the best of our limited options in protecting the vulnerable (women and children) but IMO in many ways still needs to be wholly re-established within a framework of parity, equity, respect, dignity, and true partnership in authentic love, in order to be serviceable going forward.

It's really coming to a place of mutual authentic love and freely given commitment. If you don't have that, then the rest is pointless. Both the sex and the formal paperwork. The point is the authentic love IMO. The sex and commitment come after that IMO...or it's pointless.

Authentic love seeks the highest good of the other, equally to the self. And vice versa. Not because you're getting something or they do things for you. But just like any beloved friend or fam, simply because you love them and want their best, full stop. Authentic love happens when you take time to get to know and love another first and foremost as a person and as a beloved friend. There's no shortcut to authentic love, because it's REAL.

And this is where some gents get very upset. Because they know 9 of 10 women they've shagged and dated in their lives were not women they loved authentically as life partners. And certainly there was no life partner commitment, LOL. They want to continue to shag freely and not be bothered with committing to all but the 1 or maybe 2 they may marry. But nearly all 9 of those 10 women got involved physically thinking this would be their mate for life -- yes it's naive but that's how women are wired, to be stupid and trusting in this way, to be tender-hearted and easily exploited by predators. And gents know that every time they kicked the can down the road regarding the talk and where is this going, etc., with all those 9 of 10 women.

The current set-up is hugely exploitative for most women, particularly for women past the age of innocence, who are not looking just to see what it's all like. They've got past that by 18 or 20, etc. Until women are past having kids, they pervasively feel at the mercy of men's whims (demands for loveless sex) and predations (esp violence, rape, and coercion) and generally that they have little relationship leverage in today's society.

If a woman doesn't prostitute herself for gents, 95%+ leave and move on to those who will. Because too many gents are greedy, addicted, and overly domineering in their power and their leverage, and because too many gents don't see any other purpose to knowing or having women in their lives, aside from family. Women exist to please and service men sexually and to bolster them, and if a woman is not putting out she is a waste of their time. There is no room for authentic love and true partnership in this view of women and their place in the world of men. There is no reaching, giving, or meeting in the middle in a place of mutual love and respect.

We know there are scary exceptions and fringe predators amongst women, but the OP and the vast majority of women I know are not like this. Naive perhaps, but predatory, no. It's been so unfortunate that the naivete and trusting nature which is a part of our central wiring as women has been so harshly detrimental to a woman' well-being in a predatory, utilitarian age.

But as times change, and they are changing even as we speak, more and more women are coming to realise just how exploitative and utilitarian so much of it is. They are coming to realise the power of no AND their right to authentic love in partnership. The ones past kids already have. They are seeing the truth. Which is, No...we won't be shagging our way to authentic, not now, not ever. Not with you, not with any other gent. That's just not how it works. You engage your feelings and open your heart to being vulnerable and to authentically loving and committing to us, just like the vast majority of women do or are willing to do for you, or you don't. All the shagging in the world doesn't take you there. Again, if that were the case, we'd all be with our first partner.

When women have a voice in the world, this is what the future looks like...we want and will seek and will prioritise authentic love in committed partnership, and we will honour first and foremost those men who are capable of authentic love for women first and foremost as people and as friends, full stop. So that a man's love for us in partnership is unique and personal, is not self-serving, and is not interchangeable with hordes of others. A man who loves us first and foremost as people and as equals, and as friends -- perhaps as beloved friends. This IMO is the only kind of man who is worthy of a woman's physical intimacy.

So like I said above, It's really coming to a place of mutual authentic love and freely given commitment. If you don't have that, then the rest is pointless. IMO. And if the OP were someone I cared for and loved authentically, like beloved fam or friends, this is exactly what I would tell her...to look for authentic love and for blokes who are free and able to partner with her if that decision is jointly taken. To look for gents who will take the time to get to know her before jumping in the sack or pressing her to do so, so that authentic love can come into being. Whether they later decide to partner and then have sex or not would ideally be a separate decision taken in great love, but without the ground of authentic love for one another as people and as friends, it's rather pointless, IMO. You have to suspend disbelief (pretend there is authentic love) so as not to find the entire thing repulsive as a woman...but once awakened, you just can't naively suspend disbelief like when you were 18.

Peace & blessings
7L

I'll be honest - I can't read that sheer amount of text subscribing to the same general narrative.

It feels as though indoctrination is trying to find a way into my brain.

Ultimately good luck to the OP - if she chooses to be physical (and when was that introduced?) hopefully its enjoyable as either the result of a bond or maybe as no strings fun.

Bazinga!

I hope you had a nice day & perhaps some chocolate.
.

[7luminaries]

Hahaha...np I figured I'd probably lose you

The OP is very thoughtful and concerned in her initial question about whether to get involved w/someone still married & still early into his separation.
If she was just looking to screw around and have "no strings fun", she'd likely not have asked this question at all and wouldn't have cared two figs.

Thus my reply was also and especially for her, for affirmation and support.



My reply is also for anyone else who recognises women tend to have their own unique and often broadly quite fundamentally different voice and perspective on the issue of relationship. Whether fam, friends, or partners, women tend to seek emotional intimacy, depth, and personal connection from a place of authentic love. That is who we are, particularly once we've matured emotionally and spiritually and have found our centre.

I realise that's quite a scary thing for some, to realise the depth of that difference -- which cannot be sustainably bridged outside of a mutual authentic love of one another as people and as friends. Regarding male-female relationships, authentic love is the only path to sustainable desire in women (and in men too IMO). All humanity are called to authentic love...it is the ultimate insurrectionist and mutineer, the ultimate liberator, and once awakened within each of us, it cannot be contained.

And because authentic love is real and cannot be imposed, faked, purchased, coerced, or controlled, that terrifies many.
It is what it is. And that is a sea change in perspective and understanding, once apprehended.



I occasionally do like the very dark chocolate as brain and heart food, but not too often...it's rich. Most of it is milky rubbish which is gross IMO.
So if you're offering the semi-sweet dark stuff, I'll have a piece for later
Thanks for the well wishes and same to you.

Peace & blessings
7L

[angelic star]

nice :) :)

[LillyBelle]

I think it's a bad idea. In the worst case, you're going to end up getting your heart broken. In the best case, it's still going to end up being messy.

Don't walk through doors that should be locked, nothing good is going to be on the other side!

[angelic star]

Well you frequently hear women telling stories of dating men for years and they never leave their wives. I read in a book and the author of the book was, Sandra L Brown, some years back, and it said that it's a bad idea to date to married man because he will probably never leave his partner in the first place.

Listening to people who date other married people, it's a bad idea.

[FairyCrystal]

I must say having to wait 2 years is ridiculous. Totally outdated. I don't think we have a cooling off period at all. When my husband and I wanted to divorce, we went to a lawyer to get things sorted. No cooling-off period whatsoever. And that's good, after all you're adults, not kids that need to be taking by the government's hand. If memory serves, they even came up with a law or method to speed up the entire divorce process (the finalizing of it).

As for the question: depends on whether or not he is over his ex. So you really have to pay attention to detail. If he still seems stuck on her, still loves her, is still hurting over losing her... better not get involved.
The problem is, it will still be a risk as men on the rebound may seem ready even when they're not. So it's a huge risk.
There may not be set times to recover after breaking up, but as a general rule of thumb you can stick to 1 year. And if someone came out of a really long relationship or one that affected them deeply, it will be even longer. Hence the 1 year minimum. I think after long term or one that affected you greatly 2 years is more realistic for someone to be really ready for new love again. 1 year is a bare minimum, the timeframe where someone is only just beginning to be emotionally free from the ex and the hopes and dreams they lost, but then you haven't really found your feet just yet.
7 months is short. I'd be very careful. You are at risk of being his rebound woman. Thing is that when you are in love, you aren't going to let go of him. That's what women are like. We always think "Nah, it's different with me! He really loves me! Our love is strong enough to handle this."
But at some point I think 99% of these women end up heartbroken because the man dumped her. Rebound.
Rebound relationships can last quite some time btw. As long as he doesn't meet someone he truly loves and wants to commit to. He'll enjoy the company, intimacy, sex, and friendship. But he won't commit, not even if he does call you his girlfriend at some point. Men can and often will do this, sometimes for 10 years on end. Move in together even, but still not commit. Then he meets someone he truly falls for and off he goes, leaving you devastated.

Would I do this? I have this general rule that a man must've been single for at least a year. Because of what I explained above. It takes ppl minimum of 1 year to recover.
I broke that rule twice, got burnt twice. Badly too. I won't break my own rule again.

But dating a man who's still married? Nope. If a man truly wants to divorce, he can file for divorce any time he wants (in my country). If he has filed for divorce but it hasn't finalized yet, different. In my case it also took a year and a half before I got the letter saying I was officially divorced. But I prefer to only get involved with someone who's single and free and ready.

[angelic star]

Well explained Fairy , interesting about cool off period, I think people who date must take note of that.