Define "affair"

[kiwik]

If one of them is still married, separated or not, it's an affair.

 

If they are both free to marry, and they are se*ually active with no plans to marry each other, it's an affair.

 

 

I can't see it is an affair if they are both free to marry - it is just s*x.

 

In this case it isn't an affair if the marriage is truly over (as agreed by both parties)  but I would be surprised if it wasn't an affair to start with even if not fully consumated.

 

eta Agreed by both parties or by one party and the courts

Edited March 2, 2017 by kiwik

[madteaparty]

nm 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quoted deleted post

[goldberry]

 I think it depends on the nature of his separation from his wife. If it's a "just getting the formal paperwork ready and our ducks in a row to make the divorce legal" separation and they were both free to move on with their lives, that's different from a "let's take some part and see if we can work this out with some distance" separation. Legally and from a spiritual perspective, they're both affairs, but since I don't expect everyone to be held to my own spiritually-based standards, I can see how one is a whole lot more unacceptable than the other.

 

This.  Still technically and spiritually an affair if the parties are legally married.  However, In the first case (both parties working on formalizing the divorce) at least there is not the deceit and disloyalty usually accompanying an affair.

[La Condessa]

Hmm.  Surprised how many people include caveats along the lines of 'if they both know it's over. . .'  Because, okay, I know I'm very literally minded, but--the marriage obviously isn't over if they are still married.  Maybe they both believe it will be over soon, maybe they feel as though it is already over--but clearly, when it is actually over, in real life, they will no longer be married.  In any way. 

 

[Crimson Wife]

I am shocked by how many on this thread view marriage and commitment so casually.

 

If you believe in marriage at all you should feel a marriage is a marriage...not just until one says it isn't any more. Even the law has a stronger definition of marriage than that.

 

I don't view marital commitment casually. However, having witnessed how long divorce proceedings can drag out when they're contested (not contested because of a desire to reconcile but because of the financial terms and/or custody), the marriage can be LONG over from a common-sense standpoint prior to the official divorce decree being finalized.

 

[TravelingChris]

I don't feel it is an affair if divorce proceeding have already begun.  I also think that someone can have an affair if they are a partner to someone else. not just married. So if two people live together and one strays, that is an affair.

[marbel]

I am pretty sure in one American Indian tribe, I your husband died his brother was expected to marry you, unless you got other offers. Yes, even if he already had a wife. (This was a plot line of a dr. Quinn medicine woman episode. I remember looking it up and finding out that the story line was actually plausible)

 

Well, I guess the question would be what the poster meant by "used to be" and in what type of culture.   Sure, there have been polygamous cultures throughout time and across the world. I assumed the poster was talking about Western/European culture - I don't know why; maybe because that's the type of culture the couple in question live in.  I think I recall from history studies, some young kings or princes having to marry a widowed in-law, but always he was single.  In the Tudor dynasty, maybe?  

 

Anyway, my bad.

Edited March 2, 2017 by marbel

[J-rap]

In general, I think of an affair as being in an illicit relationship (could be physical or could be deeply emotional without the physical) with someone else other than your spouse or life-companion.  Now, if it's an open-marriage type arrangement and everything is out in the open and okay with the spouse/companion, then I don't think of it as an affair (even if I don't agree with that way of living).

 

If a couple is separated yet still working/hoping to put their marriage together, then I also think of it as an affair.  If the couple is separated, on their way to divorce with no desire of reconciliation (on either side), then I tend to not think of it as an affair.

 

In the case at hand, I don't know what to think, because I don't know know enough about it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Unless both married parties agree, irregardless of separation, to an extra/additional/outside relationship, it's an affair.  I do see it as an affair when legally married UNLESS other arrangements are agreed upon. 

 

But who cares I suppose.  People do what they want anyway and there isn't a whole lot that can be done whether there was an agreement or not.

 

 

[AmandaVT]

My aunt and uncle have been together for 30 years - they are not married, but own a home together, share a bank account and live a "married" life. They are most certainly NOT having an affair! 

 

My thinking is along the lines of J-Rap - an affair is illicit - cheating on your spouse or partner.

 

Divorces can take a long time - I've known couples who have divorced and it's taken well over a year. Sometimes a few years. If you sell your marital home, each move to separate residences, split up all possessions, etc. and divorce proceedings are underway, you're not having an affair if you start dating again. 

[Scarlett]

Well, no one knows except the two of them when it began. I'm not speculating on their timing.

 

I know people IRL who've been on both sides of the timing issue.

 

One guy met his now-wife when he had been separated a year. His crazy ex was fighting everything. He was working two jobs to save up for the necessary legal fees. She had multiple affairs, stole from his parents, and was a generally horrible person. They didn't have children or even any assets!

 

The other couple--they'd just had a baby. She had a rough c-section, and the baby had some failure to thrive issues. Sex wasn't happening, which he later claimed was his reason for thinking their marriage had been "over for months." Uh no, genius. Your wife had a gaping incision that didn't heal properly and needed a wound vacuum.

 

Anyway, my line would be whether there is any deception. Both parties know the relationship is over. Not that "well, I felt it was over for a while..." nonsense.

Yes, I see in the above two situations as one being about 100 times worse than the other.

[Scarlett]

Unless both married parties agree, irregardless of separation, to an extra/additional/outside relationship, it's an affair. I do see it as an affair when legally married UNLESS other arrangements are agreed upon.

 

But who cares I suppose. People do what they want anyway and there isn't a whole lot that can be done whether there was an agreement or not.

Very true.

[Scarlett]

I don't view marital commitment casually. However, having witnessed how long divorce proceedings can drag out when they're contested (not contested because of a desire to reconcile but because of the financial terms and/or custody), the marriage can be LONG over from a common-sense standpoint prior to the official divorce decree being finalized.

 

I agree divorces can take a long time.

[Scarlett]

This. Still technically and spiritually an affair if the parties are legally married. However, In the first case (both parties working on formalizing the divorce) at least there is not the deceit and disloyalty usually accompanying an affair.

Yes. This.

[Scarlett]

Hmm. Surprised how many people include caveats along the lines of 'if they both know it's over. . .' Because, okay, I know I'm very literally minded, but--the marriage obviously isn't over if they are still married. Maybe they both believe it will be over soon, maybe they feel as though it is already over--but clearly, when it is actually over, in real life, they will no longer be married. In any way.

Yes, this is what I am thinking too. Generally if someone divorces you legally there is then no question as to whether it is over or not. You aren't blindsided by 'well i thought you knew it was over'.

[AnnE-girl]

I think an affair is a relationship, physical or emotional, that takes away from a person's primary, exclusive relationship. If the surviving brother spent all of his emotional energy mourning with his brother's widow instead of turning to his own wife for comfort before their separation, that would be an emotional affair. If they were legally separated and moving toward divorce, I'd say it's more of a gray area. I think it's better to wait until all the legal proceedings are finalized, but I know that's not always completely realistic given how long things can take.

[vonfirmath]

Well, I guess the question would be what the poster meant by "used to be" and in what type of culture.   Sure, there have been polygamous cultures throughout time and across the world. I assumed the poster was talking about Western/European culture - I don't know why; maybe because that's the type of culture the couple in question live in.  I think I recall from history studies, some young kings or princes having to marry a widowed in-law, but always he was single.  In the Tudor dynasty, maybe?  

 

Anyway, my bad.

 

Yes. one of Henry VIII's complaints about Catherine was she was his brother's widow and he felt the lack of male heirs was a judgement on him taking his brother's wife.

[ktgrok]

I am shocked by how many on this thread view marriage and commitment so casually.

 

If you believe in marriage at all you should feel a marriage is a marriage...not just until one says it isn't any more. Even the law has a stronger definition of marriage than that.

 

I can assure you I don't take marriage casually. That said, yes, I was dating my now husband before my divorce was final with my ex. Because my ex dragged out that darned divorce for way longer than he needed to, not because he wanted to get back together, but because he was too lazy to fill out the paperwork. Then the county changed the law/rules/wahtever and after waiting months for a court date we found out they wouldn't set one without mediation, even though everything was already agreed upon and in writing. So then waiting for a mediation date, (mediation took 15 minutes as it was already all agreed upon) and then waiting again months for a court date. 

 

We were in the process of divorce, no one was hiding anything from anyone, but the paperwork wasn't finished. 

 

I don't think the legal paperwork is what makes a marriage a marriage. The commitment of both partners is what makes it. That was gone. 

[zoobie]

Well, I guess the question would be what the poster meant by "used to be" and in what type of culture. Sure, there have been polygamous cultures throughout time and across the world. I assumed the poster was talking about Western/European culture - I don't know why; maybe because that's the type of culture the couple in question live in. I think I recall from history studies, some young kings or princes having to marry a widowed in-law, but always he was single. In the Tudor dynasty, maybe?

 

Anyway, my bad.

Levirate marriage is also practiced in Orthodox Judaism, though there is a way to refuse.

 

Henry the VIII and George V in England.

 

(Left off an I on my phone. Oops.)

Edited March 2, 2017 by zoobie

[Crimson Wife]

Unless both married parties agree, irregardless of separation, to an extra/additional/outside relationship, it's an affair.  I do see it as an affair when legally married UNLESS other arrangements are agreed upon.

 

So a legally separated individual in the middle of battling the soon-to-be-ex over the settlement and/or custody needs to get the ex's permission to date or else it's adultery?

 

The marriage is over even if the court decree has not yet been finalized.

 

[maize]

Affair can refer to any romantic liason between individuals not married to each other.

 

 

From Merriam-Webster online:

 

 

a : a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration

[Farrar]

I wonder if the people who feel that people in the midst of a divorce shouldn't date have ever known anyone with a prolonged divorce? I know of one that went on for more than five years because they simply couldn't agree on custody arrangements for the kids yet refused to go into court and let a judge decide it for them. In the end, the fact that one party wanted to remarry was the only reason they finally finalized it - and it meant the party who wanted to remarry had to give up more than the other party because the other party was happy to keep it dragging out literally until the kids were legal adults if need be because... why not?

 

Divorce is some messed up stuff sometimes. No adult should put their life on hold for the legal aspects to be fully worked out.

[FaithManor]

I wonder if the people who feel that people in the midst of a divorce shouldn't date have ever known anyone with a prolonged divorce? I know of one that went on for more than five years because they simply couldn't agree on custody arrangements for the kids yet refused to go into court and let a judge decide it for them. In the end, the fact that one party wanted to remarry was the only reason they finally finalized it - and it meant the party who wanted to remarry had to give up more than the other party because the other party was happy to keep it dragging out literally until the kids were legal adults if need be because... why not?

 

Divorce is some messed up stuff sometimes. No adult should put their life on hold for the legal aspects to be fully worked out.

Yes this, and our courts are overwhelmed and understaffed so even simple divorces can take very long times to finalize.

 

Besides that, a paper does not make a marriage, and prior to property recording and women traded as property, marriage licenses were not what made two people married.

 

In my brother's case, his ex dragged it out for two years despite his constant compromises in order to get it over with just because she is that kind of a person. Regardless of legalities, spiritually they were soooooo unmarried by the time the court said it was ended.

[Scarlett]

I wonder if the people who feel that people in the midst of a divorce shouldn't date have ever known anyone with a prolonged divorce? I know of one that went on for more than five years because they simply couldn't agree on custody arrangements for the kids yet refused to go into court and let a judge decide it for them. In the end, the fact that one party wanted to remarry was the only reason they finally finalized it - and it meant the party who wanted to remarry had to give up more than the other party because the other party was happy to keep it dragging out literally until the kids were legal adults if need be because... why not?

 

Divorce is some messed up stuff sometimes. No adult should put their life on hold for the legal aspects to be fully worked out.

 

 

People do what they want to do and they do what is important to them.  If they couldn't (because of their own belief system) date until there was a legal divorce I bet they would have let a judge settle things before 5 years.  Their motivation was to remarry.  Some people's motivation would have been to date someone else.

[Scarlett]

My divorce was final with in 6 months but the property settlement was not worked out until another 7 months. 

[Scarlett]

I wonder if the people who feel that people in the midst of a divorce shouldn't date have ever known anyone with a prolonged divorce? I know of one that went on for more than five years because they simply couldn't agree on custody arrangements for the kids yet refused to go into court and let a judge decide it for them. In the end, the fact that one party wanted to remarry was the only reason they finally finalized it - and it meant the party who wanted to remarry had to give up more than the other party because the other party was happy to keep it dragging out literally until the kids were legal adults if need be because... why not?

 

Divorce is some messed up stuff sometimes. No adult should put their life on hold for the legal aspects to be fully worked out.

 

 

Yes I have known some divorces that took a long time.  One friend of mine was separated for 3 years before they finally divorced.  And they had nothing to fight over.  He did  not date that entire 3 years.  He concentrated on his work and his kids and his friends and family.  

 

As for dragging a divorce out for 5 years, by that time the custody arrangements that have been going on for 5 years would more than likely be what stands if a judge had to decide.  

[ktgrok]

My divorce was final with in 6 months but the property settlement was not worked out until another 7 months. 

 

Man I wish mine only took that long!!!! We had ZERO disagreements, but he took a long time to get papers back to the court, plus the courts were just really backed up, plus the wait for mediation we didn't need but was required, etc. There was literally NOTHING I could have done to speed up the process. Nothing. No concessions to make, since we had no disagreements. Nothing. 

[Crimson Wife]

People do what they want to do and they do what is important to them.  If they couldn't (because of their own belief system) date until there was a legal divorce I bet they would have let a judge settle things before 5 years.  Their motivation was to remarry.  Some people's motivation would have been to date someone else.

 

Determining a fair valuation of assets can get VERY complicated. Not everyone has a simple "house, 2 cars, savings account, and 401k/IRA's invested in mutual funds" where the assets can be easily valued and divided in half. Often times what takes so long is figuring out how much things are actually worth.

 

My mom has a friend where both the friend and now-ex-husband were each business owners and they also owned collectibles. It took F-O-R-E-V-E-R to value the assets and finalize the divorce.

[Scarlett]

Determining a fair valuation of assets can get VERY complicated. Not everyone has a simple "house, 2 cars, savings account, and 401k/IRA's invested in mutual funds" where the assets can be easily valued and divided in half. Often times what takes so long is figuring out how much things are actually worth.

 

My mom has a friend where both the friend and now-ex-husband were each business owners and they also owned collectibles. It took F-O-R-E-V-E-R to value the assets and finalize the divorce.

I am aware. Even mine was not easy. My xh wanted to value the house waaaay less than its actual value and then buy me out. That is the reason it took another 7 months to finish out the property settlement. But the judge granted the divorce before that. I am not sure why more people don't go ahead and get divorced and settle property later. Maybe it isn't an option everywhere. Or maybe it just isn't important to people to be divorced legally.

[Crimson Wife]

I am aware. Even mine was not easy. My xh wanted to value the house waaaay less than its actual value and then buy me out. That is the reason it took another 7 months to finish out the property settlement. But the judge granted the divorce before that. I am not sure why more people don't go ahead and get divorced and settle property later. Maybe it isn't an option everywhere. Or maybe it just isn't important to people to be divorced legally.

 

I have never heard of a divorce being finalized prior to the property settlement. I don't think it's an option in most places.

[ktgrok]

I have never heard of a divorce being finalized prior to the property settlement. I don't think it's an option in most places.

 

No...that was definitely not an option. They wouldn't eve LOOK at our divorce paperwork until after we'd worked out those details and custody details in mediation. In our case, there was no argument at all, but still took forever to get the mediation date, and THEN we could file and wait for the court date to be scheduled. 

[Scarlett]

No...that was definitely not an option. They wouldn't eve LOOK at our divorce paperwork until after we'd worked out those details and custody details in mediation. In our case, there was no argument at all, but still took forever to get the mediation date, and THEN we could file and wait for the court date to be scheduled.

That is so ridiculous. We were forced to do mediation when we redid visitation for dss 3 years ago. We would have MUCH preferred that a judge just make a decision, but apparently they don't do much of that anymore. Especially in Family Court.

[ktgrok]

That is so ridiculous. We were forced to do mediation when we redid visitation for dss 3 years ago. We would have MUCH preferred that a judge just make a decision, but apparently they don't do much of that anymore. Especially in Family Court.

 

I guess it is because it costs less for mediation than the extra time for the judge? Except we already had worked it all out! We didn't NEED mediation! We had a signed custody agreement, and just showed it to the mediator, who signed off on it. Of course, we still had to pay for mediation, ugh. 

 

And the rules varied. When we initially filed you didn't need to do mediation, anywhere in the county. But then right after filing the judge at that courthouse where we filed changed the rules, and anyone with kids had to do mediation. No matter what. But no one told us. So for months we were waiting for a court date that didn't come. Finally I found someone willing to actually track down our paperwork and that is when we found out it was just sitting on someone's desk, because we hadn't done mediation. Then we had to wait months for the mediation date, than go back in line (at the back of the line) for a court date. 

[Scarlett]

I guess it is because it costs less for mediation than the extra time for the judge? Except we already had worked it all out! We didn't NEED mediation! We had a signed custody agreement, and just showed it to the mediator, who signed off on it. Of course, we still had to pay for mediation, ugh.

 

And the rules varied. When we initially filed you didn't need to do mediation, anywhere in the county. But then right after filing the judge at that courthouse where we filed changed the rules, and anyone with kids had to do mediation. No matter what. But no one told us. So for months we were waiting for a court date that didn't come. Finally I found someone willing to actually track down our paperwork and that is when we found out it was just sitting on someone's desk, because we hadn't done mediation. Then we had to wait months for the mediation date, than go back in line (at the back of the line) for a court date.

It is very frustrating how slow the court system works. Our attorney has me so irritated I just want to scream. Dh called him last May to take care of two matters. Remove the oldest from cs obligation (he aged out) and change physical custody of youngest to Dh and make the cs change on that too. It is now March and it hasn't been done. Dh has made at least 20 calls and or emails to him. At some point he did calculate what cs xw would owe Dh now and she started paying that Jan 1st. (we have had him full time since last June) . At this point we have decided to just let it go.

[Lady Florida.]

I wonder if the people who feel that people in the midst of a divorce shouldn't date have ever known anyone with a prolonged divorce? I know of one that went on for more than five years because they simply couldn't agree on custody arrangements for the kids yet refused to go into court and let a judge decide it for them. In the end, the fact that one party wanted to remarry was the only reason they finally finalized it - and it meant the party who wanted to remarry had to give up more than the other party because the other party was happy to keep it dragging out literally until the kids were legal adults if need be because... why not?

 

Divorce is some messed up stuff sometimes. No adult should put their life on hold for the legal aspects to be fully worked out.

 

This was how it went with my parents. Their divorce didn't happen until seven years after they legally separated. They had things they were trying to work out but there was never any doubt that the marriage was over. Both were dating someone else by that point. My mother and stepfather wanted to marry and that's what finally got them to agree and make everything final.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[ktgrok]

I guess the difference to me is that the legal paperwork isn't what makes the marriage a marriage. The saying of vows does. Once those vows are broken and the couple decides to no longer be married the rest is just paperwork to me. 

[mathnerd]

I think technically it is OK to move on in life for both partners if a marriage is over - in my opinion it is not necessary to wait for the marriage to be over on paper (after all, we see so many stories about health insurance issues etc), but, all the parties should have talked it out and be on the same page about the marriage being over. By all parties, I mean the spouses, their kids and their aunt.

In this case, 2 parties are giving press statements about the wonderful new relationship while the third party (the soon to be divorced wife) is declining to comment. Which means that she is not happy about the situation. If she did not care or if she was happy for them, she would have allowed some representative of hers to say that she wishes them well or some such thing and moved on. Which is why people assume that there was an affair etc. It could be that they did not have a romantic relationship until the separation, but, since one party is not joining the chorus, it sounds like there is more to it.

 

What I think is that if the soon to be ex-wife was hoping for a reconciliation or if they were in counseling, this act will ensure that divorce is the only outcome. Also, the kids are older in this case and it is probably harder on them to be thrust in the spotlight with "aunt is the new stepmom" headlines and social media chatter.

[kitten18]

I guess the difference to me is that the legal paperwork isn't what makes the marriage a marriage. The saying of vows does. Once those vows are broken and the couple decides to no longer be married the rest is just paperwork to me.

I totally agree.