It really could have been a lot shorter if they'd just titled it, "Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater".

Having feelings for other people while in a LTR is normal, healthy even. Acting on them... not so much.

Sure, there are exceptions — sometimes people cheat for totally sympathetic, understandable reasons. Sometimes people are stuck in horrible relationships and it takes an outsider to help them break out. (And I am very glad you got out of an abusive relationship and into a good one!) But people leaving non-abusive…

Here it does make sense, though. Generally speaking (obviously, as always, there are plenty of exceptions), a willingness to cheat (emotionally or otherwise) has more to do with the person cheating than it does the person they are cheating with. Which boils down to: the way a person acts is a pretty good indicator of…

Because i'm different. I awaken a heretofore unreleased relationship consciousness within them that makes them turn around and realize "This, this is what i've been looking for and now i need look no further." Duh.

"When one marries one's mistress, one creates a vacancy."

In a word —- ego. If your own self-worth is determined by seeming "victories" over others, then luring a person away from a committed relationship is a form of validation that can be quite addicting to some.

Aside from the already mentioned problem of having them leave you for someone else, just as they left the previous partner... I just can't stand people that don't know how to be alone.

You can't deny the underlying fact that a poached partner is going to likely be less invested or committed and more likely to cheat or leave. They did it for you, so that means they're highly likely to do it TO you.

I know someone I REALLY want to send this to, but probably shouldn't.

I have never understood this...

since you're the anti amal, that boat you were once on probably has sank.

I don't care what someone does with their name, is the point. Change it, don't change it... doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Its not ugly for families to have the same name. It makes sense and since she wasn't sold to George for a couple of goats, it isn't indicative of his ownership of her. And it isn't for you to be disappointed, I highly doubt she cares what you think.

It was a personal decision, so why should we judge it?

Suspicious? No. I know why it happens. And while I know many women who do it (myself included) I know many women who don't. It's not about whether you should or shouldn't, that's not for anyone to judge. We're at the point where it's no longer expected and people have free will, so really it should be a non-issue…

I think it reinforces the fact that women should be able to do whatever they want without being judged for it.

As someone who studied architecture for a while, are you going to go after antebellum architecture too and burn said buildings to the ground? Let's link this back to fashion - would you promote the banning of Ottoman turbans because of Islamic slavery of Slavic people in Russia? would you promote the banning of…

I'm failing to see anything that could be remotely considered "Antebellum" going on in this picture. Maybe some of the trees are really old?

While you raise some good points, the fact is, all historical periods have a horrible dark side. So if you feel that plantation houses should only serve as museums to remind people of slavery, does that mean that you feel that the Vatican should stop operating as the HQ of Catholicism, and only serve to remind us of…