A newlywed husband divorced his wife before they could even consummate their marriage after her ex sent him compromising photos of her. The couple had been wed only hours when the groom was passed a memory stick containing the pictures hidden in a bouquet of flowers.This is a position in which many men have unwittingly found themselves, on one end or the other. Athough described as her "ex" and her "former lover", the fact is that the woman was having sex with the one man while engaged to her BETA-victim. This is apparent because he was trying to continue their current relationship, not revive a past one.
A note told him to look at the contents of the device and, when he did, he found the photographs of his new wife, laid bare and in intimate circumstances.
Muslim cleric Sheikh Ghazi Bin Abdul Aziz al-Shammari told Kuwaiti television news that the groom decided on the spot that his hours-old marriage was over, the website Sabq reported.
'The groom came to see me the next day and he was under strong emotional trauma,' said the cleric. 'It was truly the shock of his life and he could not bear the scandal.'
Sheikh al-Shammari said the bride's former lover had days earlier tried to blackmail her into staying with him, threatening to reveal their relationship if she refused. She told him to get lost, telling him she was to be married and that she wanted to start a new life, become a mother and raise a family.
And while the paper and many of its readers may engage in feigned shock and horror that any spurned man might so UNGENTLEMANLY as to expose a cheating whore who is on the verge of successfully sticking her exit landing and pulling off a massive marital con, the truth is that the man ultimately did the groom a tremendous favor by revealing his fiance's true character to him, regardless of his motivations.
A friend of mine once received a phone call from the roommate of the man who was having sex with his fiance. He went to the beach they were at, confirmed the roommate's story, and broke off the engagement a few weeks before the wedding. It was hard on him, but he was extremely thankful to the roommate. And as for those who wonder why the "former lover" didn't act sooner, it is entirely possible that he knew nothing about her wedding plans until then. I once called a girl I'd been seeing at the gym where she worked and was very surprised to be informed that she would be out for the next two weeks because she was getting married that very day.
That was a bit of an eye-opener, even for someone who was as instinctively skeptical of women as I was. And I definitely felt sorry for the poor bastard, though not sorry enough to interfere with the wedding.
Such women always want to "start new lives" and put the past, even the extremely recent past behind them. But the past, especially the decisions we have made and the actions we have committed, defines who we are.
25 comments:
I can GUARANTEE you that if a woman is the wife/girlfriend of a cheater, ALL other women will say that the female victim has a RIGHT to know and that those who are aware of it have a positive obligation to inform her.
Good on the other man for informing the next victim-to-be. I have several female friends who would gladly get together with me. Though cute and great to get along with, they hardly realize they have completely ruined their chances with me for having openly been pulling or are currently still pulling the two-boyfriend scam, one long-distance and one to flop around with here in this city every other night or so.
I've hounded one on that fact to the point where she's highly insecure about it while around me now. I think it has actually increased her desire to get with me. No, it definitely has, she verbalized as much. The other has remedied her situation, but were she ever to make a direct pass at me, she'll be shocked to find out that her giggling about the two boyfriend situation and proclamations of 'love' for her then long-distance boyfriend made us an impossibility. Consequences, bitches.
It's very irritating to have to deal with anyone who wants to put the past behind them ASAP. The past is all we have to base your future behavior on, why should it become immediately irrelevant so that feelings don't get hurt? It's time for butthurtedness to make a come back.
It is very sad to read the comments of this article.
I mean the original article in the Daily Mail.
It's very irritating to have to deal with anyone who wants to put the past behind them ASAP.
Very true. The only way to put the past behind you is time. Time spent making different decisions than the ones you want to put behind you. Live a different life for long enough, and it's credible to claim you've changed your ways.
The problem for women who want to put their slutting around behind them is that usually, by the time they want to do that, they don't have much time left.
Women who jump immediately from the bad boy carousel to a good guy marriage are very much like alcoholics who go sober. Consciously they know what is good for them. However, they will never crave mineral water the way they crave hard liquor, and when they revert they revert hard and will cause immeasurable misery to all around them.
I would have been very appreciative if a friend or acquaintance (or even a stranger to me) had done that for me before I got married. Although in retrospect, the signs were there but I chose to ignore them or they just didn't register at the time. It was years before anyone was talking about the Red Pill.
It is very sad to read the comments of this article.
Further evidence supporting my working theory that non-feminists are better feminists in practice than are self-identified feminists. Had the groom lied about his character only to be Falcon Punched in similar manner by an aggressive ex, we would likely see nothing but support in those comments for how right the bride was in contract-nullifying that Deceiving Bastard™. Yet, in this instance, most of what we see are comments asserting how terrible/pitiful the men involved are. As one commenter put it (emphasis added), "The ex is a truly horrible man. That was her past and everyone makes mistakes." The problem is, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes, but everything is wrong with hiding them. The only horrible thing that transpired in this series of events was that equality was steadfastly observed.
My brother was set to marry his fiancee. Literally the day before the wedding, my best friend told me he had banged her about a month prior. I told him immediately. He was upset but married her anyway. Divorce, depression, two girls he has not seen in 16 years (one in foster care) were the result. What a dumb ass.
"He wont let his fiance have sex with other men??? Fucking patriarchal swine!! OMG WTF"
Anti-cuckoldry is now misogyny.
Once lived in a small town, where the daughter of a local bigshot was shacked up with a black for over a year. Then she disappeared, and a few months later we saw in the big city paper that she was engaged to some white schmuck. Always said, "if he only knew..."
It needs to be said that Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 all give a man the right to divorce and remarry in cases where his wife has lied about her past. These passages don't just refer to adultery or the period before the marriage is consummated either. The couple in the article could've been married for decades and the man still would be within his rights to divorce her if she'd managed to deceive him.
A lot of churches either ignore these passages or try to alter their meaning. It would be very interesting to see the effects on church demographics if more pastors emphasized these passages.
It needs to be said that Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 all give a man the right to divorce and remarry in cases where his wife has lied about her past.
Perhaps I have missed something, because the applicable passages in Matthew qualify the grounds for divorce. Only Deuteronomy leaves room for an interpretation as far reaching as what you've suggested. Given that the cited portions of Matthew list fornication as the only acceptable premise for divorce, lies or secrets from a woman's past would only be proper grounds if they were sufficiently sexual in nature.
The marriage vow is made before God, and He ratifies it to make it a sacramental marriage, as opposed to a civil marriage which only has the sanction of the State. If she has lied and led him to believe, let us say a virgin, and a memory stick shows up showing her doing the football team, then she has lied about her status and it is annulable.
Same if she says the words of the marriage vows, but doesn't mean to fulfill them, or tells herself that they don't matter, divorce is still an option.
That is why the Catholic Church has ecclesiastical tribunals to handle these injustices; and such vows ruled as null and void because of the fraud, etc. involved.
@Shammahworm - I am far from a biblical scholar, but based on my readings of the NT and discussions of knowledgeable people, I don't think there is any NT basis for divorce except 1) Outright fraud, viz: she claimed to be a virgin but she wasn't, and 2) a nonbeliever who divorces a believer because the NB cannot accept the believer's faith. I don't think there are any other grounds - not even repeated and unrepentant adultery.
If one finds out that the fiance is unfaithful, would the correct course of action be to have things go up to standing at the altar, and say 'No, I don't do this: here's why.'?
@D.J. Only if you have a flair for the dramatic and want to create a spectacle that will waste everyone else's time and money.
@D. Lane, I meant a past having to do with sexual sin. I don't mean if she lied about getting a speeding ticket or anything like that. Sorry for not being more specific. Matthew 19 permits divorce in cases of sexual sin.
@RobertW, Matthew 19 makes it very clear divorce and remarriage are Biblical in cases of sexual sin. Both the English word fornication as well as the original Greek word porneia refer to sexual sin and include both premarital sex and adultery. Many modern pastors attempt to redefine the word to mean only premarital sex when in fact it's never meant that. I've done a fairly large write-up on that if you're interested.
Shamm, I'd be interested in reading your write-up.
I fell in love, hard, with a co-worker at a restaurant during my university years. I soon found out that she was only into Black guys. It was painful to me at the time, because she was incandescently beautiful in a very European/European-American manner, with unbelievable blue eyes, and I didn't understand (again: at that time) why in the world she would be attracted to the local barbarians.
Fast forward 30 years. I get a message on Facebook from this girl's roommate, which, in addition to us catching up, pointed me to the girl I was in love with's page. She's in another city in America with a completely obviously average European-American shlub.
And my question is the same as Matamoros' above: I wonder if he knows? I would be the farm that he does not.
@ Jourdan, Matamoras
Your stories sound a lot like what Rollo wrote in his preventative medicine series of posts, about how a woman's preferences in men will change over the course of her life, depending on what is most important to her at that point (ie, alpha fucks or beta bucks).
My dark knowledge epiphany came in my early 20's. I fell hard into a rutting storm. She was pretty, smart, not high-N, not drugged or tattooed, nurturing, decent family.
One morning, she knocked on my door, woke me up, spent four, five hours. She got a phone call, people wondering where she was. Later find out she went, without showering, directly to a sticky, day-long celebration dinner with her family and future husband.
She wasn't a bad kid, we weren't chanting or stabbing pentagrams as we did it, and yet that guy exists and that dinner party existed, was the realization.
Such women always want to "start new lives" and put the past, even the extremely recent past behind them.
Another thing -- it is fine to put the past behind you, but it is NOT fine to conceal that past from your prospective future mate. He deserves full information. And if knowledge of your sordid past precludes marrying a high quality man... well you should have thought about that before you whored it up.
Dexter wrote: **Another thing -- it is fine to put the past behind you, but it is NOT fine to conceal that past from your prospective future mate. He deserves full information. And if knowledge of your sordid past precludes marrying a high quality man... well you should have thought about that before you whored it up.**
What would be your opinion of a man who married a woman, who specifically told him before they married that she wanted to have children and he says that's fine, they will have children together, and after years of failed attempts to get pregnant, when she decides to go see a doctor to find out what is wrong with her, THEN finally tells her that he had a vasectomy years before they ever met?
How about a man who demands a virgin to marry, when he's been fornicating for years?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.