A Tempest Of Onesie Joy

Daniel Hechter, angered by the sharp cutback in allowing designers to show their ready-to-wear collections in October in the Tuileries, said he planned to have a suit filed today to stop the shows from being held.

Hechter is president of the French Ready-to-Wear Federation, which for the past several seasons has cosponsored the prestigious shows in the Tuileries with the event’s traditional sponsor, the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture et du Pret-a-Porter des Createurs.

The Chambre represents some 40 top-name French designers, while the Federation membership is more broadly based. The shows under the tents constructed each season in the Tuileries have featured members of both groups as well as invited guest designers. Early this month, the Chambre released a schedule of shows for the October introductions, cutting the number of designers to 36, against 51 that showed in March.

Some of the designers gone from the schedule made the decision on their own, with plans to show elsewhere, according to information from the Chambre. Also, some designers who did not show under the tents in March have been added to the October roster. But, it was indicated that in the cases of 1i designers, the expulsion from the tents was a unilateral decision of the Chambre, which set off screams of outrage as well as a scramble for other show locations.

Hechter, Bernard Perris and Robert Nelissen are among those removed from the tent. The Chambre also indicated the nine others who showed in March and now have been eliminated are Hiroko Koshino, Christian Aujard, Doby Broda, Dan Beranger, Kimijima, Scapa, Yuki Torii, Serge Ulliee and Giselle Gomez.

Hechter, who was elected chairman of the Federation in June, said Friday he had instructed the organization’s attorneys to sue the Chambre on charges of breach of a “de factor contract.” He said the suit would aim at getting an injunction to prevent the Chambre from holding the Tuileries shows on government-owned land. He also said he had scheduled meetings with several government officials for this week to encourage them to make a decision in the case.

Pierre Berge, chairman of the Chambre, said Friday he was “absolutely serene” over the matter. “If the government or the courts tell met to show together with Daniel Hechter, I will do it, but I don’t think they will go that far,” he said, explaining that the Federation’s refusal earlier this year to advance its share of a deposit to the installers of the tents was at the bottom of the rift between the two organizations.

camo onesie

Camo Onesie – all the rage!

According to Jacques Mouclier, executive vice president of the Chambre, the Federation decided at the start of this year to stop contributing one-half the amount due to the tent installers as a deposit, because some of the Federation’s members had not paid their own rental fees on previous occasions. “We thus had to pay our share of the advance as well as theirs, or a total of 300,000 francs ($31,600), and so we stopped letting them act as co-organizers.

The Chambre also cited esthetic reasons for cutting back the number of shows. “We felt that we ha d to select the most creative people only, responding to the wishes of many journalists, especially foreign ones, who had been warning us over the past few seasons that we were shifting dangerously from quality to quantity,” said Mouclier. “We felt that certain so-called fashion houses would belong more appropriately in a trade fair.”

Hechter called the tent deposits a “pretext” for the action by the Chambre. The Chambre, he declared, has “made a senile decision to try and preserve their obsolete notion of fashion and creativity, which can only be subjective and which nobody can judge.”

Hechter, who has decided to hold his own fashion show in the Salle Wagram on Oct 22, also said he was “virtually certain” to claim damages from the Chambre.

Plans for shows at other locations have also been reported for several of the other designers removed from the tent. Numerous designers, even some famed members of the Chambre and  designers, by choice do not show under the tents or periodically do shows elsewhere.

The agreement for consponsorship is three years old and verbal rather than written. Hechter asserted the Chambre’s action in breaking it is contrary to a recommendation in 1981 by the French Ministry of Industry calling on both groups to organize shows jointly. “We never signed a contract,” countered Berge, adding that the ministry’s recommendation “was not an order.”

Coco Chanel: Then And Now

The current resurgence of interest in the clothes Coco Chanel designed is not nostalgia, because they can’t transport a woman backward, the way a dress by Poiret or Vionnet can. Her designs are not so much of their time as outside time. Chanel steered clear of fashion, which comes and goes, and formulated a style instead. The virtues of that style are, at the moment, at a premium.

 

Coco Chanel In The 20's

Coco Chanel 1920s

 

“Classic’ is the adjective routinely called on to describe Chanel clothes, and now that most women are no longer willing or able to buy a new wardrobe for the sake of a change, classic clothes have the moral advantage. But besides that, today’s woman wears Chanel because it’s dignified, unspectacular, elegant. It’s both proper and sexy, but the sex appeal is that of a woman who’s competent, who knows her way around. The schoolgirlish side of Chanel dresses and blouses with soft bow ties at the neck is deceptive. The woman who wears them would look like a good girl, as if she played by the rules, if it weren’t for the costume jewelry –fake pearls, cut-glass cabochon necklaces, giant-sized earrings–piled on, gypsy-style. It’s the jewelry that gives the Chanel look a faintly naughty edge, that makes it ambiguous and interesting in a way the clothes by themselves are not. The woman the Chanel style conjures up is self-possessed, wise, and mature–of a certain age, or at least of a certain experience.

The clothes in the Chanel fall/winter couture collection, designed by Karl Lagerfeld, one of the most important designers in fashion today, are along the lines Chanel herself drew up and stuck with until her death, in 1971. Chanel has gone down in history as the originator of costume jewelry, the little black dress, Chanel No. 5, pleated skirts, trousers for women, fur-lined coats, and sunbathing, but she has gone down in memory as the designer of the famous Chanel suit, a style so widely copied, even in her lifetime, that it’s practically in the public domain.

There are plenty of suits in this season’s couture. At the show I attended in Paris, Lagerfeld offered them in striking color combinations, like fuchsia and yellow or pink and pearl gray, as well as in more standard ones, like black and white or navy and white, in fabrics such as basketweave woolens and jersey ribbed to look like corduroy, set off by silk crepe or mousseline. The jackets are singlebreasted or narrowly double-breasted, edged in braid, with or without collars. The skirts are straight and narrow, slit or kick-pleated. But regardless of its distinguishing features, nearly every suit is according to the time-honored Chanel formula: a cardigan jacket, with pockets at the waist (for cigarettes), and a matching skirt and contrasting blouse. In the ready-to-wear for this spring, the lines of the suits are elongated but not distorted: the jackets are mostly to the hip, the skirts to mid-calf. Several suits look the same as ever from the waist up but with pants instead of skirts below. The colors are mostly pastels and navy blue, and there are a lot of stripes. In both couture and ready-to-wear, the spirit of Chanel is intact, even if the letter at times seems slightly skewed.

THERE IS NO separating the Chanel style from Coco Chanel’s life. What she sold was the way she dressed. It seems safe to say that under Chanel’s direction her house never produced anything that she herself wouldn’t have worn. Her taste was wholly subjective, and for that reason her designs had the ring of conviction missing from clothes by designers who try to satisfy a variety of women.

The illegitimate daughter of a peddler, Gabrielle Chanel was born in the Auvergne in 1883, and was soon after consigned to an orphanage run by nuns. Other than that, the facts are hazy, because in later life Chanel did all she could to obfuscate her past and frustrate anyone trying to write about it. Some of her biographers, for instance, go along with the story that her father nicknamed her “Coco.’ Another contends that Chanel came by the name during a brief stint as a cabaret singer, with a repertoire of only two numbers: “Ko ko ri ko’ and “Quiqu’a vu Coco?’ Chanel’s explanation was that it was nothing more than a shortened version of cocotte, the French word for “kept woman.’

Indeed, Chanel had been taken in at twenty-five by a cavalry officer named Etienne Balsan. But she refused to dress her part, and instead wore plain, darkcolored dresses that put the other cocottes, in all their satin upholstery, to shame. Balsan set her up as a milliner, with her own boutique in Deauville and later in Paris. As her business grew, she began making dresses.

Chanel apparently loved wearing men’s clothes, which she freely borrowed from her lovers’ closets. Menswear gave her inspiration–for trench coats, sweaters, blazers, and for new uses of materials, like wool jersey, that had never been employed in women’s clothes. There is a photograph of Chanel setting out to go fishing in Scotland with the Duke of Westminster, wearing his tweeds. The boots she has on are his clodhoppers. His blazer is too big for her. Looking at this picture, you can’t help but be struck by how impudent and chic Chanel looks, and by the pride she takes in wearing her boyfriend’s clothes.

Chanel cast herself as an arbiter of taste, a role that would take her higher and further than that of dressmaker. She made friends with Picasso, Stravinsky, Misia Sert–the artsy “in’ crowd of Paris in the 1920s–and designed costumes for Diaghilev and Cocteau. When Diaghilev died in debt, in Venice, it was Chanel who paid for his funeral.

 

House of Chanel

House Of Chanel

untitled (Suzan Black) / CC BY 3.0

 

Already, Chanel’s life has provided material for a Broadway musical, Coco (with Katharine Hepburn), and a movie, Chanel Solitaire (with Marie-France Pisier). The myth that surrounds her life is a fairy tale for our time about a plucky girl who goes to work and earns herself a fortune, who refuses to be tied down to one man in marriage and sails instead from one glamorous affair to the next, who keeps an exotically furnished apartment above her workrooms on the rue Cambon and a bedroom across the street at the Ritz.

The facts are right, but the aggrandizement does Chanel a disservice: her independence seems to have been difficult and complicated in real life. An orphan and a loner, she learned early on, by necessity, how to take care of herself, and then apparently longed the rest of her life for someone to take care of her. Her series of love affairs was not a systematic quest for experience but a string of high hopes and increasingly bitter disappointments. As for her career, she found work that she did well and took relentless pride in doing it. There, if anywhere, lies Chanel’s example. She chose to do something when she might easily have done nothing.

In 1954 at age seventy, Chanel reopened her house, after fifteen years in retirement, with a collection that reiterated what she’d been saying all along. The message was too low-key for the fashion press, which had been expecting something more sensational. But women, especially in America, got the point and overruled the press by buying the clothes. Chanel was a popular success; the critics changed their minds.

From then on, she worked to consolidate her style. She settled on the most flattering proportions for a suit–the jacket to the hipbone, the skirt to the knee. She perfected the suit’s construction: the back panel of a jersey skirt was lined so that a woman couldn’t “sit out’ the seat; jackets were weighted to hang properly, with a gold chain sewn into the hem; the armholes were cut high, so that a woman could swing her arms full circle and the body of the jacket would stay in place. Chanel designed chain belts as jewelry, to drape across the belly rather than to cinch the waist. Buttons were jewelry, too–big brass lion’s heads (because Chanel was a Leo) that decorated the front of a jacket. The clothes, even for evening, became simple and concise, the background for lavish accessories.

As a young woman, Chanel had founded her style on her instincts. As time went on, she brought logic to bear on it and refined it to a science. There was nothing mysterious about Chanel’s formula, which was anyone’s for the taking. Adolfo has built an entire career on it. Yves Saint Laurent works his own variations on it and frankly acknowledges his debt. Adele Simpson, Evan-Picone, and other middle-priced American lines borrow heavily and regularly from Chanel.

With so many designers paying tributes to Chanel–tributes selling for a lot of money–it was just a matter of time before the people at Chanel would decide to cash in and turn out the real thing. The couture had coasted along after Chanel’s death under the guidance of her assistants. Then, in 1977, it was announced that Chanel would begin producing ready-to-wear. Frances Stein, a former editor at American Vogue and for several years Calvin Klein’s right hand, was hired to supervise the Chanel accessories line, which includes jewelry, bags, shoes, and knits. One year ago, Karl Lagerfeld was brought in to design the couture.

So far, this new regime’s policy has been to authenticate each collection by reprising in it some of Chanel’s designs. In this season’s couture, there was a strapless black velvet evening dress, with a black chiffon mantle to veil the shoulders, much like a Chanel dress from 1956. A sleeveless black crepe dress with a heavy white lace bolero overtop in this year’s ready-to-wear cruise collection is a direct quotation from a 1937 design.

Of course, a big-name designer like Lagerfeld hasn’t been brought in just to reissue another batch of golden oldies every year. His task–and Frances Stein’s–is to take the Chanel style and extrapolate from it. Stein does this skillfully, picking up where Chanel herself left off and, by some sort of creative empathy, turning out clothes that look like what Chanel would produce if she were alive today. This winter, Stein brought out the basic Chanel suit in black-and-white cashmere sweatering–an ingenious crossbreed of the tailoring that Chanel was famous for and the soft comfort that makes knits so popular now. The pastel-tinted pearls that Stein is introducing for spring, in pale pink, green, coral, yellow, and gray, look like a good, inevitable idea Chanel never got around to. Stein reaffirms Chanel’s principles; her new accessories line is a clear vote of confidence in all Chanel stood for. Lagerfeld, however, seems to be hedging.

It’s no wonder. His attitude toward fashion is one that probably can’t be reconciled to Chanel’s, if the past is any indication. Fashion in Paris during the 1930s was an ongoing clash between Chanel, the friend of the Cubists, and Schiaparelli, who was a Surrealist at heart. With her “chest of drawers’ suit and her necklace of aspirin, Schiaparelli made news while Chanel made clothes.

But the difference between Schiaparelli and Chanel wasn’t merely the difference between humor and the lack of it. There’s a whimsical aspect to Chanel’s designs, too, at least to many from the twenties and thirties. The Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum has in its collection two surprising Chanels: one, a black-and-beige day dress from the twenties, has clouds and rain embroidered on the skirt; the other, a long black tulle-over-crepe evening dress from 1938, is patterned with bright-colored sequin fireworks. A twenties black chiffon chemise, in a sale last month at Sotheby’s, is appliqued with 3-D fabric pinwheels. Each of these is a one-shot dress, but taken together they are evidence of a lightheartedness that is surprising in the sober, upstanding woman who masterminded the suit. So Chanel was no stiff, but unlike Schiaparelli, whose clothes today look like little more than a series of one-liners, she always subordinated the idea of a dress to the image of the woman wearing it.

Chanel and Schiaparelli, or at least the positions they took, still exist in fashion today: Chanel is Yves Saint Laurent and Schiaparelli is, oddly enough, Lagerfeld. In his recent collections for Chloe, there are echoes of her jokey sensibility–evening gowns decorated with trompe l’oeil rhinestone shower heads, brooches as spigots, dresses in the shape of electic guitars, and piano-keyboard bracelets. You get the idea that Lagerfeld can’t quite bring himself to take fashion seriously. Neither, for that matter, could Coco Chanel, but at least she chose to design clothes instead of facetious commentaries on the changing state of fashion. Lagerfeld seems contemptuous of clothes. In the furs he designs for Fendi, and even in his more wearable numbers for Chloe, he makes “fashion statements,’ and often important ones. Chanel’s clothes, however, were understatements.

You can’t help but wonder whether the people at Chanel got the wrong man for the job. In this season’s ready-to-wear, which takes its cue directly from Lagerfeld’s couture, there’s a white satin evening gown with a trompe l’oeil Chanel suit outlined in sequins on the front, a blouse made of fabric patterned with bottles of Chanel No. 5, and big rhinestone 5s to be worn as earrings. I’ve got nothing against irony, and I can see it in the fact that the style invented by Chanel, who eschewed fashion, has now become all the rage. But I’m not sure that an evening gown or a blouse or even an earring is the right place for another designer to remark on that turn of events. In the collections he has designed for Chanel, it’s as if Lagerfeld can’t make up his mind whether to carry on the tradition or send it up.

Lagerfeld’s position at Chanel is unprecedented and ultimately, I think, unenviable. No other house in the history of fashion has, on the death of its founder, brought in another designer with a large reputation and a distinctive style and expected him to work within the confines of its own well-established tradition. Whether or not this is possible is a good question; why Lagerfeld would want to do it is another. The style Chanel set down is so narrowly defined that, if his new designs are going to be in keeping with it, Lagerfeld’s hands are tied. After two collections, he still hasn’t figured out how to make his mark on the Chanel style without in some way defacing it.

The hoped-for meeting of the minds has turned out to be a polite exchange of views, with Lagerfeld and Chanel taking turns. The most successful numbers in this season’s couture were those in which he put his own ideas aside and paraphrased hers: an ivory-and-white wool boucle suit edged in red, white, blue, and beige; a lapis-blue tween suit with a long jacket, with closings like brooches and gold chains draped like watch fobs across the front; a fuchsia chiffon evening gown with a train that flows like liquid. Lagerfeld’s two cents came in a group of overkilling evening jackets inspired by eighteenth-century furniture and Meissen snuffboxes, festooned with cherubs, gold-encrusted scrollwork, marquetry, and sable. At these prices– $15,000 to $50,000 for the evening clothes, $5,000 to $15,000 for the day wear–most women would expect to get something that would last them the rest of their lives.

Women who bought a suit designed by Chanel had the assurance that it would be timeless, but today’s suits look timely instead. The models for the collection wore three-inch-high heels and skirts cut narrow enough to hug their rumps. Presumably, Lagerfeld thinks that touchups like these will make the Chanel style look young and racy without drastically altering it. In the end, though, they undermine it. Chanel didn’t make clothes to fit snugly or to show a lot of skin. There’s a staunch sense of propriety to everything she designed, even her evening gowns, and faith that what is most attractive about a woman is not the motion of her hips. Lagerfeld has taken the Chanel standard and souped it up. He recognizes the style’s integrity, but he doesn’t seem to trust it or to think that it’s enough. From the looks of this collection, he believes that, in however small a way, a woman has to endear herself to the world.

How Having Kids Can Change Everything

I have been married 19 years and I have two children from this marriage. My husband and I dated in high school and marriage seemed like the next step. I was 20 and he was 22 when we got married. At the time we married, we were both in love or what we thought was love. Everything was great until we had kids and then things just started changing. I am by no means perfect and don’t expect perfection but he is not the same person that I married and granted I’m not the same person he married but it seems that I keep making sacrifices and trying to make things work and though he keeps saying he will do better, he eventually goes back to his old ways. The kids are not happy (no I did not turn them against their father; they made their own minds up about him).

 

Having kids changes things

Affairs after having kids

I don’t mean to sound like I’m perfect, I certainly have my faults as does everyone but, I feel I have gone above and beyond in this relationship. My husband does not respect me plain & simple. He doesn’t like to be wrong and is good at making me feel stupid and beneath him. I know the whole “I take the to be my lawful wedded husband/wife, in sickness & in health, for richer or poorer, for better or for worse, till death do us part.” I know how important those words are when I said those and I meant those when I said them but I also feel it has to work both ways (he has to be willing to accept those vows as well). He tells me he loves me and I believe he does in his own way and as much as he is capable of. However, I’m not happy. Here’s why: He never spends time with US as a family. It’s always about what he wants. He is perfectly content with things how they are and has no desire to move forward. I on the other hand am left with all the responsibilities (aside from bringing home the income, he does nothing). I do all the laundry, the cooking, the cleaning, helping with homework, watching movies with the children (quality time) and he does nothing.

 

His evening consists of locking himself in his office with his beer and his computer and shutting the rest of us out. I know his job is stressful and that may be his way of dealing with it but, I have a stressful job as well but I can’t neglect my responsibilities. This is by no means a justification for what I did just trying to give you guys some insight as to what I’m dealing with. NOW here is the clincher (you guys knew this was coming didn’t you?)

 

To make a long story short, I had an affair with my husband’s best friend (yes I know, totally unacceptable, but it is done and I can’t change that). It was only a one time deal but it happened nonetheless. It wasn’t just about the sex for me, I had known this guy for over a year and we had talked about me being unhappy and he knew the situation I was having. I started having feelings for him and foolishly I told him this. We had the one time encounter and then he decided he couldn’t persue a relationship with his best friend’s wife so he ended it. The problem is that I LOVE HIM and I don’t know what to do about it. I know what happened between us should never have happened but it did and I can’t change that. I also can’t help what I feel. We both want the same things in life only I’m willing to take the chance and he isn’t. I didn’t go looking for this to happen, I didn’t plan for this to happen and it hasn’t happened again since. The fact is I don’t know what I should do about it. How do you get over someone you love?

 

Regardless of what comes of my relationship or lack thereof with this guy, my relationship with my husband remains the same. I have tried talking to him, he gets better for a while but it’s only temporary. I don’t know if divorce is the answer even though my kids are also unhappy with the way things are. I think sometimes people marry the wrong person with all good intentions but it doesn’t always work out the way you planned. Sometimes we settle instead of waiting for the right person and then the right person comes along and we are already taken. There is no excuse for what I did. Vows are marital laws, just as the Ten Commandments are God’s

Laws and any other laws we live by, they will be broken because we are humans and we are weak and we choose to make decisions that aren’t always the right ones. I wasn’t trying to hurt my husband; I was trying to fill the emptiness I was feeling. Maybe it’s selfishness but I needed to feel loved and appreciated. Some people feel that women are supposed to be everything for their man and expect nothing in return. Maybe that’s okay for some but not for me. I think marriage or any relationship should be about give & take equally. I do everything in my power to make him happy and only want to be appreciated and respected, not treated like I’m here for his benefit.

 

Are You Cheating With Your Friend’s Husband?

Cheating With Your Friend’s Husband? – Some Advice

You are not doing anything that many other women haven’t done before but that doesn’t make it right what you are doing by any means. There are boundaries in life with all of us and where marriage is concerned for two people they have their boundaries.

If you're cheating with a friend's husband you might want to read this

Should You Cheat With A Friend’s Husband?

First of all, I don’t know how you go on if this is a friend’s husband.  I am not sure I would ever do that but then I am not you.  I will admit to having an affair myself about 8 years ago but it was someone I met online and didn’t know his family at all.  Even at that time I would never have imposed myself in someone else’s marriage if they had small children they were raising.  Just something that is important to me.  May not mean a thing to someone else and some might say if you do it at all why does it matter about the children but that “was” just my take on things.  I can tell you that the affair I was in ended due to him having some very personal issues that came out. Actually with time I was glad that something came up to end it all. I was coasting like you thinking how much I liked our get togethers but there really wasn’t that much to them in reality only that I did travel to some places to meet him while he was away on business. After being in it for about 9 months I began to realize that he was going to stay put where he was (in his marriage) and he was willing to carry on the affair but I was having a real hard time accepting that!  I also found it really hard to get out of because I really ended up having feelings for him.  I think it was two ways but it was only our secret.

I believe women or even men who get themselves in these sort of issues have some huge issues of their own.  Mine was trust.  I to this day am still trying to rebuild my world to where I can trust others.  With a married man I didn’t have to trust as much as a regular relationship.  When you are ready and if you stay in this long enough there will come a time when you either want more or want to get out.

The fact is you are deceiving a friend.  So she is beautiful and maybe you even feel a little jealous?  You know I will tell you from my own experience because to this day – 22 years later I am still trying to repair the damage in my own life that occurred because of jealousy being the root cause.  I truly think it is one of the most evilest emotions known to man.  I know the bible talks some about it.  I don’t have the quotations about it but I could always find some.

I can tell you that if you stay in this relationship and at the end he chooses his wife and not you will know no greater pain.  You will feel shame too for trying to get a man who was married to another.  Your self-esteem will hit rock bottom.  This I am not kidding you about.  All these things happened to me.  It took me almost 2 years to get over this relationship.  I believe the relationship itself was about 3-1/2 to 4 years.  I had other issues that still needed to be dealt with and this only caused things to take that much longer for me.

In all seriousness this is your friend.  What type of person are you to do something like this to her?  Can you imagine how she will feel if she ever finds this out?  I hope you are aware now that you may lose both of them.  Can you imagine how you will feel then?  Maybe right now you are not in that deep but I promise you if you do stay in this it will be one of the biggest regrets of your life.  In your case for more than one reason.

Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what sort of person are you right now?  What are you contributing to mankind?  Right now you are a liar to yourself and this man.  You lack self-esteem big time if you have to try and date a married man.  At least I feel I had a reason for my weakness to have done such a thing but I guess yours could be that you haven’t had a date in over a year so that should give you permission to sleep with your friends husband.  How very sad.

Do yourself a favor and get out of this relationship.  Find yourself a man who is not married and not your friends husband.

Is He Committed Enough To Be My Husband?

I am truly thinking hard about leaving my husband. We’ve separated in the past for a year and it was great. I came back for him….biggest mistake ever! My problem is I’m not sure how to do this with me being the only income in the house (he doesn’t have money) and us living 1800 miles away from his family. The only option I can think of is wait it out until he gets a job and then let him know what I want. Any opinions?

It’s also not fair for me to be somewhere I don’t want to be. I’ve told him that I’m unhappy and have no plans on staying with him forever.He just blows me off. If I can make it with him this long being unhappy, I think I can wait a couple more months for him to find a job. He’s really good at finding jobs, just bad at keeping them! So when you’re being ignored in my situation, what’s next?

There’s a couple problems with this plan though. 1. It’s not fair to him or you 2. You have no idea how long it will take him to get a job

This could also lead to infidelity. If you are truly not happy and want to be apart from him, then do the grown up thing and tell him.

I am not sure what to tell you I have never been married. I know times are hard right now with a lot of people out of work but those sound like long hours. Sometimes I wish I was married for the helping hand in my life – someone to talk to. Did you ever help find him a job or encourge him is he able bodied or does he have health issues? What was he like before you married him? Do you have children? Do you own anything together?

Do you still desire him? now some of you might disagree with this but there is still platonic affection a women wants in a relationship even after marriage would you not agree? But all I can say is talk to him – tell him what you want see if you can somehow work this out. May I ask how did you marry? How did he ask you do you remember those days? What was the ring like what was it like when you first moved in together? How was that first morning? Try to think of those times and maybe he will pick up on the vibe? But I don’t know I’ve never been married.

He’s able to work but we just relocated and have 3 children so it’s easier for him to stay home for a little while until we get settled. He is ready to work which is a great thing. He had a job before we moved. We relocated with my job. I do agree with the platonic affection while married. I believe women stay in a marriage while being unhappy because either their husband is their best friend, it’s easier to deal with the kids, and it’s less stress especially when the husband does not want to split. I’m in that situation now and have been before. There is no love between us and I blame that on myself. We married for the wrong reason, kids! I didn’t want to be a single parent but I was young and dumb. I had no one to teach me otherwise. I was raised by my dad who had no teaching skills. I told him my feelings and he blames me for everything and promises that he’ll never leave…not the answer I wanted. I guess he only thing that will work is to leave without notice. I guess then he’ll get the picture.

Long Distance Love On The Rebound

Eight years ago I was totally in love with a guy that I was dating.

We got along well, and we had a lot in common. Everything was going great, until he finished his PhD and moved to Europe for a post-docposition. We decided to stay together, and when I finished my BA Iwas to move there to live with him, putting off my grad school plansfor a year or two.

About 4 months after he moved, I went to Europe to visit him for a few weeks. He had made the decision to move rather rashly, and the high taxes taken out of his paycheck left him with very little money to live on, which he didn’t anticipate. He was living in a cramped studio apartment and he was very worried about not having enough money to support me if I moved to be with him. He was also very homesick and depressed. The visit went ok, but at the end of the visit he told me that he had planned to end our relationship because it hurt him too much to not have me there with him. Now, this is not a very emotional sort of guy, and he told me he was coming home from work at lunchtime to be alone so he could cry because I’d emailed him in the morning and he missed me so much. He said he just couldn’t keep going on because it was too painful.

Out For A Coffee Date

Rebound Dilemma?

I was devastated. I returned to the US and could barely function for a few months. I didn’t date for 2 years after that because I still loved the guy and I was so hurt. I threw myself into work/school and 8 months later moved away to go to grad school.

About 2 months into grad school he emailed me and told me he moved back to the city where we had originally met and that he broke off his post doc contract early to move back to the states. After a couple of pleasant “what are you doing now?” sorts of emails, he sent me a long email apologizing for breaking up with me and saying it was the biggest mistake of his life. I was in full-time graduate coursework and needed to focus…and I knew if I kept responding it would be a mess. I was also still upset about him breaking it off less than a year before. I was living about 10 hours away from him at this point and working and going to school full time. So, I never responded.

I moved on with my life and dated other people, but I always wondered “what if?” about him.

In April of 2005 I ended an engagement with a different man for several good reasons. He moved out of our apartment, and the very next morning I got an email from my former bf, who I hadn’t heard from in 6-7 years. Over the last 8 months or so we’ve been
sporadically emailing each other…we have probably even more in common now than we did 8 years ago. I couldn’t figure out what my former bf’s intentions were, though – the emails were very sweet and
slightly flirtatious, but not overt. In July or so I sent him an email saying that I had recently reconnected with an old friend and that we had been talking on the phone and having a blast. I sent him
my phone number and said if he wanted to chat that’d be cool. It was a very low-key, low-pressure sort of thing, because I couldn’t figure out what exactly he wanted from me – a penpal? a friend? something else?

No phone call came…until mid-November. Out of the blue he starts calling me. No explanation of why it took him so long. The phone calls went very well, we have loads to talk about, and the flirtation is very heavy.

Then, in early December, he called me and told me he had just signed divorce papers that day. He also told me that he wanted to call me when I sent my number but he was still living with his wife, who he married before he left Europe and has been with for 7 years. Now, no mention of being married at all before this. None. The whole thing seems very carefully planned…but it’s so…strange. He says he’s been so ready for the divorce for a very long time, but was
being “chicken” about it. I am not too sure what that’s supposed to mean. I also feel a little weird about everything – I am not the type to cheat or become involved with anyone who is married, and had he told me he was married I would have corresponded a couple of times to catch up on what’s been going on in our lives and then stopped when it got flirtatious.

So, right after the bombshell, we talked on the phone/sent emails every day for a week or so. Then he went to visit his family for Christmas for just a couple of days…now I am getting nothing. No calls, no emails…not for the past 11 days. He is a workaholic, but he’s supposed to be taking these 2 weeks off. I’d think that being off work would make it much easier to call or email…not the other way around. He’s not vacationing anywhere or anything like that.
When we were together he was sporadic about emails/calls/getting together as well, but back then I knew he was just working really hard, and I never felt insecure about it. I work too hard too, so I
can understand that. We both work in science, and sometimes when you have a breakthrough you just get wrapped up in what you’re doing and everything else falls by the wayside.

I am not too sure what to do at this point. I am not going to chase him, and I think I’ve made it almost too easy so far (being understanding about him not telling me he was married, being really kind to him, being pretty open about how I feel about him, etc.). If
he just needs some space after the divorce, that’s fine, but it’d be nice if he actually told me that. Or maybe he’s back with his ex-wife, although I don’t think that’s likely. I have no idea what is going on.

I feel two ways about things. One is that I am very flattered that he is still interested and that he found me on the internet and we’re communicating and I want to see where this will go. I have a PhD in
a male-dominated field, and I can be very assertive, and I have had problems finding men who are not intimidated by me. This man is totally not intimidated, and has told me recently how proud he is of
me and my accomplishments. I can’t tell you how good that makes me feel, and I can’t explain how nice it is to be free to be the intelligent and strong woman that I am. However, the calculatedness of the contact with me and the whole thing about being a “chicken”
about getting divorced and…well, I wonder if I am not rebound-girl, or if he has been using me as an excuse/motivational factor to make
changes he needed to make. I also don’t like the fact that he kept his marriage a secret until he could tell me he was divorced. I can see why he did that (because I am sure he knows I would not have kept up correspondence had I known) but why didn’t he just wait until he was divorced to start corresponding? I am also a bit on the miffed side about him rebounding and marrying someone else 7 years ago…he claims it was all rebound and it happened very quickly, but how do I know his contact with me isn’t ths same?

What should I do with this guy?