Dr. Seuss. Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!. l [itll'; fact Dr. Seuss actually cheated on his wife while she was sick with canc
x
Click to expand

Dr. Seuss

Dr. Seuss. Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!. l [itll'; fact Dr. Seuss actually cheated on his wife while she was sick with canc

Subscribe to me and add me as a friend to see more funny content!

l [itll'; fact
Dr. Seuss actually cheated on his wife
while she was sick with cancer for
13 years - when she killed herself. he
married the mistress.
the bitch, twee bitch, dead bitch, new bitch
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1048
Views: 37527
Favorited: 56
Submitted: 07/30/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to phanact submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#33 to #1 - whocaresifiwin (07/31/2014) [-]
**whocaresifiwin rolled image** , so much green. ***** . thumbs. i meant thumbs.
User avatar #37 to #1 - xenoquack (07/31/2014) [-]
My gf has this exact picture on the back of her kitchen door. No euphemism intended.
#7 - kingpongthedon (07/31/2014) [-]
I've seen this a thousand times and every time I still read he married the mattress.  Then I realize it doesn't make sense to marry a mattress, then I remember it's Dr. Seuss, then I remember that you can't legally marry a mattress even if you are a doctor.  Gif seems about on par with my train of thought.
I've seen this a thousand times and every time I still read he married the mattress. Then I realize it doesn't make sense to marry a mattress, then I remember it's Dr. Seuss, then I remember that you can't legally marry a mattress even if you are a doctor. Gif seems about on par with my train of thought.
User avatar #23 to #7 - fkelly ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
I'm actually a transgender mattress that identifies as a cinchilla.
#20 - stoopidanon (07/31/2014) [-]
That's not a fun fact at all.
User avatar #6 - aesis (07/31/2014) [-]
What a cunt
User avatar #32 to #6 - nthmetal (07/31/2014) [-]
Yea, how dare she die of cancer.
User avatar #15 to #6 - razthough ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
Yeah cunt indeed, but sometimes he actually reposts funny stuff.
#19 - choclategum (07/31/2014) [-]
Man that's really ****** up.
#17 - sunnyday ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
Fun fact: Dr. Seuss was once raped.
#2 - anon (07/31/2014) [-]
Would be interesting if it was ever confirmed if he was cheating on her at the time or not. Not to mention it wasn't just cancer but also Guillain-Barré syndrome, which lead to her depression and she ended up taking her life due to suspicions of cheating and having cancer as well as Guillain-Barré syndrome.
#22 - TheOneCalledNiles (07/31/2014) [-]
>the book he published after she killed herself
#27 - kdawwwg (07/31/2014) [-]
they loved each other
#38 to #27 - opaayumu (07/31/2014) [-]
dude...
#54 to #27 - anon (07/31/2014) [-]
this is Hipster ****** up **** . Your only offended if you've seen the show, oterwise it looks innocent and endearing.
#56 to #27 - WhitePimp (07/31/2014) [-]
come on man...
come on man...
User avatar #11 - emptysuperman ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
I'm sure it was that black and white.
#13 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
Incoming unpopular opinion:

Let's be honest. If your significant other is dying of cancer, what room is there for intimacy? I doubt they will ever be in the mood for it, and being persistent about it with them is an asshole move. Now I'm all for fidelity in marriage, but we're all human, and we have "needs".

The only things I would have to ask in this situation are:

1.) Did Seuss abandon his wife, or was it a hidden affair?
2.) Why did she kill herself?
2a.) Was it because she found out about the affair?
2b.) Was it because she got sick of suffering from the cancer?

If Seuss did abandon his cancer-ridden wife for a mistress, then **** him, what a dick.
If he stuck around to care for her and sought out a mistress for intimate purposes, then that's understandable.
If she killed herself because she found out about the affair, then well **** , that's horrible.
If she killed herself because she didn't want to suffer with the cancer anymore, then condolences to Seuss, and I'm happy he had someone to help him through with his former wife's death. That is, of course, if he actually took care of her and didn't abandon her during her time of need.
User avatar #47 to #13 - Sethorein ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
well.. you were right... it was an unpopular opinion...
#70 to #47 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
To be truthful, I'm more disappointed in how many people think that I would follow in Seuss's footsteps in this situation just because I try to understand why he did what he did, and brainstorm about it; I'm a curious individual.

I'm also surprised that this issue of Seuss is so heavily determined by the sexual fidelity of their marriage, and how little consideration is given to whether Seuss actually took care of his wife or not.
#52 to #13 - thempc ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
oh you think you're entitled to sex? don't worry you're not the only one
#68 to #52 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
Oh you think that I think I'm entitled to sex just because I realize that many people deem sexual satisfaction to be necessary? Don't worry, being able to empathize with someone totally means that I would do the same things as them.

Hint, I wouldn't do the same thing as someone that I empathize with. Just because I try to understand why someone would do something, does not mean I would follow in their footsteps
User avatar #31 to #13 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
Cheating is not justifiable.
If his wife is sick and dying with cancer, then she's not going to be able to do sexual things.
For the husband, staying loyal would be a small price to pay, considering HIS WIFE IS DYING.

I don't like you or your words, sir.
#61 to #31 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I really think you need to make the difference between my opinion about how someone acted a certain situation and what I would actually do in said situation. Just because I can empathize with Seuss cheating (and in a very limited circumstance, where he still took care of his wife while cheating and not just straight up abandoning her) doesn't mean I would follow in his footsteps.

I have dated girls who have thought that masturbation and looking at pornography is considered cheating if you do that while in a relationship, because they view it as "they aren't good enough" or that they aren't desired. Are you guiltless of masturbating or viewing pornography while in a relationship?

Also consider the following:
Suppose you have cancer. Would you rather have a significant other who desires to have sex with you and is sexually loyal to you but neglects to attend to your pain and suffering from the cancer, or would you rather have a significant other who is having sexually intimacy with you but attends to your needs and soothes your pain and suffering from the cancer?

If I had to answer that question, I would not like either option, but the former would hurt me much more than the latter. Love is not only sexual, it is tending to another human being, caring for them, and being selfless for them. I would feel despised by my significant other if they neglected my medical needs, even though they desired intercourse/sexual relations with me.

Even though the post did not touch on whether Seuss tended to his wife's needs, it is one of the options that I brought up and should be strongly considered, whether or not Seuss abandoned his wife or stuck around and cared for her while cheating.

People who believe love to be defined by sex are shallow individuals.
User avatar #64 to #61 - lovedemfurries (08/01/2014) [-]
Okay, I understand what you're getting at
But
Those two options are not the only two options.
You don't need to cheat on someone just because they're dying... I'm not really seeing the fairness in that.

And I don't believe love is defined by sex. But I believe it is an important part of love to be treated with care.

But in the end, cheating is a choice. It's someone's own fault if they choose to trust someone that they don't know is loyal, but it is also someone's own fault to cheat on said person.

How you view love and how you treat your significant other does not really concern me. But I think that you should probably make your perspective on this kind of thing known to whomever you are in a relationship with.

I totally understand what you're saying. But I don't necessarily agree with it.

On a side note, no, I'm not guiltless of watching porn while in a relationship. I did it a few times, but I told her that I did it because I felt bad about it. I was actually the one who came to her about it, saying that I felt it was the same as cheating in real life. Because if you think about it, it's the same notion. You are using another person in some way in order to satisfy your sexual needs. Her view had nothing to do with it. I personally thought it was wrong, and I hadn't realized it until after I did it.

To me, these things are just given trusts in a relationship. I will follow these rules set by myself because I believe them to be morally correct.

If I was with a girl and she did not satisfy me sexually or emotionally, I would let her know, and I would break up with her. At least then she would understand things, and she won't feel betrayed. Cheating is just not necessary in any scenario that I can think of.

That's just how I feel.
#67 to #64 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I do agree that you don't need to cheat on someone just because they are dying, and I never said someone has to. What I did say though is that I can empathize with them, so long as they care for their dying significant other. I believe people, who abandon their significant other in every respect while in need, to be scumbags.

And concerning the pornography issue, I agree too. However, we have to keep in mind that we are fallible, we do stupid things, we contradict ourselves, we make ourselves to be hypocrites at times. While I think cheating is stupid and that viewing pornography while in a relationship is also cheating, I cannot say with 100% certainty that I will never cheat, because I am human, I am fallible.

"If I was with a girl and she did not satisfy me sexually or emotionally, I would let her know, and I would break up with her"

So you would let her know and then just break up with her instead of giving her a chance to try to satisfy you? Where is the love in that man? Let her know and give her a chance to try things differently and go from there. See if she actually wants to make you happy and to satisfy you, and if she doesn't care enough to try, then sure, she's not worth your time. But also make sure that you strive to abide by your own standards.
User avatar #69 to #67 - lovedemfurries (08/01/2014) [-]
Ahhhhhhh, reading your last paragraph, I knew that would bite me in the ass haha

I was going to say yeah I would give her a chance, but as I typed it out, I put "I would give her a chance to satisfy me but if she didn't I would then break up with her."

It really wasn't coming out right so I scrapped it.

But yes, that is what I'd do.

And it is reasonable to say that you aren't sure with 100% certainty that you wouldn't cheat. I agree that humans are imperfect and all that. All I'm saying is that I will try with the utmost conviction to never cheat. Because I've known firsthand just what it can do to a girl. It's not pretty.

All in all, I'm glad we can agree here. I misread your initial comment a little bit so thanks for clearing that up for me

You seem like a reasonable person, so I wish you a good day!
#71 to #69 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I believe many people have misread or gotten the wrong intent out of my original comment, but what's done is done. A good night to you sir
User avatar #55 to #31 - tinglyturtletaint (07/31/2014) [-]
Eh, not exactly justifiable, but not exactly the horrible monstrous act that people make it out to be.
If you marry a woman, think, no truly believe the way you feel about her is what love is. Then you at some point meet someone else and you realize the "love" you have for your wife is ******* nothing compared to how you feel about the new woman. Maybe you see where that is actually going before you straight up just leave your wife. Maybe it doesn't work out and so your wife is none the wiser, you just choose not to seek out burning passion anymore and decide stable contentment is better than the risk involved for something greater.
User avatar #57 to #55 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
Okay, that would be looking at it from the cheater's point of view.
Now think about how it would feel to not be good enough for the person you love more than anything, and they betray you.
User avatar #58 to #57 - tinglyturtletaint (07/31/2014) [-]
That's life though. Morals are relative, they only seem universal because the current societal standard is whatever the majority believes to be right or wrong.Essentially as a living creature with free will you are entitled to do whatever you want. Now let me elaborate since that was misleading, you are entitled to do whatever you want, no limits, literally anything you can physically do. This is the only thing anyone and everyone is entitled to realistically, that right has to be respected, and it always is, because while you are entitled to do something others may not like, they are entitled to try and stop you.
Let's look at an example. An alien race has evolved to survive strictly on the brains of sentient species. Literally, they can eat nothing else or they will starve. Now this race is humanoid and non monsterous, almost human, but they are responsible for the genocide of hundreds of planets and now they are farming earth.
If we fight them, and we win, genocide is the only way we can ensure our safety and the safety of other sentient lifeforms we have yet to meet. We, to us, are doing a good thing, or at the very least it isn't bad. To the brain eaters though, we are monsters, they were just trying to eat and their food started murdering their women and children.
What I'm saying is that objectively there is absolutely no right or wrong in the grand scheme and that nothing matters, and subjectively it only matters if the stigma you receive from the perceived immoral act is more trouble to you than refraining from the act.
Basically, do whatever you want but understand that the flak you get is their right to give out, and deal flak all you want but know it's their right do something you don't like as much as it's your right to stop them.

If someone is a really cool person most of the time, and then does something morally reprehensible, it doesn't make everything else they did go away or mean less.
User avatar #60 to #58 - lovedemfurries (08/01/2014) [-]
That's a very unique perspective.

I dunno how applicable that is to this situation, but I get what you're saying
User avatar #39 to #31 - welfarekid (07/31/2014) [-]
13 years in not a small price
User avatar #40 to #39 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
He can have a wank.
Don't gotta go ****** other bitches.
User avatar #41 to #40 - welfarekid (07/31/2014) [-]
You're thinking about this in a societal manner, we're animals, we think like them, an we are forced to suppress alot of our instinct because of society.
I mean **** if you look at sex as an act instead of some spiritual sanctity then it's not a big deal
User avatar #43 to #41 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
Well the way I see it is, society has developed the way it has for understandable reasons.
I've known people who do, in fact, look at sex as an act. They seem to do okay but I feel like they're lacking a certain level of trust and happiness in their relationship because of it.
In fact, the guy in said relationship left the girl because he wanted to go hunt booty.
The girl was heartbroken and shattered as a result. I felt really bad for her.

I guess if you want to look at sex as an act then you can. But there's more to it than that. There really is.
User avatar #46 to #43 - welfarekid (07/31/2014) [-]
I don't necessarily see it as an act though, and I have never cheated an I don't like the idea, but she was heartbroken because of unrealistic expectations because of society
User avatar #48 to #46 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
I'm confused
How would expectations of society cause that?
#62 to #48 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
The expectation is that people are to be monogamous in relationships and in intercourse, and the paradigm is that sexual infidelity negates every selfless act an individual has performed in a relationship.

If she was not raised on/impressed with the idea that relationships and intercourse are supposed to be monogamous, and that infidelity is a sign that someone does not love you (even in a non-sexual manner), would she have been so heartbroken to the point of suicide? (this is assuming she committed suicide because she found out about the affair)
User avatar #26 to #13 - thinemother (07/31/2014) [-]
What's the point in getting married if you aren't going to stick to the vows until one of you is dead.
#63 to #26 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I agree with you, but have you not seen people of the modern age?

People lie, they feign promises, they have ulterior motives, and they also do what it takes to survive.

Some people just want sex, and so get married to avoid being frowned upon by society. Some people just want to steal someone's assets through marriage. Some people marry for financial reasons in order to stay afloat.

And guess what. People aren't perfect. Just because Seuss is a commonly revered author does not make him Jesus. And just because you and I think cheating is stupid does not make us saints either. But we have to keep in mind that people will make stupid mistakes; some will regret them, some will think they did the right thing.

Let he who is sinless cast the first stone.
User avatar #24 to #13 - instalation (07/31/2014) [-]
You're right. People do have needs. We need food, air, and water at the very least.

Intamacy isn't a need though. Funnyjunk has taught me that there are many people who have never been intimate, and yet still live.
#65 to #24 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I truly doubt there are many people who do not seek intimacy or have tried to fulfill their desire for intimacy with pornography/masturbation. Just because someone has not been intimate with another human being does not mean they do not deem intimacy to be a need.

You're also only taking a singular definition of need, to be a requirement. "Need", according to dictionary.com also defines "need" to mean "a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary" or "urgent want". Guess what nearly all humans are biologically programmed to deem necessary? Intimacy.
User avatar #74 to #65 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
Except that's wrong. And you're correct, not many people want to go through a relationship without intimacy. But you're acting as if there never was any intimacy in his relationship.

And I can pull whatever definition out of my ass and say it means that, since Dictionary did that. Google defines it as a requirement. Come on dude, we all know what a need is. And no, humans are not biologically programmed to have intimacy in the sense that you're speaking. They can live without being intimate.

We're not cave people here either. We don't have to give into primal urges. This is why I truly feel sorry for whoever is unfortunate enough to be your next "partner."
#75 to #74 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
"But you're acting as if there never was any intimacy in his relationship"

I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth. The assumption is that she did not desire intimacy during her time with cancer, which according to the post was for about 13 years. I can't speak for her, but it's just the easiest assumption to make in this situation. Occam's Razor.

Since you want to define a "need" as a requirement, I suppose you can never say "i need this" or "i need something" when you desire it, because then you'd be wrong every time and just making **** up. OR you can get over your elitist attitude and remember that language is defined by the people using it, and nearly all english speakers recognize that "need" describes both requirement and urgent desire. It means both. People use both definitions and it's understood to mean both. I'm sure you've said "need" when describing an urgent want.

Being biologically programmed to do something doesn't mean it's a requirement to stay alive or continue living. It's just something that happens in the mind.

I agree, we don't have to give into primal urges, I hadn't said anything of the sort. But we can't ignore that human sexuality and hormones make people go to extreme lengths for things.

"This is why I truly feel sorry for whoever is unfortunate enough to be your next 'partner'"

Boy aren't we being childish by personally attacking the other person. Recognizing that people do stupid **** and trying to understand why Seuss would cheat on his wife MUST DEFINITELY mean that I would cheat on my significant other. Well, since you try to understand that people can live without being intimate MUST DEFINITELY mean that you won't want to be intimate with your next "partner", so I truly feel sorry for whoever gets together with you. Like seriously, that's just being immature man. We're all fallible, I don't plan on ever cheating in life but I can't guarantee I won't either. I'm ******* human. We're imperfect.
#76 to #75 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
Careful with those edges.
#77 to #76 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
Careful with that elitism
User avatar #78 to #77 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
I don't consider myself an elite. I just don't think there's any use arguing with someone as childish as you.
#79 to #78 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
>Starts being a smartass about definitions and personally insulting others where it isn't needed
>Has a flaw in his logic demonstrated
>Calls other people childish

K bud.
User avatar #80 to #79 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
You don't really care if there is a flaw or not though. You just kind of pulled one out of your ass. But whatever I guess.

And I'm not your Bud, pal.
#81 to #80 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
The flaw in your logic was that because I demonstrate empathy for someone else or try to understand their motivations must imply that I would do the same thing as them.

I'm not your pal, m8.
User avatar #82 to #81 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
To be honest I kind of just got kinda bored of replying, I already kind of know what you're gonna say.

I'm not your m8, guy.
#83 to #82 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
>YFW

I'm not your guy, dude.
User avatar #84 to #83 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
But.. But I'm Roman Catholic..


I'm not your dude, friend.
#85 to #84 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I'm not your fr- wait, maybe we can be friends
#86 to #85 - instalation (08/01/2014) [-]
We might be able to, if we set aside our differences.
User avatar #16 to #13 - choclategum (07/31/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, people do have no needs but we're not mindless animals during mating season. There really is never an excuse for cheating. Craving intimacy or not, it's not an excuse.
User avatar #18 to #16 - choclategum (07/31/2014) [-]
Oops I meant people do have needs.
#29 to #16 - mewxchii (07/31/2014) [-]
Thumb for both you and instalation, I agree with you guys completely. I wanted to go ahead and make a comment about it because you have no idea how surprised I am you guys even have that of morality. I seen a lot of people in the past (especially on FunnyJunk) who thinks a lot like Justin over here. I'm not here to bash him for it but I want you guys to know you've gained my respect.
User avatar #34 to #29 - tsoper ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
Cheating makes a person feel like they arnt good enough and not cared for.

I would never cheat and would not like if my wife/gf did.
User avatar #42 to #34 - lovedemfurries (07/31/2014) [-]
Same here.
My (now) ex-girlfriend was cheated on a couple times before I dated her.
The emotional problems that she had received as a result made the relationship damn near impossible to cope with.
She never trusted me, and she always broke down thinking I was going to leave her because "she's not good enough"
I told her I loved her 3 or 4 times a day, called her perfect, cuddled her, etc
Nothing helped.

In my opinion, cheating people are the real villains of the modern world. It does incomprehensible damage to someone that trusts with their heart.

I'm glad to know that there's someone else out there that understands. Kudos to you!
User avatar #30 to #29 - instalation (07/31/2014) [-]
I'm just glad that there's more people who share my view. It isn't a nice feeling to be cheated on time and time again.
#66 to #16 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
Have we now deemed that the mental processes of human beings to always be strong enough to overpower the chemical processes of the body? Is psychology now always stronger than biology? As advanced as we are, does that negate the fact that we are still living creatures that have an animalistic biology?

I agree, cheating is stupid, and we ought to frown upon it. But dismissing the biology of human beings for the sake of societal norms is not wise either. People are not perfect, and yes, people can be assholes, but we ought not to judge until we have had the chance to walk in someone's shoes and empathize with them.
User avatar #72 to #66 - choclategum (08/01/2014) [-]
Yes, ***************** . If you seem to think that what he did was justifiable because of human biology; because if we're going off of that then rape is justifiable too. You know since it's human biology to have the need to mate and spread your genes and biology> psychology
And I don't need to walk in anybody shoes to know that I would never do something that despicable.
#73 to #72 - JustintheWaysian ONLINE (08/01/2014) [-]
I don't know why you think my desire to empathize means that I also believe what Seuss did was justifiable. Trying to find out the "why" of someone's actions has no reflection on my own choices.

The point of the biology thing is that human biology deems intimacy with another human being as a need. Much like how shelter is a biological need for humans. Like, if you ever find yourself homeless and living on the streets, and you have a small box, that satisfies the need for shelter, but society has raised you and I to believe that it is necessary to have say, an apartment or house for shelter. And this is where sociology can affect our biology as well.

In Seuss's case, where it is likely that a biological need for intimacy was not met with his wife, combined with the sociology of social norms, created this maddening need for intimacy with another consenting adult. This also does not touch on whether Seuss actually took care of his wife or not during her cancer, which is the primary detail that I would like to know, because, well, it is important in all this.

All in all, I don't think Seuss is justifiable, but I would like to say that I understand why he did what he did. Does not mean I would do the same thing, but I understand. Much like how most people detest murder. But guess what, I'm human, and humans are fallible, and I have contemplated killing some scumbags who have repeatedly abused and hurt my family, even though I detest murder. It's hypocritical, I know, but aren't we all? Don't we all, as humans, have at some point in our lives, done something stupid, hypocritical, or just insensible?

This is what I mean by walking in someone else's shoes and empathy. It does not mean you approve of their decisions or would copy them, but it means that you take the time to understand their motivations and to remember that all humans are fallible and imperfect creatures, and we make mistakes often and will continue to make them throughout our lives.
User avatar #25 - thealmightyantler ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
Disliked for the term "Bitch" used to describe women.
#53 - anon (07/31/2014) [-]
>Implying first wife knew.
>Implying she didn't have other reasons for suicide like tremendous pain.
>implying he wasn't emotionally distraught and couldn't handle **** by himself.

Just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean they did so maliciously. He could of easily dumped the sick wife to hook up w/ his mistress and not of had the stress if that was really his goal.
User avatar #10 - timmywankenobi (07/31/2014) [-]
Except that he didn't meet the 2nd woman till 9 years after his wife got cancer . Also his wife was reported to have said she didn't want Dr.Seuss to watch her slowly decay and die and when she was lucid encouraged him to "go be happy". Plus after nine years of not having sex with your wife cause she is dying I can't really blame him for finding a mistress to have sex with. Like If I was married and my wife was dying in pain for 9 years and unable to have sex ,I can honestly say after 9 or 10 years I would consider smothering her with a pillow.
User avatar #14 to #10 - miknab (07/31/2014) [-]
Okay, I'll admit that he is human and has urges and after 9 years it is understandable that he would pursue another woman. It is not the moral thing to do though. He married her for better or for worse, Even if she told him to go and be happy, he should still realize that she probably needs someone for emotional support. I think he should have/hope he did stick around and care for his previous wife before putting his hand in another pie (so to speak). ;) I don't know the whole story though so I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly what I'm talking about.
User avatar #21 to #14 - timmywankenobi (07/31/2014) [-]
hmm yes you right morally and ethically he should have stayed with her.
0
#51 - greatcornholio has deleted their comment [-]
#49 - anon (07/31/2014) [-]
FARTS

FARTS

FARTS

FARTS

FARTS
User avatar #28 - Imbtrtenu (07/31/2014) [-]
Dr. Seuss is the man.
-8
#3 - dantemp has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4 to #3 - Shawnsta (07/31/2014) [-]
Its a reference to a book, It is purposely put that way.
User avatar #5 to #4 - dantemp (07/31/2014) [-]
this is me admitting a mistake, if you still want to thumb me down, feel free.
User avatar #8 to #5 - Afterlife (07/31/2014) [-]
k
User avatar #12 to #5 - hoponthefeelstrain ONLINE (07/31/2014) [-]
oh well you tried..
User avatar #44 to #4 - gunslayer (07/31/2014) [-]
What did he say?
User avatar #45 to #44 - Shawnsta (07/31/2014) [-]
He was getting upset cause it said One bitch Two bitch not the "Grammatically correct" One bitch Two bitches
 Friends (0)