Danielle should remain friends with Sadie.

Thank you, Con, for your timely response. == Intro == As you can see, Con completely excuses Mason's behavior (a) because Con was too much of a coward to break up with her girlfriend before cheating on her and (b) well... actually, there's no (b). So first off, let it be known that regardless of Con's emotional infidelity, cheating is cheating. Despite any emotional turmoil or how "stressed out" Con's girlfriend made her, that absolutely does not give anyone the right to act as if they are single when they are not. If Con agrees that this behavior was acceptable because Con was no longer in love with her girlfriend, then Con agrees if I am no longer interested in her BUT we're still officially together that it would be appropriate for me to go out and be with other people, or have other people physically come on to me simply because I don't feel like being in my relationship anymore but have decided not yet to inform my significant other of that. == Rebuttal == 1. First off, any negative aspects of my relationship with Sadie happened BEFORE we were Sisters and BEFORE we were friends. Since then, Sadie has apologized profusely for any wrong-doing towards me and I have chosen to forgive her. Amelia has never apologized to me and I have never forgiven her. However, if she were to show up at a fraternity function, I would have to respect her presence. So right there the comparison ends - one has apologized to me, and one has not. Furthermore, Con's mistake is assuming that because Sadie does not value or respect the bonds of our fraternity that I must not respect or value them either. This, of course, is false. It's true that Sadie has little reverence for the bond of Sisterhood, however, it means something to ME. This is a bond that I took an oath too and thus I choose to respect it even if everyone else who took the same oath does not. In that way, any argument of Con's about Sadie's commitment to our fraternity is irrelevant. 2. Moreover, Sadie and I frequently talk (and joke) about her harsh words regarding those I care about, ie. my Big. In fact this is a person and issue that comes up quite frequently, and indeed she has apologized and agreed to not say anything mean about my Big (friend) any longer in front of me as well as apologized for putting me in that uncomfortable position. Additionally, I have indeed talked to Sadie about me being 100% committed to Vi AFTER the incident, and Sadie acknowledged and respects this. Con must accept this reality just as I must accept that Mason supposedly apologized to her. Furthermore, Con makes it seem as if Sadie somehow owes Vi an apology. However, in this analogy, that would only be true if Mason has offered Jenny an apology. Since he did not, then in no way is Sadie's lack of apology to Vi relevant. == Conclusion == As you can see, Con has given you absolutely no reason to believe that I should no longer be friends with Sadie... ESPECIALLY since she remains best friends with Mason. Her entire "defense" has been that Mason knew she was emotionally cheating on her girlfriend to begin with; that she and Mason were just sad over the loss of a friend (meaning he was taking advantage of her while she was vulnerable - an even MORE dicky thing to do) and that Mason knew she had been meaning to break up with her girlfriend. However, none of these "defenses" excuse his behavior in ANY way. Ladies and gentlemen, how is Vi being a cheater and Mason capitalizing on that in any way indicative of acceptable? Similarly, Con has offered that Sadie must ASSUME that I am a cheater and tried to capitalize on it. Obviously there is NO DIFFERENCE between these two acts. So now we move on to Con claiming that Sadie was wrong because Vi was in her presence while attempting to make this move. She also points out that Sadie said, "Your girlfriend will never know." First off, I've already explained that it's MORE cowardly and inappropriate to do this when the person's girlfriend ISN'T around; Vi could have retaliated against Sadie (whether I wanted her to or not) whereas Jenny would have had no opportunity to intervene. Plus, even though Sadie said, "Your girlfriend wouldn't know," here we see Con trying to make it sound as if this is somehow morally inferior whereas Mason was OBVIOUSLY operating under the basis of Vi's girlfriend not knowing since SHE WASN'T THERE. Therefore the only way Danielle or Vi's girlfriend's would have ever known about either of these incidents would be if Danielle or Vi told them... and Danielle did, the SECOND after it happened (which is more than I can say for Vi). Now, it's true that Sadie tried to do this twice, however, both times were within minutes of each other. Plus, for this we must take into account the fact that Sadie WAS, after all, extremely intoxicated. It wasn't "just a few beers" as Con has implied; Sadie had drank 2 pitchers of beer entirely to herself. As I've said (and sourced), alcohol impairment lowers inhibitions. Con again tries to make herself sound morally superior by noting that she would still be a good girlfriend even if she were drunk... but apparently she's incapable of doing so while sober (as she admitted to cheating) and apparently she thinks it's acceptable for one to take advantage of their friend while they are sober too. Let's also look at the fact that Con brings up Mason has never made a move on her again. I can easily attest to the fact that Sadie too has never made a move on me since then. Also, while Con tries to make it appear as if Sadie has a crush on me (which is mere speculation with no proof), she conveniently ignores the fact Mason DOES (lol or "did") have a crush on her as she has vocalized and admitted to myself and others on more than one occasion. Now here Con tries to make it sound as if Mason has some sort of interest in getting to know me since he supposedly invited me to go with her to NC to see him. However, this is irrelevant. You'll note that Mason has NEVER ONCE made ANY attempt to contact me or talk to me directly. Meanwhile, he was apparently "good friends" with Emily whom he has also never met. This means that he clearly made an effort to get to know this girl who *wasn't even Con's girlfriend* though he has never made an iota of an effort to get to know ME - whom Con has been talking to for a year and a half. Not to mention that Con knows I HAVE to go to New York -- I left my friends, my school, my family, my fraternity, and my father who's paralyzed in a rehabilitation facility to MOVE TO BE WITH HER... so unfortunately I don't have the luxury of traveling for pleasure, because if ever I get the opportunity to go somewhere, it's going to be home to go visit my sick father. However, none of this paragraph has to do with the debate. So back to the debate. The conclusion is quite simple: Con makes excuse after excuse as to why Mason's behavior was acceptable. However, the reality is that regardless of how crappy her former relationship was, SHE WAS STILL IN A RELATIONSHIP. If she doesn't see this as wrong, then she hereby gives myself and anyone permission to physically engage with someone else if one of them thinks the relationship is bad. Heh. Mason took advantage of her by making a move on her during a time when she was sad and vulnerable. He also did so fully knowing that Con is a LESBIAN, whereas Sadie is also a lesbian and she and I have made out before. In drunken haste, she wanted to kiss me because she had always said that I was an amazing kisser. Of course this is wrong. Of course this was disrespectful. However excuses aside, Mason did the same exact thing - only worse. He did it at a bad time, and he did it in a bad way (when Con was staying with him far away from home). He may have apologized to Con, but Sadie apologized to me. My fraternity relationships are important to me so I must morally uphold what I believe regardless of Sadie's opinion.