Unprovoked ranting.
Sarah
from not deserving them, has exams at the moment. I just needed to
yell.
Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. That question was what made him start to fall in
love with her, and to me it's the most insulting thing she could have
said.
"I am 25. I have been with the same woman since I was 19. She was my
first and only. She's 11 years older than me and has two kids."
"Oh you poor thing! Are you OK?"
Followed by an offer to "help him out."
It might have been worth it if she'd actually fucked him - he might
have lost some of his self-hate - but she didn't even manage that.
TWO YEARS LATER I am STILL picking up the damn pieces.
And he still believes her. If I am such a bad deal, fucking LEAVE ME.
I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
Thank you for listening.
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly on SSG moderation business, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Denny Wheeler
<STwoUnde...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>This is just a vent. I'm having BIG FEELINGS today, and my man, apart
>from not deserving them, has exams at the moment. I just needed to
>yell.
>
>Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
>he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
>RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. That question was what made him start to fall in
>love with her, and to me it's the most insulting thing she could have
>said.
>
>"I am 25. I have been with the same woman since I was 19. She was my
>first and only. She's 11 years older than me and has two kids."
>
>"Oh you poor thing! Are you OK?"
>
>Followed by an offer to "help him out."
>
>It might have been worth it if she'd actually fucked him - he might
>have lost some of his self-hate - but she didn't even manage that.
>
>TWO YEARS LATER I am STILL picking up the damn pieces.
>
>And he still believes her. If I am such a bad deal, fucking LEAVE ME.
>
>I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
>done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
>
>Thank you for listening.
I offer hugs--you deserve 'em. Also, you had the rant/vent coming.
And the best I can say about 'her' is 'thoughtless, self-centered
twit.' Likely that's being kind.
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Tom Allen
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:12:53 +1100, Sarah
> <STwoUnde...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
>> done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
>>
>> Thank you for listening.
>
> I offer hugs--you deserve 'em. Also, you had the rant/vent coming.
> And the best I can say about 'her' is 'thoughtless, self-centered
> twit.' Likely that's being kind.
I didn't know that there was an "i" in that word.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
suzee
Lots of {{{hugs}}} for Sarah
sue
Dave
<STwoUnde...@bigpond.net.au> was claimed to have wrote:
>Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
>he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
>RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. That question was what made him start to fall in
>love with her, and to me it's the most insulting thing she could have
>said.
>
>"I am 25. I have been with the same woman since I was 19. She was my
>first and only. She's 11 years older than me and has two kids."
I'm 28, have been with the same woman since I was 21, she was my first,
is 10 years older then me and has four kids.
>"Oh you poor thing! Are you OK?"
I haven't quite had *that* reaction, but I've had some odd reactions
over the years. It took a while to get over it.
The Serious Relationship v1.0 and v1.1 lasted a couple of years then we
broke up, and then got back together a couple years after that and for
me, the experience of being with another serious (and very broken)
relationship has helped me tremendously.
I don't really have any advice about how to proceed or to help, beyond
to point out that something is obviously right if you've made it six
years. I might also take this opportunity to thank you for the help you
gave me some moons ago, just having someone that understood was nothing
short of a miracle at the time and whatever else happens, you're a
wonderful person.
Mark...@gmail.com
> This is just a vent. I'm having BIG FEELINGS today, and my man, apart
> from not deserving them, has exams at the moment. I just needed to
> yell.
Please be patient with me, as I'm about to be a dissenting voice.
I'm afraid I might not be phrasing this very gently, but I'm really
not trying
to be (totally) negative.
First up, I'm not convinced about your man not deserving this...
> Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
> he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
> RELATIONSHIP WITH ME.
[Snip]
OK - she was out of line.
But he still had a choice about how he responded to what she said and
did.
> TWO YEARS LATER I am STILL picking up the damn pieces.
How long do you want to do that?
> And he still believes her. If I am such a bad deal, fucking LEAVE ME.
Perhaps if he really isn't sure he wants to be with you, you should
leave him...
Seriously, if he's been so affected by what this woman said and is
hurting you
so much as a result of it - why are you putting up with him?
> I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
> done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
Then you need to think very hard about whether the benefits of the
relationship outweigh the costs, IMHO.
toramjero
I am not sure that I should say what I am going to say, but still...
This lady has nothing to do with the problem. If there had been no
such lady, the problem would have arisen anyway, our society gives
this kind of message that "being a young man with an older woman with
kids is wrong".
And no: I am not criticizing you, or him, or saying that the message
is right. I am just saying that there are issues that you both have to
deal with. There are issues with him and there are issues with you.
Now, if you remember, I am in a situation that is relatively close to
the one of your man, as far as I can know. If you want to ask
questions, I will answer them but I don't think that it is a very good
idea. I suggest counseling, for both of you.
...oh, and I offer hugs, just as Denny is. It is obvious that these
are difficult times for you.
Denny Wheeler
<taoml...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:12:53 +1100, Sarah
>> <STwoUnde...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
>>> done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
>>>
>>> Thank you for listening.
>>
>> I offer hugs--you deserve 'em. Also, you had the rant/vent coming.
>> And the best I can say about 'her' is 'thoughtless, self-centered
>> twit.' Likely that's being kind.
>
>I didn't know that there was an "i" in that word.
*snort*
JustGB
Unprovoked?? I don't think so.
I could say so much, but all if it after-the-fact and useless. I hope
that the difficult decisions you face will produce positive results
for you and not further suffering.
JustGB
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Unprovoked?? I don't think so.
>I could say so much, but all if it after-the-fact and useless. I hope
>that the difficult decisions you face will produce positive results
>for you and not further suffering.
I'll take it a step further. I hope she either decides to dump Wolf once and
for all or stop complaining each time he hurts and humiliates her yet again.
This treatment evidently doesn't bother her enough to make a clean break
because she believes that each new reconciliation will change everything.
Orlando
Tom Allen
I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
Not that this is the same thing, but I see some parallels. I think that
Mark has some good points, and you might want to give this some thought.
That said, I'm sorry that you're having a rough time.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Mark...@gmail.com
> MarkSo...@gmail.com wrote:
[My musings snipped]
>
> I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
> cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
> angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
> the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
Thanks Tom. That was the sort of thing I was thinking of.
I was also thinking about who is responsible for the health of a
relationship and it seems to me that that boils down to the two people
in the relationship (in this case, possibly more in more complex
scenarios).
Casting blame outside can't help the situation as far as I can see -
the third party, while definitely culpable, can contribute nothing to
the resolution.
My outlook in many things can be summarised as "what needs to be done
and who needs to do it?". I think that applies here.
IMHO is that it's down to Sarah and her partner to work out whether
they want to repair the situation together, and if they decide that,
then it's down to them to make it work. Dwelling on the third party is
not helpful and may be counterproductive.
[Snip]
> That said, I'm sorry that you're having a rough time.
Me too.
Norton
>This is just a vent. I'm having BIG FEELINGS today, and my man, apart
>from not deserving them, has exams at the moment. I just needed to
>yell.
>Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
>he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
>RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. That question was what made him start to fall in
>love with her, and to me it's the most insulting thing she could have
>said.
>"I am 25. I have been with the same woman since I was 19. She was my
>first and only. She's 11 years older than me and has two kids."
>"Oh you poor thing! Are you OK?"
>Followed by an offer to "help him out."
>It might have been worth it if she'd actually fucked him - he might
>have lost some of his self-hate - but she didn't even manage that.
>TWO YEARS LATER I am STILL picking up the damn pieces.
>And he still believes her. If I am such a bad deal, fucking LEAVE ME.
>I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
>done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
>Thank you for listening.
I apologize for not being around for a few days. Real life
and all that.
That said, may I offer lots of hugs? You have lots of friends
here. Lots.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
But Wolf didn't cheat, did he? I am not really sure about the whole
story.
So what is it exactly that is held against him, if I may ask? That he
has doubts? I understand that Wolf's doubts are a problem, but how are
we supposed to make those disappear? Maybe he should have had sex with
that other woman, find out that she was not that great and come back
to Sarah. That would have cleared his doubts, maybe.
When you start having doubts, you can't make them disappear just like
by snipping your fingers. So where do Wolf and Sarah go from there?
Should they part? Should Wolf simply lie and pretend he doesn't have
any doubts on the relationship? Should the two try to Work on
addressing wolf's doubts and if yes, how do you do that?
toramjero
It is not clear that Wolf hurts or humiliates Sarah. If he wanted
that, or wanted out, he would have had sex with other women, wouldn't
he? To me, it rather seems that he is seriously misguided and confused
about himself and the situation.
Sarah
>This is just a vent.
An interesting (to me, anyway) coda:
About 2 hours after submitting this post, I started the first period I
have had in around 15 years - my contraception has stopped them til
now.
It's a gusher.
Interesting.
Kat
> I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
> cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
> angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
> the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
I haven't been called a home-wrecker in a while now but it does bring
back memories. Perhaps my tastes have evolved to men that are better
at not getting caught?
I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
wife.
Luckily most girls punch like girls.
Serene Vannoy
Sarah wrote:
> This is just a vent. I'm having BIG FEELINGS today, and my man, apart
> from not deserving them, has exams at the moment. I just needed to
> yell.
I admire your maturity. That's not sarcasm. :-)
>
> Our relationship was fucking EXCELLENT til that stupid bitch told him
> he was a Poor Thing and asking if he was OK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A
> RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. That question was what made him start to fall in
> love with her, and to me it's the most insulting thing she could have
> said.
There's something wrong with him, too, not just with her, if her
undermining your relationship with him made him fall for her.
>
> "I am 25. I have been with the same woman since I was 19. She was my
> first and only. She's 11 years older than me and has two kids."
>
> "Oh you poor thing! Are you OK?"
>
> Followed by an offer to "help him out."
>
> It might have been worth it if she'd actually fucked him - he might
> have lost some of his self-hate - but she didn't even manage that.
>
> TWO YEARS LATER I am STILL picking up the damn pieces.
>
> And he still believes her. If I am such a bad deal, fucking LEAVE ME.
Yep. And if you are unhappy being treated this way, you know where the
door is, too.
>
> I'm angry. I'm miserable. I feel guilty, then angry because I have
> done nothing wrong. This SUCKS.
>
> Thank you for listening.
*more hugs* You're doing the best you know how. If he wants to play
the field (or just spend all his time and energy PREPARING for playing
the field and then not doing it), he should do it with someone else,
because clearly, it's causing you immense pain.
Serene
--
Super Cool Toy Store (I've played with them, and they really are super
cool): http://supercooltoystore.com
"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins
Serene Vannoy
> On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
>> cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
>> angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
>> the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
>
> I haven't been called a home-wrecker in a while now but it does bring
> back memories. Perhaps my tastes have evolved to men that are better
> at not getting caught?
Congratulations?
> I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
> who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
> wife.
You are, however, exposing other women to risk they didn't sign on for,
and involving them in non-consensual relationships. I think that's
repulsive, and wrong.
> Luckily most girls punch like girls.
Local self-defense class t-shirt: "Caution: I kick like a girl."
toramjero
I never understood why cheating is considered such a big deal, in
particular on Internet discussion groups. It seems that about 60% of
men or women cheat at some point.
toramjero
It certainly is causing Sarah immense pain, and that is clearly wrong.
And I am not really sure that Sarah needs anything more than a
reassurance than we care.
But your remark "preparing for playing the field and then not doing
it" made me think about something. I have a bit of a problem with the
attitude of many members of the group about it, in particular when I
consider the answers to what may be similar questions.
We don't know Wolf's point of view, because he is not posting here,
but we know that indeed he is not "doing it". As far as we know, he is
not doing anything. We also know that, apparently, he would like to
experience sex with another woman. From last summer's posts, it also
seems that he backed up on an offer, because he realised that Sarah
could not handle it. So, if I summarize the situation in general,
abstract terms we have:
-W has a longing for a given sexual activity
-S cannot handle it, she does not understand W needs, and the idea
makes her emotionally uncomfortable
-W does not practice said given sexual activity
-yet, the decision not to practice the activity does not change W's
feelings about it: he still wants it.
Now I'll take another example from this week's postings. I'll call the
man and woman V and Z respectively.
-V has a longing for a given sexual activity
-Z cannot handle it, she does not understand V needs, and the idea
made her emotionally uncomfortable
-V did not practice said given sexual activity
-yet, the decision not to practice the activity did not change V's
feelings about it: he still wanted it.
-V found a way to practice it with K. We don't really know how Z felt
about it in the beginning, but we know that she was not that happy
about K at least at first.
In the second case, the sexual activity is being submissive and play
the slave (and K is Kat). Various members of the group have expressed
the opinion that when one has a particular kink, trying to refrain it
does not work in the long term. As far as I can remember, no-one has
worried about Z's feelings.
Serene Vannoy
>
> I never understood why cheating is considered such a big deal,
Some of the reasons I think it's a big deal:
Because lying to your partner is wrong. Because people should be able to
decide whether or not to consent to the added STD and pregnancy risks
that come with cheating. Because there are perfectly good alternatives
to cheating. Because there's no reason to agree to monogamy if you're
not going to follow through on it. Because people should be able to
trust their partners.
Serene Vannoy
> In the second case, the sexual activity is being submissive and play
> the slave (and K is Kat). Various members of the group have expressed
> the opinion that when one has a particular kink, trying to refrain it
> does not work in the long term. As far as I can remember, no-one has
> worried about Z's feelings.
>
Because Z didn't come here saying "This is causing me immense pain and I
wish it would stop."
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Some of the reasons I think it's a big deal:
>Because lying to your partner is wrong.
Staying in a sexually dissatisfying relationship can also feel wrong, and it's
not always easy to throw away the good stuff in that relationship just because
sex isn't frequent or enjoyable.
>Because people should be able to decide whether or not to consent to the added
STD and pregnancy risks
>that come with cheating.
Here, I entirely agree.
>Because there are perfectly good alternatives
>to cheating.
Polyamory is only a good alternative if everyone involved consents. Some people
know their partners are dissatisfied with their sex life, but refuse to let
them have other partners out of fear or insecurity. The only viable
alternatives in that situation are resignation, infidelity or breakup.
>Because there's no reason to agree to monogamy if you're
>not going to follow through on it.
Sometimes, one agrees to monogamy with a specific person before knowing what
sex in that relationship will be like.
>Because people should be able to trust their partners.
Agreed.
Orlando
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > In the second case, the sexual activity is being submissive and play
> > the slave (and K is Kat). Various members of the group have expressed
> > the opinion that when one has a particular kink, trying to refrain it
> > does not work in the long term. As far as I can remember, no-one has
> > worried about Z's feelings.
>
> Because Z didn't come here saying "This is causing me immense pain and I
> wish it would stop."
But we do not know whether this is causing her immense pain or not.
On Nov 16, 4:28 pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ser...@serenepages.org wrote:>
> >Some of the reasons I think it's a big deal:
> >Because lying to your partner is wrong.
>
Really, lying is ALWAYS wrong? And telling is ALWAYS right? (Hint: we
have an example with Sarah).
> Staying in a sexually dissatisfying relationship can also feel wrong, and it's
> not always easy to throw away the good stuff in that relationship just because
> sex isn't frequent or enjoyable.
>
> >Because people should be able to decide whether or not to consent to the added
>
> STD and pregnancy risks
>
> >that come with cheating.
>
> Here, I entirely agree.
>
One might hope that the cheating partner takes sufficient precautions
to render those risks negligible. But I agree, if my partner would
make me sick, I would not be amused to say the least.
> >Because there are perfectly good alternatives
> >to cheating.
>
> Polyamory is only a good alternative if everyone involved consents. Some people
> know their partners are dissatisfied with their sex life, but refuse to let
> them have other partners out of fear or insecurity. The only viable
> alternatives in that situation are resignation, infidelity or breakup.
>
Exactly. And I might add that I don't believe any of those
alternatives to be "good".
> >Because there's no reason to agree to monogamy if you're
> >not going to follow through on it.
>
> Sometimes, one agrees to monogamy with a specific person before knowing what
> sex in that relationship will be like.
>
And sometimes people change. And sometimes one partner does not agree
to monogamy, and the other partner behaves as if he/she had.
> >Because people should be able to trust their partners.
>
> Agreed.
>
Now you are opening a whole can of worms. I'll only say that cheating
does not always mean that you can't trust your partner for other
things, like helping you in times of distress, keeping their
responsibilities for the kids, etc...
Kat
> Kat wrote:
> > I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
> > who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
> > wife.
>
> You are, however, exposing other women to risk they didn't sign on for,
> and involving them in non-consensual relationships. I think that's
> repulsive, and wrong.
With all due respect to your judgmental attitude I am not the one
exposing them to anything nor do I owe them anything. All such risk is
taken by the unfaithful person.
It is not as though I hunt down faithfully married men and trick them
into doing something they don't want to do. The husband made the
commitment and the husband made the choice to break their word.
Most of the time the conversation starts when I get approached in
which case the persuer clearly made their choice. Even if I make the
first move I back off quickly if it's obvious they aren't sure.
This is one area where the internet is even better because in real
life a guy might just be out for a drink and temptation can be oddly
tempting sometimes but actively seeking out sex by posting an ad or
responding to an ad makes the intent clear. I am finding I have better
luck going back and forth for at least a few days too when I meet
someone online both to get a better reading on the guy but also to see
how serious the guy is.
I fully understand that some people still may consider what I do to be
wrong and I've come to terms with that a long time ago. I take my
commitments very seriously and I don't blame anyone else when I fail
to live up to one of my commitments nor do I accept blame if you can't
live up to yours.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>With all due respect to your judgmental attitude I am not the one
>exposing them to anything nor do I owe them anything. All such risk is
>taken by the unfaithful person.
You are also taking risks of being found out by angry wives. Does that turn you
on?
>It is not as though I hunt down faithfully married men and trick them
>into doing something they don't want to do. The husband made the
>commitment and the husband made the choice to break their word.
And you're right there to provide eager cheaters with opportunities. That's
like becoming a drug dealer after observing the drug use market in your area.
So far, all you've said is that men approach you to cheat and you participate
because the blame, responsibility and guilt all rest on them rather than you.
What does this say about you? Why don't you want men who are either in
polyamorous relationships or single and looking?
>I am finding I have better luck going back and forth for at least a few days
too when I meet someone online both to get a better reading on the guy but also
to see how serious the guy is.
Why do you care how serious he is if you're just getting sexual kicks with him?
>I fully understand that some people still may consider what I do to be
>wrong and I've come to terms with that a long time ago. I take my
>commitments very seriously and I don't blame anyone else when I fail
>to live up to one of my commitments nor do I accept blame if you can't
>live up to yours.
Look, I know there are people in this world who want to steal and kill, but I
don't have to help them. I m ay not be able to stop them from committing
crimes, but I don't have to help. Why do you knowingly choose to help married
men cheat? Why don't you send them on to other women? Plenty of married men try
to cheat with single women and get sent on their way, precisely because those
women don't feel they get anything out of participation in such arrangements.
What do you get out of it?
Orlando
JustGB
Wow. Orlando and Serene on the same side.
I better clean up my act -- the days of glory are about to dawn!
JustGB
toramjero
> Kat wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
> >> cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
> >> angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
> >> the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
>
> > I haven't been called a home-wrecker in a while now but it does bring
> > back memories. Perhaps my tastes have evolved to men that are better
> > at not getting caught?
>
> Congratulations?
>
> > I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
> > who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
> > wife.
>
> You are, however, exposing other women to risk they didn't sign on for,
What risks are you thinking about?
> and involving them in non-consensual relationships. I think that's
> repulsive, and wrong.
>
There is an inherent problem to relationships, and that is that the
members do not always agree. In other words: many relationships are
"non-consensual", be it because a member has extra sex while the other
does not want it, or being that the member does NOT have extra sex,
while he/she actually would want it. There is no single, standard
solution to that problem, I think.
Tom Allen
> Wow. Orlando and Serene on the same side.
>
> I better clean up my act -- the days of glory are about to dawn!
I suspect that he's just kissing up to her.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> ki...@gothkat.com wrote:>
>> It is not as though I hunt down faithfully married men and trick them
>> into doing something they don't want to do. The husband made the
>> commitment and the husband made the choice to break their word.
>
> And you're right there to provide eager cheaters with opportunities. That's
> like becoming a drug dealer after observing the drug use market in your area.
> So far, all you've said is that men approach you to cheat and you participate
> because the blame, responsibility and guilt all rest on them rather than you.
> What does this say about you? Why don't you want men who are either in
> polyamorous relationships or single and looking?
Wow - she hooks up with a married guy, and you're equating her with drug
pushers and murderers?
Kat, you must have some great moves to get this kind of righteous attention!
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
I think that some statistics about cheating are inflated by including
many responsible non-monogamists in the definition of "cheating". For
example, many surveys about cheating simply ask if someone is married or
in a committed relationship and then go on to ask if they've had sexual
contact outside of that relationship while it's been going on. That
doesn't discern between cheating and, say, swinging or poly or various
forms of open relationships.
That said, I'm not sure why, "A lot of people do it," would be a
compelling argument about whether or not something is morally and
ethically okay, anyway.
Personally, my biggest argument with cheating is that I don't think it's
okay to lie to your partner(s) and betray their trust. I think that if
you feel the need to have sex with other people then you should own up
to it like a responsible adult and either work out something that is
acceptable to everyone involved or if there's nothing acceptable for
everything involved, then you decide how important it is to you and
what decisions you have to make about your relationship(s) from there.
(The risk of exposing your partner(s) to diseases in a situation where
you haven't given them the information to make a fully informed choice
about their risk profile is another compeling argument, I think.)
toramjero
> ki...@gothkat.com wrote:>
> >With all due respect to your judgmental attitude I am not the one
> >exposing them to anything nor do I owe them anything. All such risk is
> >taken by the unfaithful person.
>
> You are also taking risks of being found out by angry wives. Does that turn you
> on?
>
> >It is not as though I hunt down faithfully married men and trick them
> >into doing something they don't want to do. The husband made the
> >commitment and the husband made the choice to break their word.
>
> And you're right there to provide eager cheaters with opportunities. That's
> like becoming a drug dealer after observing the drug use market in your area.
> So far, all you've said is that men approach you to cheat and you participate
> because the blame, responsibility and guilt all rest on them rather than you.
> What does this say about you? Why don't you want men who are either in
> polyamorous relationships or single and looking?
>
I seem to recall that Kat was looking for short flings and that single
men had a tendency to get clingy.
> >I am finding I have better luck going back and forth for at least a few days
>
> too when I meet someone online both to get a better reading on the guy but also
> to see how serious the guy is.
>
> Why do you care how serious he is if you're just getting sexual kicks with him?
>
> >I fully understand that some people still may consider what I do to be
> >wrong and I've come to terms with that a long time ago. I take my
> >commitments very seriously and I don't blame anyone else when I fail
> >to live up to one of my commitments nor do I accept blame if you can't
> >live up to yours.
>
> Look, I know there are people in this world who want to steal and kill, but I
> don't have to help them. I m ay not be able to stop them from committing
> crimes, but I don't have to help. Why do you knowingly choose to help married
> men cheat? Why don't you send them on to other women? Plenty of married men try
> to cheat with single women and get sent on their way, precisely because those
> women don't feel they get anything out of participation in such arrangements.
> What do you get out of it?
>
> Orlando
Comparing cheating to drug dealing or killing is quite unreasonable, I
think. Do you realize that more than half the married population
cheats at some point? Just try to imagine if half the population would
deal drugs or kill people...
I really, really cannot understand why some people, particularly on
the Internet, get so warped up about cheating...
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Wow. Orlando and Serene on the same side.
Except that she probably doesn't know it because she killfiles me and refuses
any private email from me.
>I better clean up my act -- the days of glory are about to dawn!
Nah, I like you all dirty and sweaty.
Orlando
Norton
>Kat wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
>>> cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
>>> angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
>>> the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
>>
>> I haven't been called a home-wrecker in a while now but it does bring
>> back memories. Perhaps my tastes have evolved to men that are better
>> at not getting caught?
>Congratulations?
>> I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
>> who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
>> wife.
>You are, however, exposing other women to risk they didn't sign on for,
>and involving them in non-consensual relationships. I think that's
>repulsive, and wrong.
Everybody is different and has different feelings about
things.
--
--- Norton
Norton
We often know only one side of a story -- and we sometimes
do *not* sympathize with that side.
My general view is that doing something that actually causes
pain to others is usually wrong.[1] That is not the same as
saying that one should never do anything that could *potentially*
cause pain, because, in my opinion, you can't know that ahead
of time. Nor am I saying that one should ignore a potential
to cause pain that one knows exists.
Of course once one finds out that he or she has caused pain, the
honorable thing to do is to try to ameliorate it.
[1] Nothing is perfect and sometimes the only choices involve
a choice in who gets hurt.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Yeah, and 59% of them deny it to folks who ask.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>toramjero wrote:
>>
>> I never understood why cheating is considered such a big deal,
>Some of the reasons I think it's a big deal:
>Because lying to your partner is wrong. Because people should be able to
>decide whether or not to consent to the added STD and pregnancy risks
>that come with cheating. Because there are perfectly good alternatives
>to cheating. Because there's no reason to agree to monogamy if you're
>not going to follow through on it. Because people should be able to
>trust their partners.
Idealistically, that's all very good. But folks change,
often *after* they are in a relationship of some sort.
They feel an enormous need to change, but they see that
any way they do change has a strong potential for hurting
a partner.
What are they to do. And no, talking about it may not be
a choice.
--
--- Norton
Norton
They are afraid of being cheated on?
--
--- Norton
toramjero
That does not explain anything. Why are they so afraid, then?
Norton
I think that for many people there is a fear that their partner
will find someone better.
--
--- Norton
Kat
> I seem to recall that Kat was looking for short flings and that single
> men had a tendency to get clingy.
That's about the size of it. I am not the one who brought up the
suggestion to only sleep with married men but I can certainly see how
it would tend to solve some problems and I don't find the idea morally
disagreeable.
Kat
> I think that some statistics about cheating are inflated by including
> many responsible non-monogamists in the definition of "cheating". For
> example, many surveys about cheating simply ask if someone is married or
> in a committed relationship and then go on to ask if they've had sexual
> contact outside of that relationship while it's been going on. That
> doesn't discern between cheating and, say, swinging or poly or various
> forms of open relationships.
Another thing that makes it easier to manipulate the statistics to say
whatever you want is the wide definition of cheating. I knew a guy
who's wife's definition of cheating was rather extreme and included
masturbating and also thinking about another woman and in a study
would claim she was cheated on by her husband. Compare this against an
open relationship where cheating isn't about having sex but rather
it's about a lack of honesty.
There are liars, lawyers and then statisticians.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 6:18 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> > I read this over a few times, and thought about this in the context of
> >> > cheating partners. Sometimes the partner who was cheated on becomes
> >> > angry at the third party, and not at the partner who cheated. They blame
> >> > the third person for tempting and "home-wrecking" and poaching.
>
> >> I haven't been called a home-wrecker in a while now but it does bring
> >> back memories. Perhaps my tastes have evolved to men that are better
> >> at not getting caught?
>
> >> I haven't quite found the right way to explain that I'm not the one
> >> who is violating my vows or trust while dodging the wrath of a wronged
> >> wife.
>
> > I never understood why cheating is considered such a big deal, in
> > particular on Internet discussion groups. It seems that about 60% of
> > men or women cheat at some point.
>
> I think that some statistics about cheating are inflated by including
> many responsible non-monogamists in the definition of "cheating". For
> example, many surveys about cheating simply ask if someone is married or
> in a committed relationship and then go on to ask if they've had sexual
> contact outside of that relationship while it's been going on. That
> doesn't discern between cheating and, say, swinging or poly or various
> forms of open relationships.
>
I think that the number of people involved in polyamory, swinging,
open marriages and the like is small enough that it does not influence
the statistics in question. Please note that I said: "I think".
> That said, I'm not sure why, "A lot of people do it," would be a
> compelling argument about whether or not something is morally and
> ethically okay, anyway.
>
Morally and ethically ok is a trick question, and words I did not use.
What I said is that if the behavior is very common, it is a bit
surprising that people get so upset about it (even when they are not
directly concerned, that is). In my opinion, it is a bit as silly as
being upset because people drive cars. Lots of people drive cars, and
one can even argue that driving a car is not ethical (squandering of
fossil reserves, etc...), so I think it is a good parallel.
> Personally, my biggest argument with cheating is that I don't think it's
> okay to lie to your partner(s) and betray their trust. I think that if
> you feel the need to have sex with other people then you should own up
> to it like a responsible adult and either work out something that is
> acceptable to everyone involved or if there's nothing acceptable for
> everything involved, then you decide how important it is to you and
> what decisions you have to make about your relationship(s) from there.
>
In the end it boils down to the "decisions" indeed. And that is often
more complex matter than simply asking and having your partner
delighted at the idea of you visiting the neighbors.
Tom Allen
> Another thing that makes it easier to manipulate the statistics to say
> whatever you want is the wide definition of cheating. I knew a guy
> who's wife's definition of cheating was rather extreme and included
> masturbating and also thinking about another woman and in a study
> would claim she was cheated on by her husband. Compare this against an
> open relationship where cheating isn't about having sex but rather
> it's about a lack of honesty.
>
> There are liars, lawyers and then statisticians.
Ugh. I've run across a few of these women in my life, and I can't
imagine what they're thinking. Jealousy? Major insecurity? To equate a
quick wank in the shower with getting a motel room with the office
hottie shows some really creative thinking, I guess.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
rdu...@pdq.net
When a woman (or man) gets fat beyond a certain point they have stuff-
faced the lesson onto the world that they regard no-one they are
currentlty with to be fuckworthy. So the associates of fat people
should understand that they have already been told, in clear brutal
ways, that she/he wants to be left completely alone by anyone who is
not also fat.
suzee
> When a woman (or man) gets fat beyond a certain point they have stuff-
> faced the lesson onto the world that they regard no-one they are
> currentlty with to be fuckworthy. So the associates of fat people
> should understand that they have already been told, in clear brutal
> ways, that she/he wants to be left completely alone by anyone who is
> not also fat.
Not necessarily true.
sue
-Elizabeth-
Look around you and you'll see many very overweight people with lots
of little kids in tow. Thus sex is clearly happening often - despite
your assertion that they are not fuckworthy.
Norton
>Kat wrote:
>> Another thing that makes it easier to manipulate the statistics to say
>> whatever you want is the wide definition of cheating. I knew a guy
>> who's wife's definition of cheating was rather extreme and included
>> masturbating and also thinking about another woman and in a study
>> would claim she was cheated on by her husband. Compare this against an
>> open relationship where cheating isn't about having sex but rather
>> it's about a lack of honesty.
>>
>> There are liars, lawyers and then statisticians.
>Ugh. I've run across a few of these women in my life, and I can't
>imagine what they're thinking. Jealousy? Major insecurity? To equate a
>quick wank in the shower with getting a motel room with the office
>hottie shows some really creative thinking, I guess.
And it changes with time. Back in the Good Old Days (tm)
if a married man had a lunch in a restaurant alone with a
woman not his wife, whispers started.
If it was dinner, he was cheating.
If she had another woman with her, it was OK.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Not necessarily true.
I'm with suzee.
--
--- Norton
Serene Vannoy
>
> When a woman (or man) gets fat beyond a certain point they have stuff-
> faced the lesson onto the world that they regard no-one they are
> currentlty with to be fuckworthy. So the associates of fat people
> should understand that they have already been told, in clear brutal
> ways, that she/he wants to be left completely alone by anyone who is
> not also fat.
Oh, that's just silly. I've had thin lovers and fat lovers, and
in-between lovers. I've been fat all my life, and I get plenty of sex.
Tom Allen
Of course. The poor man put in the way of temptation and all. And having
lunch probably meant a secretary, and you know they only worked in
offices to attract men.
> If it was dinner, he was cheating.
Of course - there's no reason that a good woman would be having dinner
in the evening, when she should be home with her family.
> If she had another woman with her, it was OK.
The mind boggles...
Kat
> Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
> > And it changes with time. Back in the Good Old Days (tm)
> > if a married man had a lunch in a restaurant alone with a
> > woman not his wife, whispers started.
>
> > If it was dinner, he was cheating.
>
> > If she had another woman with her, it was OK.
>
No respectable individual would even consider a threesome in that era,
so rather, she was a chaperon.
Even now a girl and a guy going out for dinner gets a certain reaction
if it's obvious they aren't together.
Norton
>The mind boggles...
Mine did, back then. I've always had more women friends
(that is NOT a euphemism) than men friends. Luckily while
still in college I hit upon the tactic of taking four of
them out beer drinking at once.
Of course I got hit with jokes, but they were the sort
that inflated a guy's ego.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> >Ugh. I've run across a few of these women in my life, and I can't
>> >imagine what they're thinking. Jealousy? Major insecurity? To equate a
>> >quick wank in the shower with getting a motel room with the office
>> >hottie shows some really creative thinking, I guess.
>Major insecurity, in my experience (I dated one of them for a few years
>in college).
>> And it changes with time. Back in the Good Old Days (tm)
>> if a married man had a lunch in a restaurant alone with a
>> woman not his wife, whispers started.
>>
>> If it was dinner, he was cheating.
>>
>> If she had another woman with her, it was OK.
>Threesome were ok, then?
Sure, since NOBODY would ever admit such a thing existed.
It was like being gay (the word was never used -- a far more
pejorative one was instead) -- everybody knew about it, but
nobody would admit knowing anybody who was gay.
--
--- Norton