Wanting a Taken man

[Owl]

...it is the "BS" who has changed their assumption unilaterally without informing the "CS" - whether or not those changed assumptions are conscious or deliberate.

 

I missed the bus somewhere...how did the BS change their assumption? BOTH worked under the assumption of exclusivity until the CS (WS) decided to break that exclusivity by going with someone else. Where did the BS change anything in this equation?

[OWoman]

I missed the bus somewhere...how did the BS change their assumption?

 

here:

 

And where they've been together since young. Where they both agreed, at that stage, that they wouldn't be exclusive... but over time, and perhaps reinforced through lack of evidence otherwise, the expectation of ONE partner shifts such that they assume things have changed for BOTH of them, while the other partner holds to the original verbal agreement on the assumption that that was the last agreement, so it remains in force until superceded by another. And then, one day, acts on it.

 

And the sky shatters.

 

which was, as near as dammit, the situation with MM and his W, before you say "but that never happens"

[Owl]

And as I said in another post...apparently does happen...IN YOUR CULTURE

 

But in MY culture, you very, very rarely see couples enter marriage with that kind of agreement.

 

In another post here in the last day or two I'd mentioned how sometimes couples DO enter into a relationship where one wants an open relationship, and the other agrees to it...but deep down really does not, and still hopes that the other person will be monogamous. THAT situation is the more common one in the rare occasions you see an open marriage agreement in my culture.

[OWoman]

And as I said in another post...apparently does happen...IN YOUR CULTURE

 

 

MM and his W live in W Europe. They - like many of my friends both locally and in other countries - subscribed to the "free love" ideal of the hippy culture. I know MANY "Boomers" who married under that agreement - it's by no means unique!

[Lookingforward]

this relates to our understanding of commitment vs exclusivity - not the same thing in the UK at least.

 

We expect bf/gf to see one person at a time so there is an expectation of exclusivity ie seeing one person romantically. But technically, socially and legally we are single and available until such time as we marry or live with someone then there is an expectation of a long term commitment. So the guy in the OP was doing nothing wrong, he was making a social contact and seeing how he felt and he is free to do so - culturally I am always surprised that this is described as disgusting behaviour - he's not 'taken' or in a long term committed relationship, he is seeing someone romantically at the moment and is not in a formal committed relationship. If he wants to pursue the new interest romantically he is expected to break up the bf/gf relationship - it's a social nicety enabling everyone to move on in a new social identity to form new social relationships.

 

The more problematic issue is where the bf or gf is continually on the hunt for another partner - these should not have any bf or gf at all as they clearly are not truly romantically interested in their gf/bf. There is no evidence here that the guy in the OP is that type though.

 

Is it really that much difference elsewhere?

 

Thank you for spelling it out perhaps more clearly than I did in my posts...

and yes there IS a cultural difference in perception apparently, judging by some of the rabid kneejerk responses to the very IDEA that a bf/gf may not be considered a "committed R" by all.

[Lookingforward]

I wonder why people who are dating even bother to have the "exclusivity talk" which is often touted on LS, if their relationships are nothing more than play acting at being married.

 

There really should be no need for an exclusivity discussion, if bf/gf relationships are not "real".

 

Actually I see it the other way - if bf/gf meant "a committed R" then there would be no need for the "exclusivity" talk as, again according to some, it already IS a "committed R" ?

 

I guess the terms just mean different things to different people.

[Owl]

Something just struck me in all of this, Owoman.

 

I've seen you several times talk about how the MM 'changes' over time...and is no longer suited to a monogamous relationship. And you've indicated that that is acceptable and not surprising and should be honored.

 

What about the wife you've described that changed to where polygamy is no longer something she's comfortable with? How is that less acceptable than the MM change you supported?

[Lookingforward]

OK, so you'd call that 'partner' or something? I think you're probably right, it's about terminology. However you sounded like you were saying that anything BUT married was NOT commited, and therefore was 'fair game'.

 

No, I don't know where your country is, hence I said 'maybe' in 'your country'. You have 'lost in the USA' as your location but I know a lot of people don't put down their actual location.

 

And yes, not that it matters now as Owl pointed out... but 'g/f of six months' and not living together and with the ages they are (I think), no, it's nowhere near commited at all.

 

No, never even implied that, or never meant to, although I did take offence at basically being told I was some sort of scavenging marauder to even consider someone who was ONLY a bf as being available.

 

Location isn't always where you are "from" culturally, either, just where you live.

[underpants]

To each's own.

 

Personally, I would be concerned that if someone was involved with someone else romantically and they were looking to date while still in that relationship. I would take that as a big flag that they were perhaps not invested in either person too heavily. A cue that they could easily be swayed if involved with me. A time waster to put if bluntly.

 

If this guy is not sure about his short term girlfriend then why set up something else while still dating her? It would seem like the respectable thing to do would be to end one relationship on it's own accord before starting another. Age has nothing to do with character.

 

I prefer my potentials to have been single for a little while at least. Less baggage and potential bad drama. Plus, I respect someone who can handle being single.

 

Carry on.

[blind_otter]

Actually I see it the other way - if bf/gf meant "a committed R" then there would be no need for the "exclusivity" talk as, again according to some, it already IS a "committed R" ?

 

I guess the terms just mean different things to different people.

 

It could also be a generational issue, from what I read. Older people will think that bf/gf relationships are less valid, younger people who grew up in a more permissive culture/society where marriage is not the be all end all of committment might think otherwise.

 

I grew up thinking it was like this:

 

dating = not exclusive

bf/gf = having the "exclusivity talk" and promising to be sexually faithful

 

I slept with someone when I was dating my exH in college, about a month after we met - I was under the impression that we were not exclusive, since we had not had "the talk".

 

Oh how wrong I was. I totally got **** about that from my exH. He never did forgive me for it, and brought it up continually throughout our marriage.

[Lookingforward]

It could also be a generational issue, from what I read. Older people will think that bf/gf relationships are less valid, younger people who grew up in a more permissive culture/society where marriage is not the be all end all of committment might think otherwise.

 

I grew up thinking it was like this:

 

dating = not exclusive

bf/gf = having the "exclusivity talk" and promising to be sexually faithful

 

I slept with someone when I was dating my exH in college, about a month after we met - I was under the impression that we were not exclusive, since we had not had "the talk".

 

Oh how wrong I was. I totally got **** about that from my exH. He never did forgive me for it, and brought it up continually throughout our marriage.

 

That's a possibility too, I know my daughter and I certainly have a difference of opinions over similar issues. She is MUCH more likely to see a "bf" as off limits than I would.

 

Then again, that could also entail some 'cultural bias' as she has spent her teenage years in the USA whereas I spent mine elsewhere.

 

Just as an aside for some of the previous posters, I never said "I" would be at all interested in pursuing a guy who already HAD a "gf" - fwiw

[twice_shy]

personalised attack ? Fyi as you apparently didn't read the thread from the beginning - this is what was posted -

 

Yes, I have read, apparantly you forgot what you said to NES when taking shots at her.

 

 

Sorry, but I was just curious - I don't see it as a personalised attack, although since then I have been subjected to some on this thread......

 

Just like you were curious when you wrote the following to her:

==========================

 

NES is a 'reformed OW' now so hypocrisy will be nothing new......

 

or how about the sarcastic stab basically saying she is full of it when she says she is reformed:

 

and oh yeah - I know I know - you've "changed" now....... so nm

 

 

or when she says she doesn't get your point, you insult her intelligence:

 

obviously, not that I'm surprised

 

You can deny all you want that you personally attacked her, but your words say otherwise.

I'm not going to deny going on the offensive against people, although they are on those that don't give a crap who they hurt or destroy, but at least you could have the intestinal fortitude to admit that you did too.

[twice_shy]

it was a personalised attack B/C i wasnt even talking to you or about my own situation, i was talking about the subject at hand & you turned it into something personal about me.

 

Yes, and she insults your intelligence, poo pooed your "reformed" status, and, while not really knowing the definition of the word, called you a hypocrite. She conveniently forgets what she said.

[twice_shy]

I slept with someone when I was dating my exH in college, about a month after we met - I was under the impression that we were not exclusive, since we had not had "the talk".

 

Oh how wrong I was. I totally got **** about that from my exH. He never did forgive me for it, and brought it up continually throughout our marriage.

 

But did he only find out after you got married? If he found out before you got married and married you anyway, then it was his own fault for marrying you since he could have made a better decision since he obviously couldn't forgive you for it.

[Lookingforward]

Then we will have to agree to disagree as apparently you and I have vastly different perspectives on what does or does not constitute hypocrisy.

[twice_shy]

Then we will have to agree to disagree as apparently you and I have vastly different perspectives on what does or does not constitute hypocrisy.

 

Definition of hypocrisy:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

 

NES isn't pretending to be something she is not, nor does she rail against something she herself is doing.

 

She was an OW and changed her ways and now sees the wrong in it. She is not currently an OW, is disgusted with her past as an OW, and NOW does not condone such behavior.

 

So then you come back and poo poo her saying she is reformed and calling her a hypocrite. She isn't partaking in the behavior of being an OW any longer and is critical of such now after she has learned better.

 

I suppose a drug addict who has been clean for several years and has vowed to never do them again is a hypocrite and is in no way fit to hold a seminar on the evils of drugs and to stay clean?

[OWoman]

Something just struck me in all of this, Owoman.

 

I've seen you several times talk about how the MM 'changes' over time...and is no longer suited to a monogamous relationship. And you've indicated that that is acceptable and not surprising and should be honored.

 

What about the wife you've described that changed to where polygamy is no longer something she's comfortable with? How is that less acceptable than the MM change you supported?

 

Owl - where did I claim it was "less acceptable"? I regard ALL changes over time as natural - at least, among intelligent people, since they by definition do grow and change with time. And I certainly know many MW who married under customary law, or by Muslim rites, into polygamous Ms who with the passage of time grew uncomfortable with it. Typically, they leave - depending on the cultural context, this is easier for some than others - as their Hs are seldom on the same page, and are committed to other Ws who are quite happy with the way things are and unwilling to break up THEIR Ms and families with the H.

 

(And, BTW, while I may have spoken of the MM changing over time away from monogamy, I in no way intended to imply that that was gender specific. I meant it to apply equally to any spouse of any gender.)

[Lookingforward]

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself

 

and I am now done with this thread which has degenerated past ridiculous, so TS you can go champion NES elsewhere

[twice_shy]

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself

 

and I am now done with this thread which has degenerated past ridiculous, so TS you can go champion NES elsewhere

 

LOL, I put Merriam-Websters definition of hypocrisy up there, and you call it ridiculous...LMFAO.

 

And your definition is pretty much the same, and actually betters my point. She NO LONGER holds the same virtues as that which she does not condone nor respect TODAY. Thanks for making my point!!

[Lookingforward]

LOL, I put Merriam-Websters definition of hypocrisy up there, and you call it ridiculous...LMFAO.

 

And your definition is pretty much the same, and actually betters my point. She NO LONGER holds the same virtues as that which she does not condone nor respect TODAY. Thanks for making my point!!

 

"there are none so blind, as those that will not see"

[twice_shy]

"there are none so blind, as those that will not see"

 

So much for being done with this thread. Way to stick to your convictions!!!

 

And yes, that quote works perfectly for you since facts don't stand in your way.

[Lookingforward]

So much for being done with this thread. Way to stick to your convictions!!!

 

And yes, that quote works perfectly for you since facts don't stand in your way.

 

no, but I AM done with you..........

[twice_shy]

no, but I AM done with you..........

 

Ya, thats why you replied....:confused:

[pentacle]

Here's where communication is CRITICAL, even early on in a relationship.

 

Its called an "implied contract".

 

As you said, many people EXPECT exclusivity and commitment in a bf/gf kind of relationship. They feel it was a commitment that was non-verbally agreed to as part of their relationship.

 

If both partners DON'T feel that way, they should be TALKING about it. If one partner has no intention of exclusivity, he/she should CLEARLY COMMUNICATE that intent.

 

Personally, I agree that a dating relationship is not a committed one. BUT...where the problem comes in is when both partners in that relationship have different expectations of it.

 

Now, I have to add in all fairness that even when it IS clearly spelled out, some people don't want to believe that's the way its really going to be. They hear what their partner says about a non-exclusive relationship...but they still expect/hope that their partner will remain exclusive. You see this more in really young people than anything else.

 

Bottomline is simply...COMMUNICATE (which means both stating your position AND hearing and heeding the other partner) with each other clearly about your expectations and goals.

 

Hi Owl,

 

I don't disagree that the only way to indicate explicitly your intentions is to communicate. However, I have some other comments.

 

I think that the expectation of exclusivity in a bf/gf romantic relationship is a social norm, it is not a contract that includes long term commitment. We may all end up permanently tied to the first person we kissed if we try to make that stick and that would be a disaster!

 

It is like an invitation to try out the goods so that both parties can work out if this is the model they want to buy into, ie to consider whether they want to make a long term committed relationship investment. The social norm is that you will have enough respect to give each one a try alone, to get a good perspective. If your head is turned by the BBD (Bigger Better Deal) then so be it, you move on, there is nothing to stop you doing so. By terming it an implied CONTRACT we are moving to the idea that there is a perceived commitment on both sides to a long term relationship, and that is not applicable in our understanding of bf/gf relationships. That's why the love stories meander through trials and tribulations to the marriage bed - there is a social sanction of a committed relationship in living together an explicit contractualisation of living arrangements. Bf/gf do not meet that level of commitment - indeed there is no commitment except to try each other out. That is why one party or other sometimes gets desperate to tie another down, they know that there is no deal done, even though engaged etc until they've moved in or got married.

 

I think the issue is the interpretation of what the guy did - he sat up and chatted all night with the OP and suggested that he may like to find out more about her. That, in and of itself is not cheating, it is making a social contact and testing the waters to see if the interest is mutual. If he is seriously interested and feels his interest in the gf pales into insignificance then he should drop her immediately he recognises his feelings and not play them both at the same time. If he proceeds to see them both at once then social censure is applicable and both girls would have a right to feel hard done by. That said his behaviour is not bound by a contract of commitment to one girl only by social norms of exclusivity for the test period. If he is deemed committed to his gf by the fact of the relationship then anything he does is cheating the relationship even though there is no intention to stay together forever and that guilting out of people is not really socially beneficial to anyone. It's normal to test out what's available to get the best you can.

 

Telling someone they are bad because they chatted someone up, who could potentially be their future spouse, is control freakery. Shagging them and keeping two going at once is undesirable behaviour.

[neverendingsaga]

Definition of hypocrisy:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

 

NES isn't pretending to be something she is not, nor does she rail against something she herself is doing.

 

She was an OW and changed her ways and now sees the wrong in it. She is not currently an OW, is disgusted with her past as an OW, and NOW does not condone such behavior.

 

So then you come back and poo poo her saying she is reformed and calling her a hypocrite. She isn't partaking in the behavior of being an OW any longer and is critical of such now after she has learned better.

 

I suppose a drug addict who has been clean for several years and has vowed to never do them again is a hypocrite and is in no way fit to hold a seminar on the evils of drugs and to stay clean?

 

 

wow i didnt know id become the subject of such a debate LOL. i dont know whether to be flattered or embarased. FWIW i think you both gave the same definition of hypocrisy & i dont fit into it. if i were currently a OW saying, dont be w/ a commited man, then yes id be a hypocrite -- i guess unless i was saying, DONT do what im doing b/c its not smart, or something. but im not a OW so just B/C i once was one to me doesnt mean i cant say not to be one. maybe thats all the more reason for me to say not to be one?? like DONT do what i did b/c it wasnt smart.

 

but what i think is most hilarious is i wasnt even saying anything like dont be w/ a committed man or talking about myself or my own situation. i was just trying to comment on the subject at hand like everyone else. i just said i think this g/f thinks shes in a commited R w/ this b/f & its sad if she thinks hes comited but hes trolling for a new g/f w/out telling her. thats all i ever said (& yes its sad that my XMM was w/ me w/out telling his wife... maybe all she wanted me to do was add that in there toO?? who knows?) & now theres this huge debate!!

 

thx twice-shy for sticking up for me, i dont know why she felt need to pick on me but i saw in another forum she called someone who used to cheat & doesnt anymore 'pious' so maybe she doesnt understnad that some ppl learn from there mistakes & change. i dont take it personaly ever since i saw her do it to someone else to, i guess its just her thing, but thx for explaining how im not a hyprocrite, i agree w/ you FWIW!