Dexter Morgan Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Sorry Dexter, I don't agree with your friends of the opposite sex can't be friends. My H knew about these friends from the get go and is now friends with them too. We see each other all together, even with their wives (one isn't married yet) and I also still hang out 1 on 1 with them sometimes. What I don't do, is keep it a secret from my husband. If he felt threatened, I would cut back no problem. Why would you feel the need to cut back if you think having close male friends is no big deal?
Geishawhelk Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 "If he felt threatened".... is what she said as a proviso.
grogster Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 The WSJ story had two key points. First, as the infidelity rates rise so does mass intolerance towards the cheaters. Fevered beliefs, however, do not translate into better behavior. That's one reason why I take the Shacker moral absolutism with a large grain of salt. Some folks protest too much. Next, infidelity is a "crime" of opportunity not the lack of everyone's favorite stick, "Character." If you want people to cheat less smash monagmy or keep your spouse locked up in the kitchen or basement. I vote for smashing monogamy and its overrated cousin, marriage.
Dexter Morgan Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 "If he felt threatened".... is what she said as a proviso. I know what she said, but if she sees nothing wrong with it and it isn't a big deal, then why would he feel threatened? Even if he is threatened, why would she simply drop the male friends? Wouldn't she simply think he is being ridiculous?
Geishawhelk Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 These are only questions he can answer, not she. Or even me really. Sorry for butting in. I thought you'd mis-read her post.
Dexter Morgan Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 These are only questions he can answer, not she. No, its something she can answer. SHE is the one that sees nothing wrong with it, so she can answer why she would just give them up if she feels it is perfectly appropriate behavior in which she is engaging.
travelgirl Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 No, its something she can answer. SHE is the one that sees nothing wrong with it, so she can answer why she would just give them up if she feels it is perfectly appropriate behavior in which she is engaging. I don't see anything wrong with it. I said if my husband ever felt threatened, I would cut back - not cut them out of my life.If he ever said that me hanging out 1 on 1 bothered him, I could respect that and only see them with him or other friends. He is my husband and he comes first, not any of my friends, girls or guys. And since we have been married 9 years and together 11, the issue has never come up, ever - nor do I think it ever will. I was just posting I WOULD cut back because I wanted to point out that my husband is my #1 priority. I read many of your posts and while I agree with some, you are very black and white - not allowing any gray in the middle. Each person and circumstance is different. If I have had lifelong platonic guy friends and my husband is perfectly fine with it, who are you to say "ya right" and question every single situation?
pelicanpreacher Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Hum.. I don't think there is more cheating for the men.. they've always cheated.. but I definitely think there is more and more cheating on the women's part.. and I don't see anything wrong.. if it's good for one, it should be good for the other.. Long time ago... most women had the chore of the household.. the kids.. the H... and they were mostly SAHM.., not much education, they didn't have much interaction with the outside world.. they didn't have the opportunities as much... but men did. I do not agree with this: 1) Today, most people get married later than they used to, and only after they've had multiple partners. I don't think this is a reason.. cause IMO it should be the opposite.. if they marry later and had multiple partners.. they should know better what they want.. no? 2) Another temptation arises from the fact that many people in their 20s maintain close, long-lasting friendships with members of the opposite sex. I don't agree with this either.. if the close, long-lasting friendships were there before the actual relationship.. why would that be a cause of infidelity.. these friends were there before the actual partner.. if they wanted something more, they would have had it.. no? Anyway.. I think that monogamy is impossible, always been.. but in those days, women were 'slaves' to their marriage and family.. not anymore.. good gawd.. I'm surprised at you Liz, 1) You've been in two very long lasting relationships but at this juncture in your life I believe you've openly admitted that you'll never entertain another long term commitment again which is why you chosen to engage in a polyamorous lifestyle exclusively with MM of a wide variety of ages, to include octogenarians! Surely a goodly percentage of these men married later in life so what would account for their straying from their marital bed into yours? 2) By now, all naivete you have should be well worn off for you've been around long enough to know that if a man who is enamored by a woman but somewhat shy and retiring befriends such a woman who only perceives him as a friend is likely hanging around long enough to gather his courage while biding his time to catch her in a moment of weakness before he makes his move and espouses his true feelings and agenda. Even men who seemingly only express a lateral interest in friendship with women for the sake of a plutonic connection will gladly break all formal restraint to sex her if she is willing and hot so, whether a man has an agenda or not, there is no such thing as "we're just friends" between a man and a woman!
Trialbyfire Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 The WSJ story had two key points. First, as the infidelity rates rise so does mass intolerance towards the cheaters. Fevered beliefs, however, do not translate into better behavior. That's one reason why I take the Shacker moral absolutism with a large grain of salt. Some folks protest too much. Next, infidelity is a "crime" of opportunity not the lack of everyone's favorite stick, "Character." If you want people to cheat less smash monagmy or keep your spouse locked up in the kitchen or basement. I vote for smashing monogamy and its overrated cousin, marriage. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave monogamy to monogamists?
NoIDidn't Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Next, infidelity is a "crime" of opportunity not the lack of everyone's favorite stick, "Character." If you want people to cheat less smash monagmy or keep your spouse locked up in the kitchen or basement. Child molestation is a crime of opportunity as well. But it also carries with it a huge character flaw. Why would you think differently of infidelity? Geishawalk said something earlier that I agree with, but not in the way that she seemed to mean it. Fidelity is a choice. But so is infidelity. So why smash monogamy and marriage? Why not just have those that have no intention of honoring their "choice" of monogamy stop committing to it? That makes more sense to me.
OWoman Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Even men who seemingly only express a lateral interest in friendship with women for the sake of a plutonic connection will gladly break all formal restraint to sex her if she is willing and hot so, whether a man has an agenda or not, there is no such thing as "we're just friends" between a man and a woman! Peli what you're implying there is that any hot chick who hits on you is in luck? (And that you think all other men are the same...)
pelicanpreacher Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 To offer a disclaimer, what I'm saying is do not trust us for we are of an insect mind when it comes to sex until we've arrived at that moment in our lives (typically age speaking or as is more often the case when physical limitations sets in) when sex no longer rules us! Of course I'm only speaking for the majority for there will always be some men who will always remain an exception to the rule.
OWoman Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 To offer a disclaimer, what I'm saying is do not trust us for we are of an insect mind when it comes to sex until we've arrived at that moment in our lives (typically age speaking or as is more often the case when physical limitations sets in) when sex no longer rules us! Of course I'm only speaking for the majority for there will always be some men who will always remain an exception to the rule. :laugh: I don't buy that, Peli! I've seen countless men "rise from the dead" when the right woman came along...
LakesideDream Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 :laugh: I don't buy that, Peli! I've seen countless men "rise from the dead" when the right woman came along... OWoman, how right you are. I could remain happily celebite for the rest of my life if that became a necessity. I have no overriding need to have sex with random women, or to make "conquests". As I have aged, sexual relationships have become much more important to me. Important in the sense that they must have meaning. A romp in the sack has left me unhappy to many times.
OWoman Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 OWoman, how right you are. I could remain happily celebite for the rest of my life if that became a necessity. I have no overriding need to have sex with random women, or to make "conquests". As I have aged, sexual relationships have become much more important to me. Important in the sense that they must have meaning. A romp in the sack has left me unhappy to many times. LsD, I sincerely hope that doesn't become a necessity. Oh, the quality of life...
Dexter Morgan Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 I don't see anything wrong with it. I said if my husband ever felt threatened, I would cut back - not cut them out of my life.If he ever said that me hanging out 1 on 1 bothered him, I could respect that and only see them with him or other friends. But why would that be acceptable to you if you see nothing wrong with hanging out with them one on one? If you are doing nothing wrong, you should be able to hang out with them one on one, right? Unless of course you do see it as inappropriate as he would(in the event he became uncomfortable with it) of hanging out one on one with other men and in private.
OWoman Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 But why would that be acceptable to you if you see nothing wrong with hanging out with them one on one? If you are doing nothing wrong, you should be able to hang out with them one on one, right? Unless of course you do see it as inappropriate as he would(in the event he became uncomfortable with it) of hanging out one on one with other men and in private. I see no contradiction in what travelgirl is saying - she's simply indicating that she'd be prepared to compromise SHOULD her H ever have a problem with that, as she values her M more than her friendships. Compromise is necessary in Rs if they're to survive and mature.
Dexter Morgan Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 I see no contradiction in what travelgirl is saying - she's simply indicating that she'd be prepared to compromise SHOULD her H ever have a problem with that, as she values her M more than her friendships. Compromise is necessary in Rs if they're to survive and mature. But why does someone have to compromise that which is supposedly perfectly acceptable? Why should there be compromise when someone isn't doing anything wrong? Thats the point.
Marteka Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 Better brace yourselves. With the recession, it's about to get a whole lot worse. Apparently, a lot of people who were working too hard to remember what their kids looked like (and now don't seem interested in finding out), suddenly have a lot of extra time on their hands. And they aren't spending it on needlework classes! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/148959c4-c31f-11dd-a5ae-000077b07658.html I didn't realise this link goes to a news article that is not FTV. Very sorry about that. Will check my links before posting next time...
pelicanpreacher Posted December 11, 2008 Posted December 11, 2008 OWoman, how right you are. I could remain happily celebite for the rest of my life if that became a necessity. I have no overriding need to have sex with random women, or to make "conquests". As I have aged, sexual relationships have become much more important to me. Important in the sense that they must have meaning. A romp in the sack has left me unhappy to many times. You've made my point for wisdom of age has allowed to place sex in its proper perspective instead of allowing it to be forefront in your thoughts when considering a suitable partner. JMO!
Dexter Morgan Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Because, Dexter, two separate people will have two separate viewpoints. Travelgirl is simply explaining that she would respect her man's point of view and would be kind enough to help assuage his fears. But in "assauging" those fears, she would be giving validity to the idea that spending time alone with someone of the opposite sex when you have a committed partner is wrong or at the very least not very acceptable behavior. Don't get me wrong, I'd want someone to take my feelings into consideration like that too. But either such behavior is acceptable, or its not. If I were to spend time alone with other women and my SO told me the she is uncomfortable with it and thinks it is highly inappropriate, then I'd agree that it is appropriate and stop such behavior with that understanding. Not just stop being alone with other women out of appeasement.
Dexter Morgan Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Wrong. She would be validating HIS FEELINGS, not the entire notion. Just because someone reacts in a certain way to a situation due to the feelings of someone close to them, that doesn't mean that universally this is how EVERYONE should react. How she chooses to react to her partner's feelings on any given subject does not give absolute universal merit to any of the ideas on each of those subjects. This would be HER reaction to HIS reaction because *NEWS FLASH* she cares about him and his feelings. She would be making him feel better, regardless of how SHE views the spending of time with these people because HOW HE FEELS is more important to her than these other folks. D'ya get it now? I get it, don't talk to me like I'm 3 years old. But in appeasing him when she sees nothing wrong with what she is doing, don't you think over time she might resent the idea that she can't spend time alone with her male friends? She would IF she truly sees nothing wrong in it.
travelgirl Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 But in "assauging" those fears, she would be giving validity to the idea that spending time alone with someone of the opposite sex when you have a committed partner is wrong or at the very least not very acceptable behavior. Don't get me wrong, I'd want someone to take my feelings into consideration like that too. But either such behavior is acceptable, or its not. If I were to spend time alone with other women and my SO told me the she is uncomfortable with it and thinks it is highly inappropriate, then I'd agree that it is appropriate and stop such behavior with that understanding. Not just stop being alone with other women out of appeasement. Dexter - I think this is a moot point. I have been with H for 11 years now and IT IS a NON ISSUE in our marriage. That was my initial point. While you say "ya right" to every single opposite-sex friendship, all I said is that there is at least one exception to your rule and that is me. I have been friends with these guys since my childhood and H knew that and met them within a month of us dating. It has NEVER been an issue and I still, to this day, see them 1 on 1 sometimes. But obviously since we have all grown up and married we mostly see each other with our families and/or other friends for weekend get togethers. All our families are great friends. But for the sake of your persistent argument, if my H came to me after 11 years and declared that it now made him a little uneasy, I would stop seeing them if he truly was bothered by it. He can say and think it is unacceptable and I can say and think it is acceptable. But at the end of the day, we are a team and it can't always be just his way or just my way. I would easily compromise on this and never once resent it. Not because I agree with him but I don't NEED anyone or anything as much as I need a healthy and happy marriage/family. This is something so trivial in the grand scheme of things. If a spouse resenting the other spouse every time they disagreed on something and made a compromise, there would be no happy marriages. Whether it is what house to buy, job location, where to eat for dinner, what movie to see, who to hang out with tonight, what outfit the kids will wear, who is picking up the kids, what school the kids should go to, what color car to get, etc.... We aren't clones of each other. We have separate thoughts, feelings and actions. No two people think the same about everything and for any long lasting relationship (siblings, spouse, parents, children, friends) there are going to be compromises. I couldn't imagine a world where everyone was selfish to their own needs all the time and resented each time their need or want wasn't met. I think you are just really looking into my "what if" scenario, instead of my current one, a little too much to prove that your opinion is always right. I told my H about this situation last night and he laughed at it because in his eyes, it truly doesn't bother him. For both of us, it was and still is a non-issue. The fact of the matter is, after 11 years we are an exception to your opinion and can't see how at this point it would possibly change. If however, he or I change our mind years down the line, I will contact you to say what you are trying so hard to get out of me "Yes, Dexter your opinion was 100% accurate and right." Ugh, I can't post anymore about this. Can't we agree to just disagree or will we both resent each other?
brothelmaiden Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Currently, it is pretty acceptable for both sexes to be promiscuous early-on. This characteristic that in enveloped with excitement is engrained thereafter. The old saying bodes true in this case. Never have I seen a truly promiscuous person change much after marriage; those desires are suppressed for a while, but usually they end up cheating when something doesn't go well in the relationship, even if getting "bored" is what actually occurs. MORALS AND VALUES have gone downhill in many respects; how could this not be one of the factors? Many men have no scruples and are self-serving lazy bums looking for a woman to take care of them. I wonder how parenting has changed in the last 100 years; maybe that should be discussed. Self-entitlement and selfishness has been encouraged by their good for nothing parents.
Dexter Morgan Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 I told my H about this situation last night and he laughed at it because in his eyes, it truly doesn't bother him. But we are talking about your hypothetical scenario that you put forth. If it truly doesn't bother him, then yes, its a moot point. For both of us, it was and still is a non-issue. The fact of the matter is, after 11 years we are an exception to your opinion and can't see how at this point it would possibly change. an exception to be sure If however, he or I change our mind years down the line, I will contact you to say what you are trying so hard to get out of me "Yes, Dexter your opinion was 100% accurate and right." Oh stop with the drama, just stop. Ugh, I can't post anymore about this. Can't we agree to just disagree or will we both resent each other? Yes
Recommended Posts