You reap what you sow!!!!

[LaGazelle]

I know precisely what it means, because I'm, in the UK too.

 

But I've only ever heard it disparagingly. In an "I really couldn't give a sh*1t" type of usage.

Which to my mind is unfortunate, because if I were passing an accident and saw somebody of that ilk in a dangerous situation, I'd climb over hot coals to help them out.

I wouldn't hesuitate, no matter what they had done to me.

 

I know this to be true, because I've done it.

 

Thanks!

 

With all due respect, being in the UK alone doesn't intrinsically make your understanding of urban expression...and yours alone any more precise than another person's. However, I appreciate your perspective. Other than saying it outright, can you think of a more fitting colloquial expression to say "as much as one would like to do sth to an "opponent" that would give them pleasure, one would just not notice the opponent?"

 

We've we've started a linguisitc debate - which is right up my street (interest in etymology etc) but I will resist and just say perhaps my (often derided by friends) use of slang and urban expressions has failed me again. I may be the one with a different understanding of what the phrase means. I can of course see how your interpretation fits perfectly, but I tried to explain my interpretation, i.e not that you see the fire and ignore it, but that you don't see it at all. There is a difference.

 

"Seeing the fire (someone in need of help) and ignoring it" does not fit with my belief system, nor does it make sense in my original post - where I am arguing for empathy and compassion! Perhaps reading the comment in context might help understand what I mean.

 

Btw - did I use "right up my street" correctly?

[Reggie]

I've heard "right up my alley" . Never heard the "street" deal.

[LaGazelle]

Actually, when I've heard that phrase used it means you wouldn't even waste your pee putting the fire out on someone you hold in such contempt.

 

But Donna...pee is waste...you can't waste it unless you are Madonna, who apparently washes her hair with it!

 

Anyway, perhaps I have been using this expression incorrectly, but what I mean, is that whereas the BW may love an opportunity to treat the OW degradingly, she would miss the most blindingly obvious opportunity to do so because she is not focussed on finding one!

 

Is it just me, or is there anyone else who thinks it would be totally inaapropriate to pee on someone. I imagine most people would not be too grateful to be "p*ssed upon" actually!

[LaGazelle]

I agree, there is no relationship between marital difficulties and cheating. And, I do not beleive that women cheat in response to their husband's actions or neglect. I think there is zero differnec between the genders in this. I know many women who cheat who have good, decent husbands. But, these women cheat just for sexual variety.

I agree that cognitive dissonance causes these folks to look outside themselves for justifications.

I , in no way, feel that a BS contributes to the decision to cheat.

 

well , I am no expert on the issue - i was merely quoting findings by the experts. If I said women were found to cheat because of their husband's neglect, then forgive me. I don't think that's what I said though, I think I said actions, in an attempt to remain neutral. The infidelity experts are not saying that a W's action in such a scneario is justifiable. Quite the contrary, they were merely looking for indicators or trends which could be useful to know as part of the recovery process.

 

I think the bottom line was rather that typically women are more likely to cheat for reasons, particularly emotional reasons, whereas the trend for men indicates that they need no reason, just an opportunity and any of several willing participants. That is probably linked to the idea that men can dissociate sesx with love and emotions, whereas women tend generally not to.

 

Anyway, I feel like I've taken over the thread...

[Reggie]

Yeah, I have heard the emotion based female affair talk. But, it is time to start looking at reality. Women are every bit as much sexual creatures as men and many, many women just want sex without emotions. In my younger days, I was hit on repeatedly by women who just wanted sex.

[angie2443]

Yeah, I have heard the emotion based female affair talk. But, it is time to start looking at reality. Women are every bit as much sexual creatures as men and many, many women just want sex without emotions. In my younger days, I was hit on repeatedly by women who just wanted sex.

 

Very true Reggie!

[LaGazelle]

Of course it is. We all know that. That's what gives that phrase its impact. Of course it is something you would merely flush down the toilet. It's useless. And even though it's not something you want, you wouldn't use it to help someone you despise if they were on fire. You'd rather put it in the toilet.

 

Does that make more sense?

 

Fair enough.

[LaGazelle]

Yeah, I have heard the emotion based female affair talk. But, it is time to start looking at reality. Women are every bit as much sexual creatures as men and many, many women just want sex without emotions. In my younger days, I was hit on repeatedly by women who just wanted sex.

 

No Reggie no! What they really want is love, but they tell you that to get the ball rolling and then hope that you feel the same way too! This is what the OW who tried to intrude our relationship did with my husband.

[Reggie]

LaGazelle, it has just been my expierience that many women view sex as a mere recreational activity, a pleasurable bodily function with little significance. Same with many men.

There seems to be so weird investment in our scoiety in selling the proposition that the genders view sex differently, that women require more emotional connection than men in order to feel comfortable with having sex.

I think we are fed this line because, for decades , women were told that simply enjoying sex for the sake of sex was wrong. Men get scewed up messages, too. Like, you shoulld want to have sex with just about any willing female with no need for any emotional connection.

I think the truth is that gender has very little to do with the amount of emotional connection an individual requires to feel comfortable having sex. I see many women having sex with virtual strangers. I see guys that neeed emotional connection turning down offers of sex with women they do not like or know.

Folks lay all along this continuum on what they need to feel comfortable having sex, and i really cannot see a trend toward one end or the other based on gender.

[LaGazelle]

LaGazelle, it has just been my expierience that many women view sex as a mere recreational activity, a pleasurable bodily function with little significance. Same with many men.

 

Ok, Reggie , I can't deny you your experience and your perspective based on it. However , how do yoiu know for sure that these women just wanted you for sex and nothing more. How do you know that like the OW chasing my H, that is was not just the "first course" to make the "main dish" of giving them love and commitment more enticing/less frightening?

[Reggie]

I have lots of women friends. I'd say there is no difference between them and my guy friends in terms of the % that just want sex without emotional involvement. They tell me this. These women just want to get laid and that is it. That's fine , if it works for them. No judgement on my part. But, IMO, there is no difference based on gender in this area.

[LaGazelle]

I have lots of women friends. I'd say there is no difference between them and my guy friends in terms of the % that just want sex without emotional involvement. They tell me this. These women just want to get laid and that is it. That's fine , if it works for them. No judgement on my part. But, IMO, there is no difference based on gender in this area.

 

Reggie , we just have to agree to dfisagree on this. I am not saying there may not be exceptions, although I doubt it. However, the OW who pursued my H did exactly the same as you say your female friends do, she told him she just wanted sex and did not want commitment/just wanted fun, but as her pursuit intensified/became more relentless, the cracks started to show. She started seeking emotional attachment and reassurance, and wanted to replace me so she could have a relationship with my husband. She was deeply hurt when my H asked her to stop contacting him - and that's because emotions were involved.

 

I just think it is a very modern thing for a lot of women to say because they want to fulfill the liberated woman fantasy, but most just don't truly dissociate emotions and sex in the way many (not all) men are able to. I am not necessarily talking about an innate difference, although I believe there is an argument for that. But even if one accepts that the genders have been socialised differently, it is not so hard to envisage that that socilaisation influences their true (not just stated) desires differently.

[NoIDidn't]

Why make that statement in a response to my post? What was the point? I didn't mention why I was angry, I didn't say how long it took me to express my anger either. So mentioning it means 1) you concluded that I MUST have been stewing or 2) that you think I do not know stewing is unhealthy. Both of which are preposterous because they are baseless.

 

LOL. First you accuse me of telling you what your emotional state was and not to do it. And then you turn around and attempt to tell me what I meant.

 

Typical of hypocrites.

 

Again, I don't know why you are so defensive. So from here on out I will be ignoring you.

[delirious]

I have lots of women friends. I'd say there is no difference between them and my guy friends in terms of the % that just want sex without emotional involvement. They tell me this. These women just want to get laid and that is it. That's fine , if it works for them. No judgement on my part. But, IMO, there is no difference based on gender in this area.

 

No woman would tell you they want to marry you and have your kids - )Reg i thought you were a man of the world) the first time you f..... them. Self preservation and all that, most would know you would run a mile. So like men, they tell you what you want to hear or not speak at all which is what you prefer .......

[tami-chan]

Conventional knowledge is that it is more difficult for women to have sex without emotions and that many men (if not most) are able to compartmentalize these things. That's probably why movies like "Boomerang" were big hits-because it shows the tables being turned. Obviously, there are women who are able to compartmentalize sex and emotions. There is always an exception.

[tami-chan]

LOL. First you accuse me of telling you what your emotional state was and not to do it. And then you turn around and attempt to tell me what I meant.

 

Typical of hypocrites.

 

Again, I don't know why you are so defensive. So from here on out I will be ignoring you.

 

Two different issues: 1) you said I was not angry and that anger is not a "real" emotion. 2) you talked about stewing as part of your response to my post....

 

how is that hypocrisy? are you just saying that because you can't defend your statement?

 

LOL...ignore, is that a threat? I think I said earlier for you not to respond. So yes, putting me on ignore would be a favor to me. Thank you!

 

"typical of hypocrites", glad you have use of your mirror.

[Tony]

Since recent posters are nowhere near the topic of this thread, I can only assume it has run it's course. Thank you for participating.