Queen Zenobia Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 It depends on who you are talking to. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I have girls for friends who try to pull this ignoring **** and they get nagged by me about it. But if I was talking to the girl in this thread and not woggle, I'd tell her that she should just get over it and that there's nothing she could do and that she should stop texting him. Agreed. On all points.
Imajerk17 Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I would give the same advice irrespective of gender: Your friend should text the other person back (who I'm assuming isn't the cheater in your friend's previous relationship) that (s)he isn't interested in more. Seriously, whatever happened to treating people decently. After a date/night of sex/whatever, the other person deserves a little respect back. How hard is it really to send a text? Edited July 12, 2011 by Imajerk17
chuckles11 Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) The fact that she might have been naive is no justification for anyone to deceive her and screw her over. Believing that a stranger that you just met at a bar will start a relationship with you if you have sex with him is not a sign of naivety, it is a sign of stupidity. Edited July 12, 2011 by chuckles11
serial muse Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I would give the same advice irrespective of gender: Your friend should text the other person back (who I'm assuming isn't the cheater in your friend's previous relationship) that (s)he isn't interested in more. Seriously, whatever happened to treating people decently. After a date/night of sex/whatever, the other person deserves a little respect back. How hard is it really to send a text? This. It's just about treating people decently. Meh. I'm thinking maybe Woggle's friend just likes the drama of someone calling him a lot.
Author Woggle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 I don't know if he likes the drama but he admits he enjoys the power shift from how his relationships with women usually go.
dreamingoftigers Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Okay everyone seems to be getting pretty fiery over different aspects of this and jumping into the Gender vs. Gender BS. 1) When someone is engaged and the person they are engaged to cheats on them, it is a ****ty, ****ty wrong thing to do. Gender notwithstanding. 2) They can choose to try to repair the relationship or end it (before marriage and kids, I suggest ending it instead of committing to a trainwreck). 3) If they choose to end the relationship free and clear, both parties are free to seek out new sexual and relationship ventures. 4) As a way to restore ego/self-esteem the betrayed partner may hook up with someone on an ONS. Personally I don't "agree" with ONS but that just comes from a certain set of sexual risk factors plus a dedication to sex being more of a connecting and sacred act. 5) If the betrayed person does seek out an ONS they should be VERY CLEAR about the fact that it is NSA. That means not taking advantage of someone clearly looking for more company than just the ONS. (I am not saying that this is what happened). But if there are more expectations than ONS, it is wasting someone's precious time for them on the way to finding someone who will appreciate them. 6) if you don't want contact from someone afterward or you get to the point where you don't want contact, just be clear and say "no more, thank you, had a good time, not ready or interested in more." I had to do this with partners I had in my youth, it isn't that ****ing hard and it actually takes the stress off of both parties. That way the party who doesn't want the contact doesn't need to stress out wondering when the other one will stop contacting them. Simple, works for both men and women and can be easily applied to both.
serial muse Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I don't know if he likes the drama but he admits he enjoys the power shift from how his relationships with women usually go. Yes, exactly - that's getting off on the drama. If he sees that as empowerment then I don't know what to tell him. Personally, I think it's weak to act like a bully because he felt bullied. But, that's his choice I suppose.
Jason Todd Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Usually people that make this kind of accusation are actually the sexist ones themselves. And the same can be said for people of your caliber making your kind of accusations. We all judge. They are projecting their faults onto others. The only one's projecting are you. I don't have a problem with having a ONS and never talking to them again. You do. So far, honestly, I haven't felt like anyone was thinking about gender except for you in this thread. Woggle was a tiny bit, but he admitted to it. Everyone on this thread talked about gender so that's moot.
Jason Todd Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Believing that a stranger that you just met at a bar will start a relationship with you if you have sex with him is not a sign of naivety, it is a sign of stupidity. Exactly. That has nothing to do with betrayal.
Nexus One Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Believing that a stranger that you just met at a bar will start a relationship with you if you have sex with him is not a sign of naivety, it is a sign of stupidity. That's just semantics, it doesn't change my argument.
Jason Todd Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 That's just semantics, it doesn't change my argument. Oh so now it's just semantics when someone is clearly being stupid for thinking that a ONS will somehow turn into a relationship when there was no mention of that possibility.
Taramere Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I don't know if he likes the drama but he admits he enjoys the power shift from how his relationships with women usually go. So what's the content of these texts she's sending him? Was she asking to see him again? Saying that she had a fun time? Checking that he got home okay? Wondering whether they're going to get married and have triplets?
Nexus One Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Oh so now it's just semantics when someone is clearly being stupid for thinking that a ONS will somehow turn into a relationship when there was no mention of that possibility. You're making up stuff on the spot. We don't know what he said, but the fact that she called him means that he gave her his phone number. It also means she had the wrong impression of the situation. I think you can hold him accountable for that, because his motive was to have sex and then ignore her. (yet he gave her his number) Why would you give someone your number when your intention is to never speak with them again? Right, because his intention was to deceive. And why would that person have the impression that she could call him after that night? My gut tells me that that is because he deceived her, because Woggle mentioned that his friend now says to treat women differently after his ex cheated on him and that he likes the "power" he now has. Some of you guys are clearly trying to defend the violator in this instance and blame the woman for it. My gut feeling is that you guys are doing that because you yourselves have pulled sh*t like this before on one or multiple people in the past, but you can't stand it when you read arguments that press your face into the truth of the matter. Who the f*ck are you guys kidding? Because if you extend your reasoning/logic into other facets of society, like law, then you'd get a system like in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, by court order, they stone 13 and 14 year old girls to death for getting raped, then let the rapist go free. Well, she probably was so stupid to get raped right? Because THAT is the line of logic you guys are following. If you defend a framework of ethics that follows that kind of logic, then you can all go f*ck your pathetic selves. I refuse to be convinced by your attempts to put the blame on the victim. And don't come with any pathetic attempts to pin this on semantics either. For f*ck's sake people, really. Edited July 12, 2011 by Nexus One
Enchanted Girl Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 And the same can be said for people of your caliber making your kind of accusations. We all judge. The only one's projecting are you. I don't have a problem with having a ONS and never talking to them again. You do. Everyone on this thread talked about gender so that's moot. Actually, you're making up opinions I have in order to make yourself right. I've stated repeatedly that ONS are fine, but that he's being an ass for not telling her to leave him alone and letting her wonder. Everyone else gets that this is my opinion except for you. And the rest was your attempt at "I know you are, but what am I?" Didn't work in elementary school and doesn't work now either.
Queen Zenobia Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 You're making up stuff on the spot. We don't know what he said, but the fact that she called him means that he gave her his phone number. It also means she had the wrong impression of the situation. I think you can hold him accountable for that, because his motive was to have sex and then ignore her. (yet he gave her his number) Why would you give someone your number when your intention is to never speak with them again? Right, because his intention was to deceive. And why would that person have the impression that she could call him after that night? My gut tells me that that is because he deceived her, because Woggle mentioned that his friend now says to treat women differently after his ex cheated on him and that he likes the "power" he now has. Some of you guys are clearly trying to defend the violator in this instance and blame the woman for it. My gut feeling is that you guys are doing that because you yourselves have pulled sh*t like this before on one or multiple people in the past, but you can't stand it when you read arguments that press your face into the truth of the matter. Who the f*ck are you guys kidding? Because if you extend your reasoning/logic into other facets of society, like law, then you'd get a system like in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, by court order, they stone 13 and 14 year old girls to death for getting raped, then let the rapist go free. Well, she probably was so stupid to get raped right? Because THAT is the line of logic you guys are following. If you defend a framework of ethics that follows that kind of logic, then you can all go f*ck your pathetic selves. I refuse to be convinced by your attempts to put the blame on the victim. And don't come with any pathetic attempts to pin this on semantics either. For f*ck's sake people, really. This is a little ridiculous. You're bringing rape into an argument where it doesn't belong. When someone is raped, they were forced into intercourse against their will. If someone says "no" it means "no". When someone meets a strange man, at a bar, and then goes back to a hotel where she sleeps with him there is zero possibility of anything more happening. There is absolutely no way that someone could think otherwise, no matter what he said to her. Now when the woman in this story started texting Woggle's friend, he should have put an end to it as soon as possible, and in that respect I agree with you. However, given that this sort of thing happens all the time, you see it in threads on this very website (people don't call back, they don't answer messages on online dating sites, etc.) can we really say this was a "violation"? The guy was impolite, unfortunate but it happens. Try driving in DC during rush hour, you'll see plenty of impolite people on the roads, and their behavior is far closer to "violation" than this was. Again, this is why casual sex is bad for people.
Mme. Chaucer Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Yes, your friend is wrong for 1) USING another person (NOT for having a ONS, but from your description, I think he wants to trash this woman because his former fiancee trashed him). 2) "Ignoring" her communications. He had sex with her, I'd think he could extend a basic common courtesy to her such as acknowledging her calls / texts, if only to tell her "no more." Side note: When someone hurts you and you in return hurt someone totally innocent... that is flat out wrong. I think most people consider that to be a womanly thing to do because it's such a common behavior among abused women. He is acting like a woman because he is not being honest. He is just passive aggressively ignoring her instead of just telling her where she stands. No, crappy behavior is NOT "a womanly thing to do." Dishonesty is not "acting like a woman." Neither is passive aggression. You have such issues and warped views on women; really, it seems like you'd lead a much happier and more successful life if you could join a society that only contained men ... like maybe a monastery, or prison. Maybe look into those options?
Author Woggle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 The texts are just asking him to contact her again and he doesn't know what to do. I think he should just text her back and be honest with her.
Nexus One Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 This is a little ridiculous. You're bringing rape into an argument where it doesn't belong. When someone is raped, they were forced into intercourse against their will. If someone says "no" it means "no". When someone meets a strange man, at a bar, and then goes back to a hotel where she sleeps with him there is zero possibility of anything more happening. There is absolutely no way that someone could think otherwise, no matter what he said to her. That's twisting my words in my opinion. I said that the blame was shifted to the victim, while the violator was the one who was at fault. Arguments like, 'she was the one who was naive', 'she was the one who was stupid'. That similar line of logic is used in rape cases in Saudi Arabia, i.e. shifting the blame from violator to victim, THAT was my point. I clearly stated that IF one would extend that line of logic into the judicial system, then the result would be a society like Saudi Arabia. And that's why I got pissed. What got me even more pissed was that one poster even completely denied that there was a victim and turned it into a semantics game. Only a sociopath would deny that there isn't a victim in the case of deception. And to then pin it on semantics is so f*cking petty in my opinion. That lead me to think that one or more posters had ulterior motives for defending the guy.
Queen Zenobia Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 That's twisting my words in my opinion. I said that the blame was shifted to the victim, while the violator was the one who was at fault. Arguments like, 'she was the one who was naive', 'she was the one who was stupid'. That similar line of logic is used in rape cases in Saudi Arabia, i.e. shifting the blame from violator to victim, THAT was my point. I clearly stated that IF one would extend that line of logic into the judicial system, then the result would be a society like Saudi Arabia. And that's why I got pissed. What got me even more pissed was that one poster even completely denied that there was a victim and turned it into a semantics game. Only a sociopath would deny that there isn't a victim in the case of deception. And to then pin it on semantics is so f*cking petty in my opinion. That lead me to think that one or more posters had ulterior motives for defending the guy. Well I don't mean to twist your words, but just know that when one brings in the rape word it's likely to cause the conversation to get off track. Unless of course the conversation is really about rape, but that's another topic entirely. It is also possible that my understanding of wrongness and victimhood is somewhat different than your's which causes some of the disconnect. I understand where you're coming from, but I also don't understand at all how someone could have sex with a stranger (in the manner in which she did) and not understand that it was a ONS (or at least not be surprised that it was). I also think this thread got so much attention because sex was involved, if it was merely the case of a guy (or gal) not returning calls or texts after a third date I think most people would just conclude that it was (unfortunately) par for the course. No one would be saying someone was "wrong" or a "victim". To put it another way, if he still gave her his number (and possibly deceived her) but she never used it and knew he was tricking her, would it still be wrong?
Nexus One Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 To put it another way, if he still gave her his number (and possibly deceived her) but she never used it and knew he was tricking her, would it still be wrong? Yes, because either way he's trying to deceive her for his very own purposes. Simply because he fails to deceive her, doesn't mean he then suddenly has the justification for his attempted deception.
Queen Zenobia Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Yes, because either way he's trying to deceive her for his very own purposes. Simply because he fails to deceive her, doesn't mean he then suddenly has the justification for his attempted deception. Even if she still went along with it? Even if she still sleeps with him?
chuckles11 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Yes, because either way he's trying to deceive her for his very own purposes. Simply because he fails to deceive her, doesn't mean he then suddenly has the justification for his attempted deception. Just so I'm clear, (because I'm getting confused about what you're so angry about), what exactly is the nature of his deception again? What if she is texting him because she wants to have casual sex again and they never discussed having a relationship? Did he still "deceive" her, or is he then merely being impolite?
Author Woggle Posted July 13, 2011 Author Posted July 13, 2011 I can understand why some people don't like what he did but to compare to rape is just absurd.
chuckles11 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 You're making up stuff on the spot. We don't know what he said, but the fact that she called him means that he gave her his phone number. It also means she had the wrong impression of the situation. I think you can hold him accountable for that, because his motive was to have sex and then ignore her. (yet he gave her his number) Why would you give someone your number when your intention is to never speak with them again? Right, because his intention was to deceive. Sorry to double post, but Woggle's first post clearly states that he got her number, and then later met up with her at the hotel. How do you know that he didn't get her number solely for the purpose for arranging the later meeting at the hotel? Why are you so sure that they discussed having a "future" beyond that night?
Nexus One Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Even if she still went along with it? Even if she still sleeps with him? That makes the outcome just less painful for HER, but his intention still was to deceive. The next woman he sleeps with and does that to might not see it through and get burned. His motivation and intention to do harm then does cause suffering in the case the woman doesn't see it through. Besides, what is so hard about just saying you want an ONS and nothing more to the person you want to sleep with? Why would there be a need to avoid saying that? Why keep silent regarding that? Or worse, why deceive? Unless of course you have the intention to do harm OR you have the intention to deceive for your own gain. Just so I'm clear, (because I'm getting confused about what you're so angry about), what exactly is the nature of his deception again? He slept with her with the intention of f*cking her once. He did that, because like Woggle said, he wanted to treat women differently from now on, since his ex cheated on him. He also mentioned he likes the power he now has. He gave her his phone number, while he had NO INTENTION of ever contacting her again after that night. That's leading someone on. What if she is texting him because she wants to have casual sex again and they never discussed having a relationship? Did he still "deceive" her, or is he then merely being impolite? Depends on what he told her. If he was straight with her, yet gave her his phone number, then he's being impolite. If he wasn't straight with her and gave her his number, then the intention seems to be to deceive. From what Woggle has been saying, it seems like his friend had/has the intention to make other women pay for what his ex did to him, all the while he takes advantage of them and deceives them. And if he says he likes that power, well then the picture does kind of seems to form into a particular direction. The reason I got pissed was that people seemed to want to shift the blame from violator to victim, seemed to defend the violator and seemed to want to deny there was a victim, regardless of the motivation of the guy, regardless of his intention, regardless of the outcome. THAT right there in that previous paragraph I wrote, is the very hallmark of a sociopath. The amount of people talking like that in this thread just struck a minor nerve. I really can't stand injustice and sociopaths are the very embodiment of injustice, because they tend to inflict suffering on others, but are incapable of registering that the person they are hurting is suffering so they keep doing it over and over again. I'm not surprised that many people think like that, don't get me wrong, I know the way of the world, but I just felt like saying something about it. In fact, Woggle's friend probably knows he was wrong, but that's not my beef. My beef is when certain people start denying altogether that something wrong was done. For the purpose of illustrating my point I'll give an exaggerated and blunt anecdote, because I don't know how else to convey it when the point isn't already clear by now: When you see a guy pretending to be a plumber stepping into someone's house, and then see him stabbing the homeowner with a knife and then say: 1. There is no victim. 2. He shouldn't have left his door open, that's just naive/stupid. The homeowner is at fault for having had the weakness of mind to leave his door open. 3. There is no deception. 4. The fact that the homeowner allowed the plumber in was consensual. (completely ignoring the fact that the guy was pretending to be a plumber) Then there's something wrong with the way your brain is wired. If anyone doesn't understand it after this exaggerated example, then I don't know what will.
Recommended Posts