Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 This is your problem why? Because you thought that you were in there, and you weren't You got milked for some attention/validation. It happens. Move on, next girl. 3
Author FastHands Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 Funny because I would have said it's more common among men, particularly married men ha ha yeah of heard of this too. This is the opposite. Man knows girl is married but insists. I told a relative to tell the dude that she has 5 kids and if he wants to see her then he has to marry him first. LOL! That drove the guy away like a flash.
Author FastHands Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 I don't know if I thought I was in, But like I said some other guys can take this very personally or some people care for the safety of a woman. Edit above post meant was to marry her first. Not him. It wont let me edit
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 I don't know if I thought I was in, But like I said some other guys can take this very personally or some people care for the safety of a woman. Edit above post meant was to marry her first. Not him. It wont let me edit I'm sure that her safety is your main concern. lol 3
Michelle ma Belle Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 To be honest, if a guy is trying to get with a girl who's already taken who's flirting aggressively with him, that makes them both guilty and questionable characters in my book. It takes two to tango. 2
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 To be honest, if a guy is trying to get with a girl who's already taken who's flirting aggressively with him, that makes them both guilty and questionable characters in my book. It takes two to tango. Personally, I've never accepted that. The single person has no responsibilities. The person who is taken does. So you are saying that the guy owes her boyfriend the same responsibilities as she does? That simply isn't the case to any reasonable minded person. 1
Michelle ma Belle Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Personally, I've never accepted that. The single person has no responsibilities. The person who is taken does. So you are saying that the guy owes her boyfriend the same responsibilities as she does? That simply isn't the case to any reasonable minded person. A single person has no responsibility?? So you think it's perfectly acceptable and even virtuous for a single man to move in on a woman who is already in a relationship? Any man (or women) with an ounce of integrity would never stoop to that level and would see the flirting for what it was and therefore not engage accordingly. That is the point I'm making. She is clearly in the wrong for pushing boundaries with other men but he who acts on it despite his awareness of the situation is equally as guilty. He ain't no boy scout. 2
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 A single person has no responsibility?? So you think it's perfectly acceptable and even virtuous for a single man to move in on a woman who is already in a relationship? Any man (or women) with an ounce of integrity would never stoop to that level and would see the flirting for what it was and therefore not engage accordingly. That is the point I'm making. She is clearly in the wrong for pushing boundaries with other men but he who acts on it despite his awareness of the situation is equally as guilty. He's not "equally as guilty", because there is no betrayal involved from his side. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. 1
elaine567 Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 He's not "equally as guilty", because there is no betrayal involved from his side. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Ah the famous "out. "SHE is the one who is cheating, I am just the "innocent" party who is sleeping with another man's wife/gf..." 2
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Ah the famous "out. "SHE is the one who is cheating, I am just the "innocent" party who is sleeping with another man's wife/gf..." No. The "famous out" is the white-knight out. You must have missed it a few messages back: "I was only worried about her safety!" I don't need an "out". I'm quite straight-forward. If I don't know the guy, he isn't any sort of friend, or there are no direct comebacks, then I often don't give much of a crap. Women have placeholders and orbiters. So what? Still haven't ever cheated on anyone that I've been exclusive with. They are two completely different things. You are combining them as yet another way to absolve a woman of any sort of responsibility for anything You ain't talking to the average idiot here. I've hit on hundreds of women, and know the behviours lol. When I was cheated on, who do you think I placed the responsibility with? The random idiot that I'd never met, or the girl that I'd been with for several months? Just can't follow your line of thought at all. And that normally means that it isn't based in sense. 1
central Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 He's not "equally as guilty", because there is no betrayal involved from his side. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Not as culpable, I'd agree, but still ethically wrong. My view is that knowingly doing anything that could harm another is wrong. The person in a relationship has a greater level of responsibility as they can cause greater harm to their partner. By aiding this, the single person is an accessory to harm (just as the getaway driver is tried as an accessory to robbery or murder, even though they did not commit the crime in question), so they are at fault. 4
thefooloftheyear Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) Funny because I would have said it's more common among men, particularly married men I won't dispute what you say...I am sure it's happening... I guess the only thing I have noticed is that it can often be seen as "cute' or "playful", when women flirt, or make sexually charged comments to men..(middle aged women go nuts with this stuff, btw:p)...So it goes pretty much with the flow and no one(well, except perhaps that woman's SO), gets their undies in a knot...I have had comments thrown at me over the years, esp now that I am a bit older...that I would never dream of even thinking of saying the equivalent to women I barely know..heck, I wouldn't say to women I know either...Real salty stuff... Guys generally need to be careful, as it can be seen as aggressive, abhorrent, or even threatening...So it does seem to be less common, in my own life experience.. TFY Edited September 1, 2017 by thefooloftheyear
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Not as culpable, I'd agree, but still ethically wrong. My view is that knowingly doing anything that could harm another is wrong. The person in a relationship has a greater level of responsibility as they can cause greater harm to their partner. By aiding this, the single person is an accessory to harm (just as the getaway driver is tried as an accessory to robbery or murder, even though they did not commit the crime in question), so they are at fault. For every attractive ex-girlfriend that I've had, there were probably several guys each time that were left upset. Women have orbiters, suitors, and place holders. That's life. In order to adhere to your ideology, I would have to become a Buddhist monk Nope, this is simple ideological sophistry that doesn't meet the rigours met in the field.
Author FastHands Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 I'm sure that her safety is your main concern. lol I know everyone's safety is of concern. I'm trying to figure why she isn't behaving more moderately. I've known some guys don't give a damn if she has a bf or married. Guys will pickup on her and if both know how to hide it-It goes on who knows how long. On The Who's the blame aspect-she's married she should know better. He should not get involved with a married women, where's his self control? Truth is both are the blame, because all it took is one person to stop it. There's good and wrong but some people view the definitions differently to their convenience.
knabe Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Personally, I've never accepted that. The single person has no responsibilities. The person who is taken does. So you are saying that the guy owes her boyfriend the same responsibilities as she does? That simply isn't the case to any reasonable minded person. However, a moral person wouldn't do it. 3
Timshel Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 He's not "equally as guilty", because there is no betrayal involved from his side. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Some people think this way, others don't. People who get in between a marriage or relationship without knowing it's ok with the other person are brash, imo....taking chances. A person has integrity, or not. Anyway, OP is at work. Taking up figure skating would be more prudent than worrying over flirtation from a colleague. 2
Miss Spider Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 I really never considered giving a compliment flirting. Suppose it can be defined that way, but I give compliments to children and the elderly. I do it because it makes people feel good and I like to make people feel good. What I've been noticing is a lot of men reading too much into friendliness or courtesy and construing it as them wanting the D. I don't know if its ego, projection, or what, but there is really nothing a woman can do, barring keep her head down to make sure she doesn't accidentally glance in his direction, that can avoid this. 2
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 However, a moral person wouldn't do it. People are motivated by self-interest, needs being met - not morals. People adapt their morals around their self-interest. As men especially, it's very wise to understand this and play off of it. As good old Dostoevsky wrote in "crime and punishment", get comfortable in the role of villain... allowing women to place all of the responsibility and blame on you I make a rational argument here just for some fun. It is what it is.
No_Go Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 People adapt their morals around their self-interest. If morals adapt based on (self) interest - we're talking about lack of morals. For me personally (moral) rules govern (self) interest, in the rare cases the relationship reverses I have huge guilt trips much more severe than any external punishment. I always wonder how people even manage to avoid that... 1
central Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 For every attractive ex-girlfriend that I've had, there were probably several guys each time that were left upset. Women have orbiters, suitors, and place holders. That's life. In order to adhere to your ideology, I would have to become a Buddhist monk Nope, this is simple ideological sophistry that doesn't meet the rigours met in the field. It doesn't require the principles of a Buddhist monk (however, I do follow Buddhist philosophy, and my FIL is a Buddhist monk!). There are plenty of unattached people who can ethically date. Or those in non-exclusive relationships. If someone is in a committed relationship, they have a responsibility to their partner. While I don't have such a commitment, I do think I should avoid helping to undermine their relationship. If they aren't happy, they can exit first. Now, there may be some limited exceptions, but this is a fair concept to live by most of the time. There is also some truth to the saying that if they'll cheat with you, they'll cheat on you. And if you help them do that, then they should expect that you will "help" someone else do that, even if you're supposed to be exclusive with them. Dishonesty and lack of integrity tend to propagate. Better to act honorably, IMO. 2
Bastile Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 People adapt their morals around their self-interest. If morals adapt based on (self) interest - we're talking about lack of morals. For me personally (moral) rules govern (self) interest, in the rare cases the relationship reverses I have huge guilt trips much more severe than any external punishment. I always wonder how people even manage to avoid that... He will balance the need to fit in/please others with the desire he has for this woman, and act accordingly. It doesn't require the principles of a Buddhist monk (however, I do follow Buddhist philosophy, and my FIL is a Buddhist monk!). There are plenty of unattached people who can ethically date. Or those in non-exclusive relationships. If someone is in a committed relationship, they have a responsibility to their partner. While I don't have such a commitment, I do think I should avoid helping to undermine their relationship. If they aren't happy, they can exit first. Now, there may be some limited exceptions, but this is a fair concept to live by most of the time. There is also some truth to the saying that if they'll cheat with you, they'll cheat on you. And if you help them do that, then they should expect that you will "help" someone else do that, even if you're supposed to be exclusive with them. Dishonesty and lack of integrity tend to propagate. Better to act honorably, IMO. When someone is trying to influence your actions without any care for your own self-interest, the word for that is manipulation - not honour.
Recommended Posts