How bad?

[cygny]

Any woman considering joining up with this ménage à trois would have to think very carefully. The fact that the wife and mistress just about tolerate eachother does not automatically mean that either of them will tolerate another woman being brought into the picture. Woman #3 could find herself in the bad books of two quite powerful females, and Mr Mentor won't necessarily protect her from the consequences of that.

 

good point. but both the other women are removed and are not in the same field as the 3rd. they also are not so powerful and they both live in other cities.

[blind_otter]

good point. but both the other women are removed and are not in the same field as the 3rd. they also are not so powerful and they both live in other cities.

 

You keep externalizing this, like it's OK if they think it's OK. It's not ABOUT them. It's about the 3rd party and their feelings coming into the relationship.

 

What exactly is the point of starting out a relationship that is dead when it begins? There is no hope for anything further. It seems like a waste of time, and a haven for a woman who seeks emotionally unavailable men.

 

And the fact that both other women (which even sounds ridiculous when writing about it) live in other cities just makes it easier to rationalize.

[cygny]

Beautifully put, Otter.

 

Cygny, of course the idea of infidelity is infinitely more seductive when set against an elegant backdrop...and when all the players involved are smart, sexy, sophisticated individuals. These are exciting props, but I suspect the underlying emotions involved are the same as they are in every situation of this type. I guess the angst is probably just a bit more glamorous.

 

but the idea of infidelity is not seductive here. it is what is holding the 3rd woman back. what is seductive is the intellectual attraction she has towards the guy and the mentoring role. if it weren't for the other 2, she would have no problems whatsoever with it.

 

i'm just trying to figure out how exactly this would be wrong or bad. i can't put my finger on it. unless i just want to say ALL relationships outside of marriage are bad, full stop. and normally i would agree but i know real life is more complex than that.

[cygny]

You keep externalizing this, like it's OK if they think it's OK. It's not ABOUT them. It's about the 3rd party and their feelings coming into the relationship.

 

What exactly is the point of starting out a relationship that is dead when it begins? There is no hope for anything further. It seems like a waste of time, and a haven for a woman who seeks emotionally unavailable men.

 

And the fact that both other women (which even sounds ridiculous when writing about it) live in other cities just makes it easier to rationalize.

 

it's just like any fling for the third party except the mentoring role would be included.

i can't figure out if you are saying any relationship outside of marriage is wrong. is it that simple?

[blind_otter]

but the idea of infidelity is not seductive here. it is what is holding the 3rd woman back. what is seductive is the intellectual attraction she has towards the guy and the mentoring role. if it weren't for the other 2, she would have no problems whatsoever with it.

 

i'm just trying to figure out how exactly this would be wrong or bad. i can't put my finger on it. unless i just want to say ALL relationships outside of marriage are bad, full stop. and normally i would agree but i know real life is more complex than that.

 

I said it already. Cognitive dissonance is par for the course in western society. BC agreed. The only consequence would be a vague feeling of discontent or discomfort. And you seem to be in the process of rationalizing that away.

[bluechocolate]

are you saying that even though everyone is ok with it, that it is immoral simply because of the wedding vows?

 

Where did I say it was immoral? I didn't say that. And yes, prostitution was mentioned, by more than just me, and you don't know what my views about prostitution are either. I repeatedly said, I believe in every single post, that it is for HER to decide what HER morals are.

 

if you are going to be black and white then of course there is no room for grey.

 

I generally tend to be quite practical, especially in affairs of the heart. It has always worked well for me that way.

 

...but if so, then please come out and state that in your view, any extra relationship outside of a marital one is wrong.

 

Why? What would that accomplish?

 

I'm sorry if you think I'm being argumentative or something, because that is the tone I'm getting from you now, so maybe I've left that impression with you??

 

one more time,

 

It isn't immoral or cheap if she doesn't think & feel that way. Of course any of us can make a judgment call on this, but at the end of the day she is the one who lives with her conscious.

[Ladyjane14]

"YOU"?? where did i say this was about me?

 

Sorry hon. I didn't mean "you" literally. I have a tendancy toward using the second person form....that's all.

it's not a financial benefit, it's a creative benefit. there would be no direct correlation to money, because many of these projects are not paid for, rather they cost money, they are money-burners. it's more think-tank stuff. has a historical impact though. art history.

 

Benefitting by use of 'the cash box', whether financially or business professionally....is still "prostitution" in my book though.

[cygny]

are you saying that even though everyone is ok with it, that it is immoral simply because of the wedding vows?

 

Where did I say it was immoral? I didn't say that. And yes, prostitution was mentioned, by more than just me, and you don't know what my views about prostitution are either. I repeatedly said, I believe in every single post, that it is for HER to decide what HER morals are.

 

if you are going to be black and white then of course there is no room for grey.

 

I generally tend to be quite practical, especially in affairs of the heart. It has always worked well for me that way.

 

...but if so, then please come out and state that in your view, any extra relationship outside of a marital one is wrong.

 

Why? What would that accomplish?

 

I'm sorry if you think I'm being argumentative or something, because that is the tone I'm getting from you now, so maybe I've left that impression with you??

 

one more time,

 

It isn't immoral or cheap if she doesn't think & feel that way. Of course any of us can make a judgment call on this, but at the end of the day she is the one who lives with her conscious.

 

 

morals are not only private they are social.

that is why i'm trying to figure out the morality here.

and yes i thought you were discussing the morals and i don't recall any post you made that dealt with the practicalities.

so if you're going to discuss morals as a subtext to all your posts, why not just come out and state them?

[cygny]

Benefitting by use of 'the cash box', whether financially or business professionally....is still "prostitution" in my book though.

 

 

this has nothing to do with money in fact she won't make any and probably will lose money by devoting time to ideas rather than cash cows.

[blind_otter]

morals are not only private they are social.

that is why i'm trying to figure out the morality here.

and yes i thought you were discussing the morals and i don't recall any post you made that dealt with the practicalities.

so if you're going to discuss morals as a subtext to all your posts, why not just come out and state them?

 

How did you conclude that morals are social? There are socially approved moral values but you know as well as I that morality is a private matter, like religion.

 

Human beings have an amazing ability to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress.

[cygny]

How did you conclude that morals are social? There are socially approved moral values but you know as well as I that morality is a private matter, like religion.

 

Human beings have an amazing ability to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress.

 

morals are definitely social. most all of our morals are formed by the harm/benefit they have to society. especially infidelity.

it doesn't matter which ones we adopt personally. all of them have to do with social issues.

[blind_otter]

morals are definitely social. most all of our morals are formed by the harm/benefit they have to society. especially infidelity.

it doesn't matter which ones we adopt personally. all of them have to do with social issues.

 

That is totally fallacious, IMO. Whether I believe that abortion, for example, is moral or not has nothing to do with what is socially approved. Only herd animals think that way.

[loony]

Pushing all the glamourous sh*t aside, sophisticated Europeans still fart, albeit secretly. Hope I was able to put my point forward clearly enough.

[bluechocolate]

...and yes i thought you were discussing the morals and i don't recall any post you made that dealt with the practicalities.

What practicalities? If you're speaking about black & white, then I said that for me I tend to be quite practical, especially when it comes to affairs of the heart. For instance, in this situation I would conclude that for me there was just too much going on - marriage, mistress, working relationship, - and I would stay out of it.

 

so if you're going to discuss morals as a subtext to all your posts, why not just come out and state them?

 

Sorry, but I don't really even understand that question. Of course morals are a subtext in all of my posts, probably in all of my life too for that matter. This very topic is about morality in some form, is it not? No doubt you can plainly tell where I stand morally on this topic, but this isn't about me, or even you!

[blind_otter]

My grandmother was 3rd wife to my grandfather in Vietnam. I grew up believing that this was not a position of honor, but of shame. Shame because you aren't worth enough to be first wife to someone, to be put in a place of honor above all others. Third wife was, in my family, the whipping boy for first and second, and a sexual plaything at best.

[Ladyjane14]

What she would get out of it would be alot of valuable mentoring....

 

I guess I was thrown off by the "what she would get out of it..." comment. To me, that sounds like an exchange of sex for something in return, regardless of whatever attraction exists.

 

If that's not the case, then it's a simple matter between her and her conscience.

 

I can only speak for myself of course, but my conscience would burn a hole through me if I opted to engage in adultery. The MM's lack of fidelity and discretion would not affect my decision on that. I'd have to be true to my own beliefs.

[cygny]

That is totally fallacious, IMO. Whether I believe that abortion, for example, is moral or not has nothing to do with what is socially approved. Only herd animals think that way.

 

actually it does BO. the reason humans have a problem with abortion is because it devalues life and the secret fear behind that is that if we devalue any human life then society can make alot of cases for devalueing the lives of old people, retarded people etc. and then where do you draw the line. it is definitely a social issue.

 

you may think it has to do with absolutes and religious values and it may to a point in your mind but most religions try to construct values that safeguard humans as a group, and make values that can apply to all humans not just on the personal level.

 

why do you think adultery is wrong? because it is against a religious principle? because it contradicts a marriage vow made in a civil agreement (or religious ceremony--and do the two have different moral values?)? because it hurts other people like the wife/kids? because there may be deception involved? or is there some other aspect of it? that is what I am trying to determine.

 

I know that for me adultery is wrong because of the broken vow and the deceit involved, and how that hurts people who are committed and expecting their partner to be faithful. but that doesn't seem to be the case here. That's why I'm examining it.

[lindya]

I know that for me adultery is wrong because of the broken vow and the deceit involved, and how that hurts people who are committed and expecting their partner to be faithful. but that doesn't seem to be the case here. That's why I'm examining it.

 

It would be really hard to examine something like that, because you'll never see the true process that led to the present situation of these three people. You can look at a situation and see people who are cool with it, but that's only a tiny part of the story. What did they go through in order to be cool with it? What principles and dreams did they sacrifice along the way? Are they truly happy with things the way they are, or have they intellectualised and rationalised the situation sufficiently to accept it?

 

The difficulty with intellectualising and rationalising things too much is that sometimes you lose contact with your emotions....so whilst you can tell people, at the flick of a button, what you think about a particular state of affairs, it's much harder to tell them how you feel about it.

 

It may have been a long hard struggle for the women involved to reconcile themselves to this situation...and even if they genuinely do both have a philosophical attitude towards it, it could be a mistake to presume that there are any short cuts towards achieving that. The fact that they've somehow made it manageable doesn't automatically mean that a third party can step in and find it equally manageable.

[cygny]

It would be really hard to examine something like that, because you'll never see the true process that led to the present situation of these three people. You can look at a situation and see people who are cool with it, but that's only a tiny part of the story. What did they go through in order to be cool with it? What principles and dreams did they sacrifice along the way? Are they truly happy with things the way they are, or have they intellectualised and rationalised the situation sufficiently to accept it?

 

The difficulty with intellectualising and rationalising things too much is that sometimes you lose contact with your emotions....so whilst you can tell people, at the flick of a button, what you think about a particular state of affairs, it's much harder to tell them how you feel about it.

 

It may have been a long hard struggle for the women involved to reconcile themselves to this situation...and even if they genuinely do both have a philosophical attitude towards it, it could be a mistake to presume that there are any short cuts towards achieving that. The fact that they've somehow made it manageable doesn't automatically mean that a third party can step in and find it equally manageable.

 

they probably have rationalised it, in the sense that they decided what they had with this guy is better than not having the guy at all. but also that this guy is not capable of the ideal romantic monogamous relationship and can be very difficult to live with. he was likened to a plug that fits in many sockets by one of the women. i know the process may have been difficult and i'm sympathetic especially to the wife but this is where everyone has arrived so i'm wondering if the third person has to concern herself with the process because she was not part of all that pain or difficulty. she came after the fact. a long ways after.

 

the third person is probably not a third but one of many 'thirds'--she's not thinking long term or serious because she knows she could never be with a guy this compartmentalised like that. she's not in love. but it's not exploitive either. there's a genuine respect and attraction for him. and vice versa. she would like to get to know him better, though, because she thinks it would make her life 'richer' i guess, just like the other two. He would be able to give her something (mental) that other men would not be able to. that is the only reason she is even considering it, at all. He is, in that way, unique.

[lindya]

He would be able to give her something (mental) that other men would not be able to. that is the only reason she is even considering it, at all. He is, in that way, unique.

 

So how would she move on from that when the affair ended? If he's got an X factor that no other man has, does that mean that any subsequent relationship she has will require a certain element of "settling" on her part? Where does that leave her future Mr Eliza Doolittle?

 

The other thing to consider is what this man would want from the relationship. From the way you describe the situation, he's the one who holds all the power...and on that basis I would imagine that he'll want to dictate the terms of the relationship. So she'll be embroiled with him professionally, sexually and emotionally. I guarantee that this guy's ego will demand she invest some emotion into their liaison - even if he has no intention of investing any himself.

 

The only power she really has is that he hasn't slept with her yet - and I talk in terms of power balances here, because a situation like this would be rife with politics and power play. Is she certain she'd get what she's hoping for from him (in terms of mentoring, attention and career development) if she sleeps with him...or is there a chance that he might just move on to the next young hopeful careerist?

 

I appreciate that there are elements of the man that also make him attractive to your friend...but ultimately, and however you dress it up by referring to their shared passion for the field they work in, essentially she's contemplating using her sexuality to get professional attention from him that she might not otherwise get. Is she likely, at any point in the future, to feel tainted by the fact that she did that? If not, then she may as well go for it I guess. I'm not going to moralise about it, but I just think that sometimes people who get into these situations find out that they aren't quite as tough and hard-headed as they thought they were.

[Old Europe]

The idea that "the Europeans" have a different set of values and that the "wealthy and sophisticated" are all a bunch of lyin', cheatin', whorin' degenerates it laughable. I know many from this well-to-do group of continentals and no, they all do not have another "value system" which permits casual infidelities, despite what the (US) media would have you think of them, and I know several men who are and have been totally faithful to their wives---(and some Latins/Greeks in that mix!).

 

So let us just keep this to the tale of one designer rascal and his sad domestic life, rather than make it another...sigh...transatlantic debate...

 

Ciao, Bellessimmi.....!

[OldEurope]

Please...this idea that the Europeans, wealthy and sophisticated as well, are a bunch of lyin', whorin', cheatin' degenerates is over-the-top American media invention. I know many over here on the continent, well to do them all, who have been and remain totally faithful, and no, do not subscribe to another "value system" but to Christianity's values on the matter.

 

So let us just keep the tailor's tale here to one about a certain man's sad domestic life, rather than turning this into another....sigh.....transatlantic debate

 

Ciao Bellissimi!

[cygny]

Please...this idea that the Europeans, wealthy and sophisticated as well, are a bunch of lyin', whorin', cheatin' degenerates is over-the-top American media invention. I know many over here on the continent, well to do them all, who have been and remain totally faithful, and no, do not subscribe to another "value system" but to Christianity's values on the matter.

 

So let us just keep the tailor's tale here to one about a certain man's sad domestic life, rather than turning this into another....sigh.....transatlantic debate

 

Ciao Bellissimi!

 

really? wow i honestly didn't think so!

you in italy? i LOVE italy

 

ciao bellisim0

[quankanne]

What she would get out of it would be alot of valuable mentoring, i guess, as well as she is attracted to him.

 

not to mention possible exposure to raging sexually transmitted disease :sick: I find it hard to imagine that as careful as one tries to be, everytime a new sex partner is involved, the chances of contracting an STD rises dramatically. Now if Mr. Incredibly Talented and Rather Dishy Artistic Guy has a wife he's screwing and a mistress he screws, and still manages to enjoy other lovers, he's bringing into his relationships a germy dick, IMHO. That alone should ward off a sensible woman (or guy) from pursuing a psysical relationship with a player like the guy you're talking about.

 

why is adultery wrong?

 

pursuit of marriage implies that the couple are planning exclusivity in their sex life, that they're pledging themselves to only two people sexually involved in the relationship: the husband and the wife. Adultery breaks that agreement because it introduces extramarital sexual involvement in the relationship. Just because one turns a blind eye to it doesn't mean all is hunky-dory and one is happy about it – I'd gander to say that in most cases, there's feelings of betrayal involved because of that broken implicit agreement to screw only each other.

 

sounds like the man you've shared about is a horn dog, period, and isn't beyond grooming his conquests much in the way a successful pedophile grooms his victims. A sense of normalcy and trust is fostered, and the victims go willingly. Why a gifted young woman would want to waste what dregs of taste on an affair just because it *might* prove beneficial to her artistic career is beyond me, because she's selling herself WAY short.

[blind_otter]

actually it does BO. the reason humans have a problem with abortion is because it devalues life and the secret fear behind that is that if we devalue any human life then society can make alot of cases for devalueing the lives of old people, retarded people etc. and then where do you draw the line. it is definitely a social issue.

 

That's assumption, on your part. My feelings come from personal experience, because I've carried babies (unfortunately I've had no live births) -- for me, and me alone, I couldn't because I've felt a separate life inside me and I couldn't kill it.

 

why do you think adultery is wrong? because it is against a religious principle? because it contradicts a marriage vow made in a civil agreement (or religious ceremony--and do the two have different moral values?)? because it hurts other people like the wife/kids? because there may be deception involved? or is there some other aspect of it? that is what I am trying to determine.

 

I believe it's wrong because I engaged in adultery myself and from my own experience, I don't think it's right to involve yourself in someone else's relationship. And IME cheating involves all parties, not separate couples that share one man/woman. It makes life complicated where, by choice and restraint, it doesn't have to be. Maybe not for the people already established in that mess, but for the person introducing herself to that lifestyle.

 

Anyone can have a mentor, get enrichment from a non sexual interaction. I learned oodles from my mentor at the forensic mental hospital. Would I f*** him? Hell no.