"Negotiated Infidelity" I call "bullshit."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/03/negotiated.infidelity/index.html

This was sent to me by, of all people, my shrink (methinks I need a new shrink??)

I’m not sure what to think. Mostly, I think Ms. “Sugarbabe” is full of shit. It’s the same old moldy argument: men can’t help themselves and we women must be understanding and forgiving. Ms. Sugarbabe is a whore, pure and simple. A hetaera is still a whore, albeit a smart one.

Negotiate this: if you cheat on me, I will excise your balls through your ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon.

As if my man would be OK with me having an occasional quickie with the Rude Pundit…as long as I didn’t spoon with him. Yeah, I thought not.

What I mean is, if you and your partner decide that fucking around is OK, that’s fine. That’s between you. But don’t hand me this crap that men somehow “require” multiple partners in order to be fulfilled and that women have to figure out a way to live with that fact. That is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And, if you are such a fucking narcissist that you feel entitled to fuck whoever you feel like fucking, then you shouldn’t be in a relationship with a person who doesn’t feel the same way you do. And you should expect no quarter if such is the case. Don’t come crying to me when your neglected and cheated-on partner turns the tables on you. Or kicks your ass to the curb. Again, if you both agree, all well and good. No harm, no foul.

Monogamy, infidelity, cheating: these are all choices. We are not bound by our biology to do one or the other. Anybody who says otherwise is selling something—in this case, books.

I choose to be faithful to my partner. Fidelity is important to both of us. We have cheated, and we have been cheated upon. Therefore, I believe we are uniquely qualified to make that choice. While it is true that I at times may be attracted to another man (in either an abstract or concrete way), I have the power to say “no.” And I will say “no.” I promise you that. His feelings and trust are far more important to me than an ego massage.

Discuss?

because you'll never get near me again without one as long as you live."

Whether or not to stay with a cheater is a complex decision and should not be second guessed by outsiders, especially when there are children. Protecting one's health should be paramount, though.

You always say exactly what I'm thinking.

and agree....

I don't like cheating, and I agree with the OP that it is a choice, not a biological function. But I also agree with you that choosing to stay or not is nobody else's business. I do hope that those who do choose to stay with someone who previously cheated on them upon learning of the cheating take precaution.

So monogamy is very important to you. Good for you. But anyone else who feels differently is a "whore?" Very "Madonna" of you if you catch my drift.

I'm just calling her on it. If you wish to trade sexual services for material favors, I couldn't care. Hetaerae made a good living. I simply choose not to. I'm not judging her for her choices. I simply have a problem with her ridiculous and specious justification for them.

Or do you merely prefer an alternative label for the "world's oldest profession" ?

Isn't the close minded bit saying that all men require multiple sexual partners...?

The OP is based on solid thinking. And it's far, far from "close-minded."

:P

certainly bullshit.

I think you've summed it up very nicely...

Ask him if he feels threatened by me. I don't even own a grapefruit spoon.

it is good to be clear with your feelings :rofl:

I agree with your message big time :applause:

but so damn funny

and boo when men do, but shouldn't we be disgusted with violence, no matter who is threatening it?

It's a joke, son.

I don't even kill spiders.

The subtext of that comment (obviously lost on those short on a sense of humor), is that infidelity (having sex with, or a romantic involvement with, another individual) is not acceptable to me.

Pardon me for having a little fun with it.

Men are putting themselves down with this excuse. They are equating their behavior to mere animals (and, in many cases, less than some animals who have no difficulty mating for life).

Men have a brain, right? Then if they are in a relationship in which the woman finds infidelity to be a deal-breaker, then they have the choice to either abide by her wishes or find a new "sugarbabe." They are not bound by any biology they cannot control.

I'm with you: and, metaphorically speaking, I DID excise my ex-husband's balls through his ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon. In other words, I got the house, the car, full custody and alimony for a year (I was a stay-at-home Mom at the time) because I filed for a FAULT divorce I knew I could prove in a heartbeat.

I'm in my second marriage and we also choose to be faithful to one another. It was one of the first things we talked about when we became exclusive. I told him how my ex's behavior had made me feel and that I would not tolerate cheating.

I couldn't get through the story without vomiting, but I have to ask: does she get to sleep around, too?

buying into this and feeding the same bullshit. now they may say.... it is biological, spreading seed, but they can control it.

saying the same thing and as a society and cultural, we are creating this as a reality, when it isnt.

:)

My reality is that people can control themselves short of addiction (and yes, there are those who are addicted to sex, but that's a different matter than a romp in the hay with someone other than your spouse because you just "feel like it.")

"but I have to ask: does she get to sleep around, too?"

And with the weirdest rules ya ever heard. He's not allowed to "spoon" or to "spend the night" what ever that means. She can as "long as she comes home at the end". Whatever.

God, what passes for "news" these days is disturbing.

This should be in the Enquirer, not on the CNN site.

to normalize this thinking. they have been working hard at creating these scenerios over the last couple years. i gotta wonder why

monads focused on themselves.

broken homes = dual households = more consumption = more profits.

people without family solidarity = malleable, manipulable, easy to destroy, unable to challenge authority coherently

A whole house full of people sharing food, appliances and other things.

that is a really good point. interesting. thanks for the perspective.

said rules, as stupid as her personal rules are.

can fuck, but no spooning.

then all the man is thinking about is... man, i just gotta spoon.

Women apparently want/need "intimacy;" whereas men just want to fuck.

My man loves cuddling (almost) more than I do--with or without sex. We fall asleep in each other's arms just about every night.

Yes, I know exactly how lucky I am.

i get claustrophobic. hubby the cuddler. i am not. i can only do so long before, get off...

and the emotional connection to sex given to women could be explained how we arent suppose to want sex without emotional comment and is a conditioned reaction because for me

sex often is just sex. i dont put a whole lot of emotional energy into getting it, even with hubby. why i dont say.... making love. wtf is that, lol

The evo psych people will claim that the female is hard-wired to form the emotional bond to entice the male to stick around and bring home the woolly mammoth while she rears the young.

And sometimes fucking is just fucking, even in a committed relationship.

during time of heat and beta male takes care of baby and gets no sex, lol lol

ah ha

i hate these fools telling me who i am. i am tired of the fools using this shit to behave however they want. i am fed up with the effort to makes this culturally a norm. and people demanding i take it seriously or i am anti science

do you have any idea how many women I've met in my life who really just wanted to fuck and nothing else?

so sick of the sexist stereo typing. Like men are not romantic? Last time I checked, "Cyrano De Bergerac" was written by a man.

males won

I mean, think about various "positions" and then tell me when we have finished and are just "spooning"?

She is also "allowed" to "spoon" because her partner knows it's important to her. However, she's not "allowed" to wear gifts of clothing/jewelry he's given her when she's with other men.

Fine for them. I ain't in the judging business, fortunately.

But with or without the political angle, I agree with you. "Negotiated Infidelity" sounds like bullshit indeed.

but it was not negotiated...at all...but even now I would take them back if they would just stop spooning!

I have friends that are swingers. I couldn't do that if my life depended on it - I'm a freak but I'm a intensely monogamous freak.

as an absolute fact. they had done the same with women thru out history, telling us men NEED their mistresses adn women were suppose to be ok, and not feel bad, and accept.

same old garbage

more offenseive coming from a woman. a woman paid for by cheating men. a woman that blamed the wives and giving a pass to the men cheating

But that's just me. I don't do it and I've seen it turn out bad with even the most even keeled swingers.

Whether it's negotiated or surreptitious. I at least give the swingers cred for honesty - Holly Hill is a swinger.

Women can and do cheat - it's easier for them as well.

swinging life is not as fulfilling as some may like to think. women cheat almost as much as men. they hide it much better than men, so may be right there with men.

it is not a gender thing

it is a character thing

and cheating is a small group of people, far from the majority, in either gender.

16-17% for women. 21% for men

I don't doubt that your numbers are at least close to reality - it seems weird because of the circles I run in....

Swinging and polyamory are two very different concepts. The former involves an agreement to never have serious friendships with people you fuck outside of your primary relationship. The latter insists that you should only fuck friends.

So there's no 'fidelity' to negotiate. Like the swinging this works much better for women than men.

Swingers have strict rules about pursuing ongoing friendships with people outside the group. They do this specifically to protect their primary relationships. IOW, don't make friends with outsiders you have sex with.

Polyamory requires friendship as a precondition for sex. IOW, have sex outside your primary relationship only with friends.

Also, the male-female dynamic for swingers is a lot different than you would think. True, men generally pressure their wives into trying it. But for newbies, the wives usually have more fun than they thought they would, and the husbands much less fun.

This is because new men face intense scrutiny from the old hands, who watch very carefully to see that the newcomer abides by the group norm of avoiding ongoing harassment of women who turn them down. They do this because they realize that if women feel unsafe, the party's over. New men get aggressive stares, and new women are queens for a day. (This might account for the extremely unusual experience of feeling much less safe walking a block from the car to the party house fully clothed than completely starkers among a bunch of total strangers.)

We gave up on it after a few tries, though, deciding that we preferred sex with friends. Also, I found the blatant biphobia hard to tolerate, even though it was directed entirely at men.

I was deeply involved in the local fetish scene for many years. I worked for the biggest event producer on the East coast. I don't claim to be an authority on swinging but I am intimately familiar with it as there is a big crossover in the fetish/swinger cultures - in fact it was often a struggle to keep the invitation only (no holds barred) events from becoming swinger parties. The 'regular' events were basically fashion shows and swingers used them as meet ups.

We are saying the same thing from somewhat different viewpoints. I am not into swinging or polyamory, but I did get paid to ensure a safe and consensual environment for our guests and there were plenty of swingers.

The agreement between him and her, negotiated beforehand, was that sexual fidelity wasn't assumed. They were very modern and enlightened. I worked with her, and listened to her spiel about how they had worked it all out. I thought to myself, "This is not a recipe for a long-term relationship. Sooner or later, one of them is going to be getting more on the side than the other, and natural human feelings are going to mess this up, no matter how they justify it intellectually." I was right.

engaging in side relationships could have the apparently unexpected result of falling in love with someone else.

There are reasons for monogamy.

Only difference is, the lame-ass "I'm a man, I can't help it" bullshit comes out after he gets caught.

I think it's better to know of such an attitude upfront.

(The women I've known tend to just end one or both of the relationships after getting caught.)

And how did the "injured" party react?

The guy could spend hours working on something while the woman could have the whole bar lined up to 'run a train'. Any guy that thinks he's getting a sweet deal in this is a chump.

Couples come together and split up for every reason under the sun.

No one has all the answers and there are never guarantees.

I respect all people who are trying to find a way to make it work and if it works for them, hooray.

If not, boo hoo.

For indeed, there are about a skabillion reasons couples split up. Tossing one more reason into the mix, however, seems foolish.

:evilgrin:

Too bad, I'm in a committed, loving relationship. I don't blame you though, I can see why you dig me.

Double :evilgrin:

I'll get over it in time...

Better say "yes," or I'm not getting on the plane.

grapefruit spoon."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

GREAT T-shirt!!!!!!!!!

That said, when you make a promise to another human being, either you keep it or you are opening yourself up to what you ask for. People in our lives can be either an asset, or a liability. When you break a promise, you lie... when you lie, you are a liability. It takes too much effort to worry about when and where the next lie will occur.

I also agree with the poster up-thread who says that it's an insult to men to say they cannot help themselves, that this animal drive to further the seed is more powerful than their will. Fertilizer.

they have no control, they arent capable.... and then they call women the weaker gender.

there are men that promote these comments and giggle. and i think, geeez, cant you see how insulting you are to your own gender.

i would never give that to a man.

We have all kinds of biological drives but acting upon them whenever and wherever we want without regard to others is not conducive to a civilized society. I don't understand why The Almighty Male Libido gets such a free pass and we're supposed to be "understanding" when a guy acts like a selfish asshole while embracing a double standard for ourselves.

Tremendous amount of power, she has.

And my hot hand in his wallet. Let's see...those naughty little weekends with the Dutch lady turned out to be pretty damned expensive.

Like I said, consenting adults and all that. Grown up relationships tend to require a tremendous amount of honesty and open communication. By the time you get to "cheating", that's out the window, IMHO.

But that said, I respect that not everyone thinks monogamy is the ideal. Different people live different lives. But I think that any real relationship requires openness about the ground rules and expectations beforehand.

Alas, you shall never feel the prick of my grapefruit spoon on your bare skin...

seems to take delight in torture and domestic violence.

I am a domestic violence survivor. I realize that excuses nothing, but I had hoped that my silly hyperbole would not be taken seriously by anyone.

I apologize to anyone offended by my satirical threat of aural orchidectomy.

I totally agree and don't think you were out of line at all!

That's why I have some respect for Jenny Sanford. None of this standing-by-your-man crap.

Seriously, Warren, was there some point to that comment or were you just trying to be cute?

from someone calling themselves "sugarbabe" (sounds like a Mel Gibson insult, it does) ... deserves whatever they get.

As for "cute", hey, that's in the eye of the beholder.

That my commentary was about one stupid article on a website and not the (much) larger cultural context?

Really?

but you'll have to find someone else in the thread to play the role of big bad Patriarchy-enabler. I'm just not in the mood, today. :shrug:

it's biological, I guess. :rofl:

...it is totally possible to negotiate mutually beneficial non-traditional relationship boundaries that include other partners, and keep -those- promises.

I'm saying this as someone who's had two partners - one primary and very vanilla and mushy, one secondary and very, very kinky - for four years now. It's challenging, to be sure, but all three of us feel like we're made for this sort of thing, and it's been very rewarding.

You can embrace a live-and-let-live philosophy without handing out bullshit gender stereotypes like this Sugarbabe is doing.

she's a woman, obviously. Her friend has cheated multiple times on her husband, also a woman, so I'm sure all this infidelity is nothing but guys and that promoting open marriages would only benefit men-right? -Plenty of women are doing the same exact thing and to suggest otherwise is nothing but sexism. Maybe, just maybe if couples were honest and open with each other about their desires instead of hiding them and feeling ashamed and lying to each other, they would be happier people.

But the Evo Psychers pretend that cheating women don't exist, or that there's something seriously wrong with them, unlike cheating men who are just acting on their natural sexual urges.

Nailed it into the plank with a stiletto heel. :hi:

...and at some point, opponents of evolutionary psychology are going to realize that, while they went in fighting against attempts to find scientific justification for right-wing BS, they've ended up fighting against a fully fledged scientific discipline that isn't right-wingity at all.

Not the scientific discipline itself.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I don't get the concept of voting on the way people conduct their personal lives.

If that is the way they roll, it is on them. I might hate it for myself and even have some revulsion at an arrangement but if I don't have to participate and everyone is of age and comparatively sound judgment my role as an outsider is completed.

I'll save my moral outrage or whatever for children and animals being abused and incapable of consent.

I figure if all the parties at the table weren't getting at least what they could tolerate from a negotiation that they'd walk their happy ass from the table.

I know it isn't just men either that might introduce such an idea since I know women that certainly felt that was the only way to go and various configurations of lesbians hanging out too.

That's from someone that prescribes to monogamy personally, just because I'm not happy with what seems like a circus doesn't mean that others aren't going to be happy any other way.

She can fuck whomever she likes under whatever conditions. None of my business.

Just do me a favor and leave out the flimsy "justification" for your behavior. You want to fuck? Fine. Fuck your little heart out. But don't pretend that you have no choice in the matter, because you most certainly do.

All I know is it isn't what I want right now or maybe ever. I know that I can't be bothered with the drama and divided loyalties. Others may feel differently.

I suppose different things work for different people, but I wouldn't want women to think there's something wrong with them if they DON'T accept infidelity, negotiated or not.

The main thing I bristled at was this old thing:



Boys will be boys, girls will be sluts. The "norm" is supposedly that women are naturally monogamous and need intimacy, whereas men are naturally horny (too horny to control themselves) and just need sex. A lustful woman or a devoted man are somehow outside the norm, then. It'd be progress just to throw out that old canard.

:applause:

(FWIW, in my FAITHFUL relationship, I"m the lustful woman and he's the devoted man. He's also a damn lucky man because all I got, I gives to him. :evilgrin: )

Intimacy is nice, too, but don't try to make me be monogamous. It's what we young moderns call a "deal-breaker."

Gender generalizations are silly...especially when it involves sexuality which, in my opinion, is never a black and white issue. I know men and women who are monogamous and I know men and women who are not. For the few couples I know who are in open relationships, most of them have been together for over 10 years and their lifestyle works for them.

Things go bad when people who are in a relationship don't discuss these issues before getting more serious. The one divorce couple I know included a monogamous husband and a non-monogamous wife. She wrongfully assumed he would be able to live the lifestyle she wanted based on bullshit generalizations about men "requiring" or wanting multiple partners. She was very wrong and they were both very unhappy.

Sexual compatibility is more important than many people want to realize. It's not the number one issue, but it's up there and it should be taken more seriously.

She makes an intelligent and reasoned case for polyamory among consenting and like-minded adults. But she is 100% up-front about it: it's a choice, and it's not for everyone. The longest chapter in the book is devoted to dismantling jealousy in the context of multiple partners and relationships. It doesn't sound easy, and I wonder how devotees of the lifestyle manage it, and how successfully.

I don't think many people are enlightened enough to handle that level of emotional responsibility.

I think jealousy, in the abstract, is a good and healthy thing. It shows your partner you love them.

And, when I say jealousy, I don't mean the aggressive "catch you with another and I'll kill you" or "keep you in the house and away from the world" kind, either. I mean the flirtatious "you may see a hottie and get an appetite, but you'll get a better dinner at home" type. You know, the little twinge your heart gets when you even think of the person you love with someone else.

Why would we even want to dismantle a small tweak in our systems that shows our partners we would really be hurt if they cheated because we love them very much?

(And, again, I reiterate, I'm not speaking of psychotic jealousy. Unhealthy jealousy stems from fear, insecurity, deception, or covetousness, while a healthy jealousy is a oh-so-very human need to maintain your relationships. No one in a monogamous relationship would idly sit by while a person tries to seduce his/her spouse or even if someone would try to deceive your child.)

My partner and I can flirt with others and tease each other about it...because we know who's going home with whom.

Because my man trusts me, I believe that I have an emotional responsibility to him to eschew physical and emotional entanglements with others, beyond the mildest of flirtations that sometimes add a little spice to life. Flirting is fun, and can be harmless.

My partner is eminently desirable (to me, anyway), and the fact that women enjoy his company also pleases me. Why would I want to subdue his natural inclination to be warm and friendly? Like I said, it's a trust thing. I KNOW he would never abuse my trust. If he did, then we'd be having a Major Discussion.

But it's taken me nearly five decades to get to this point. It ain't easy, and I've made an awful lot of mistakes along the way.

It's called "compersion."

To be frank, I find jealousy creepy. Unless I negotiate to be my partner's possession in a kinky Owner/slave relationship (which, hey! I just might do), I do not belong to anyone, nor does anyone belong to me. Human beings are not objects.

Obviously, nonmonogamy isn't for everyone. One of the people it is "for," though, is -me-. I've known as much since I was a kid.

All of this angry and violent rhetoric about enforcing monogamy is really pretty scary.

Also, who said, just because they're men, that the argument that men often aren't correctly emotionally configured for monogamy shouldn't get a fair hearing? I think it's often true, and such men deserve nonmonogamous relationships where they can get their needs met.

Relationships are complicated; every relationship should be tailored to the people in it, what they want/need out of the relationship, where they are in their lives, etc. If all relationships were so tailored (it'll never happen, I know), many relationships would be monogamous - and many wouldn't.

You sound like an extraordinarily tolerant and enlightened specimen.

I would never advocate enforcing monogamy any more than I would advocate enforcing ANY sexual practice.

Maybe some men by virtue of biology or upbringing aren't correctly configured for monogamy. You're smart enough to recognize that in yourself and to have sought and found the appropriate partners with which to fulfill yourself. Bravo.

But...folks gotta be on the same page if they're in a relationship. Parity, people! Parity!

I'm not a man, though. That's my secondary partner's job, yanno, the whole "being male" bizness. :D

And, um, thank you. :) Many people just go nutballs over the idea and won't give it a fair hearing.

and welcome.

i dont think many on du is going to criticize any individuals choices in personal life. i think that is one of the very truly few things we will agree on du. i have enjoyed reading your posts

it is when we are lectured that this is who we are, all of us, and we might as well accept it, regardless who we are and what we believe, .... that there are arguments.

enjoy du

...of all kinds, though, including the idea that everyone is or should be monogamous.

Perhaps it's not anymore "enlightened" than monogamy is. Perhaps "enlightened" is just a word used to make followers feel they are superior in some strange way.

to paraphrase Heinlein, that heinous, misogynistic old libertarian (curse him!), we could love any and all who are just and true, had we time enough. File under "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

I would love to love everyone in both the concrete and abstract sense. I can't. I have limitations. I admire those with fewer limitations.

"To live outside the law you must be honest."

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I don't really consider what other people do to get their jollies my business. But I don't buy that monogomy is 'inherently' unnatural or natural. People make decisions, and when people are serious about their commitments and make them for the right reasons, I don't think they should be that hard to keep.

I do suspect a lot of the "I need to cheat" and difficulty staying in committed relationships happens in places where people get married too early, or under assorted pressures (like religious) and then wake up one day and feel like they're trapped.

What has us most ticked off is this worn-out idea that "men HAVE to have it on the side and CANNOT be faithful because of their biology." Or even that women "HAVE to have intimacy."

We don't want that canard rendered "normal," because it isn't.

Rather than solely exercises in "yay team" expressions of solidarity to a particular viewpoint or agenda.

Frankly, as per the article in the OP, I think someone wants to sell a book or get hits to her blog, and it's probably working.

As for biology, we'll just have to wait for the science to get better on that front.

Agreed, though, that we don't want to replace the bad old norm in relationships with another, "new" norm that's just as bad and actually even older (hence the marital rules laid out in the Bible).

Systems of enforced polyandry - in which men get to have lots of wives, concubines, perhaps a young male lover, etc., and the wives are all expected to be completely monogamous and faithful - are very old indeed, and are a product of patriarchy. Modern consensual, carefully negotiated nonmonogamous relationships, however, don't have to be (and often very much aren't) patriarchal.

Don't get me started on my theories of the ideal sexual configuration of societies in which the sexually mature and probably no longer interested in childbearing females get their pick of the hot and horny 18-year-old males, teaching them how to please a woman (several times a night!) and the older males gently (one would hope) initiate the young females, giving them a measure of security while not overtaxing them with sexual demands.

Yes, I'm being VERY general and overly simplistic, I know. Because my ideal society must also accommodate homosexuality and all forms of polyamorous relationships, to each according to his or her desire...it's just a fantasy framework.

Having said that...my lover and I are the same age. We love each other to bits and can't keep our hands off each other.

Don't forget the kinky people, though. What if people don't -want- to be gently initiated? :D

I'm just glad to see people rethinking the possibilities of love, sex and relationships.

I'm a vanilla gal myself, but I appreciate the value of a rough ride sometimes. It's all good.

We just need to figure out a really foolproof system for getting the right people together. And when everybody's too blissed out from fucking, peace and tranquility will blanket the earth.

I figure, if I fuck him morning noon and night he should be so tired if some sweet honey comes whispering in his ear, "Wanna play around?" his reaction would probably be, "Oh please, dear God in Heaven, noooooooo!!!"

:rofl:

"Most of Hill's "daddies" were wealthy married men who surprisingly often opted for conversation, she says. While entertaining with red wine and exotic food platters she'd prepare in her Sydney apartment, Hill learned that most of these men sought her attention because they simply weren't getting enough sex from their wives."

They were wealthy - obviously, at $1000/wk - and neglected by their wives. Whadaya expect?

If you don't want your partner to cheat, don't give your partner a reason to cheat.

Ya know, I've always held that it if a person does something wrong, it is their fault and their fault alone.

...for not having negotiated a relationship that meets all of their needsd.

Nice little twist on the old "blame the victim" theme.

There's cheating, and then there's cheating, and then there's cheating.

There's the man (insert photo of my ex husband here) who feels entitled to fuck anyone he pleases by virtue of the fact that he owns a penis, despite the fact that he was getting plenty of sex from his wife.

There's the woman (insert my photo here) who didn't realize until she'd fallen in love with another man that her relationship was emotionally sterile, and had been for years, despite the fact that they were having sex regularly.

There's the man (insert photo of my current man here) who was hounded into marrying the wrong woman by an unfortunate set of circumstances and could barely bring himself to have sex with her.

Is the cheated-on partner in any way to blame in any of these scenarios? Could the cheating partner have chosen a more honest and ethical course? I'll let you decide. I take full responsibility for my actions.

Your own examples - he's getting plenty of sex, yet the relationship is emotionally sterile. You think HE didn't know it was emotionally sterile and had been for years?

She said many were more interested in conversation than sex - sounds like the men were escaping emotionally unsatisfying relationships. Being wealthy (at $1000/wk that's a given) they knew that the likeliest end to an emotionally unsatisfying relationship is handing over 1/2 of everything he's spent years acquiring, and corollary to that is the wife was likely not working because HE was wealthy and she didn't need to. So he can fork over 50% of his stuff, or he can try to find comfort elsewhere.

Men can be just as driven by emotional needs as women. In fact, IMO, men are MORE driven by emotional needs because western society does not acknowledge men's emotional needs, nor are men trained to deal with them so those emotional needs wind up expressed physically - in the gathering of toys, and with affairs.

Maybe you should look at your own stereotyping.

and talk to sons about this. i tend to agree. all the bullshit we throw at boys, telling them to repress, repress, repress, quit acting like a girl, suck it up at all cost. i watched oldest son about 12 start repressing.

we talk about this in our house. how ultimately it makes men more emotionally vulnerable.

i agree

i see it in the men i know, that are dependent on me, to allow their emotional conversations cause they have no one else they can express with.

And I don't think you're wrong. There's a reason why "happy at home, no need to roam" is a truism.

However, the idea that one ought to remain in a fundamentally dishonest partnership for the sake of material stability is very unappealing to me. Let it be said that when my 2 relationships ended, I had to buy them out, and it cost me dearly. However, the cost of staying in the relationships was too great emotionally.

Easy for me to say. I don't presume to make choices for others, although I reserve the right to have opinions about them.

Who chooses the career move of selling sex to wealthy married men. She subsequently extrapolates her experience as a prostitute to unashamedly write an advice book telling women how to keep their men. Unexplained is why women would want to keep the kind of husband who'd pay $1000 of the family's money for her company.

I find that the definition of whore... on several levels.

I'm mostly bugged about her stereotypes. I think probably just about anyone could be tempted to be unfaithful given the proper circumstances, but for some (unlike the men in her acquaintance) the circumstances would have to be extraordinary indeed.

and you jump in and buy it blaming the wives?

bah hahahaha. you be a sucker.

Women who placed a high value on the income earning potential of a spouse have a lot of competition and, once they've won "the prize"... not a lot of options.

Women who see potential spouses as a commodity shouldn't be surprised when he feels the same way.

The author's experience is limited to exactly this kind of person.

as she does

It comes down to we are a society without shame, and while some might say shame, particularly where sexuality was concerned was oppressive... it certainly had some behavior modification potential. Moron masculinity and women who strive to be every bit as sexually obnoxious as their male counterparts don't help in this shame vacuum.

The woman who wrote the memoir sounds like she is more comfortable knowing that her significant other is not completely faithful than she is wondering about it. For a suspicious, jealous person, this type of understanding might work better than wondering. I'm not saying that it's OK to cheat on a spouse you've promised to be faithful to, but that in some circumstances, this type of open relationship might actually be healthier.

My problem with this is the canard that "men can't help themselves" and women must just learn to deal with this immutable fact.

My bullshit detector went off the charts on this one.

The author, who doesn't really seem to have any credentials in this area (personal experience in relationships can't be sufficient, no matter how many partners you've had), says men have to cheat; but the psychologist said it's a matter of personality:

Sugar Daddies negotiated anything, so, yes, it was cheating.

If you don't promise to be monogamous, then being nonmonogamous is not "infidelity."

maybe that is the only way she sees a man and has to work a relationship out in her head, .... so she doesnt have to wonder if it is happening to her. good point.

I, for one, do not think violence should be a part of a relationship. But obviously we differ.

So if your husband/lover/sig other whatnot caught you, would you accept cutting off an ear or a nose? Or is revenge for sexual disappointment just the mutilation and removal of sexual organs?

I guess. As if this is much better... :eyes:

women are so effective at doing it themselves by calling each other slut and whore.

You've been warned.

Now where's the emoticon where I get to swish my riding crop?

bah hahaha

as long as the c word is there. so funny

As if.

Did I really need to attach the humor/irony tag to that joke? The point is that for me, infidelity is a deal-breaker. I have no interest in mutilating anyone, genitally or otherwise.

Please buy yourself a sense of humor and send me the bill.

...if he found out she was cheating on him? I don't think there'd be much laughter after that.

rusty grapefruit spoon pretty much put it in context.

with the outrage of the comment, people are pretty much ignoring the extreme violence from beginning of time to women from mates. just isnt the same. so with the outrage, one needs to be honest too.

though i dont think even in jest i have ever suggested violence against anyone, for any reason, i think the outrage over this part of the comment is silly. though, a point

It's nothing to do with me. It's their flimsy pseudo-evolutionary-psych pretext. It's insulting to men and women alike. "Oooooh, honey, I just can't control my urges. You're just going to have to understand, k? I promise never to cuddle them, I'm just going to fuck them and leave. That OK by you? Ow! Ow! Ow! Put away the grapefruit spoon! Aaaaaaagggghhh!"

It isn't just the men who want to screw around at all.

Ever read Dan Savage's column (Savage Love)?

People have genes to be monogamous and genes to be polygamous and they compete in each one of us . Both are survuival techniques and involve responses like fight or flight. The one which has a better genetic survival rate wins out but could always end in failure of your genes and your kids as well.

But BOTH have their advantages in terms of survival of your genes and survival of the species.

it has been a pleasure playing thready with you. I am now off to direct my latest play about...you guessed it...gender politics!

Love youse all!

and direct, to the point, posts...

You might as well infer that 'biology' says to drop your pants, (if you have them) and take a shit whenever and wherever the urge strikes.

Shitty behavior (pardon the pun) is shitty behavior. Biology, in this sense, doesn't have as much to do with deliberate choices as evidently some think.

... to share my wife with anyone else sexually, that I have an obligation to remain faithful.

Seems like a fair deal to me.

But I respect other people's rights to have different moral values. As long as everyone is of age I'm not going to be sticking my nose in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

"Negotiate this: if you cheat on me, I will excise your balls through your ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon."


So when my wife, the compulsive cheater, came to me with one of those "tearful confessions" I would have been justified in rearranging her vaginal canal with a used chainsaw chain?

You and all the folks cheering you on are some seriously sick fucks. Oh yeah, who exactly are all those worthless cheating men screwing? I mean, obviously, from the evidence of this thread, real women never mess around. So whoever she is, she must be some kind of seriously busy.

Probably as often as "real" men. I've messed around plenty, and I consider myself a real woman. Fact is, that's not good enough, and I have pledged to change my ways.

The violence that I lampooned in my OP is real, and emotional in nature. I tore up my last partner in the worst way, and I regret it. Had I been honest, I would have girded my loins and ended the relationship cleanly and as decently as such a thing can be done.

Yes, I do liken it to the sawing off of a limb, if you will. Usually the endings of relationships are painful. You can amputate cleanly and under sterile conditions, or you can saw away at it with a pen knife.

In my opinion, infidelity is unacceptable. A deal breaker. Others may feel differently, and if that's working for them, I say, great.

to one another. If you want to have multiple sex partners don't make that commitment in the first place.

However, the dynamics of a marriage sometimes changes and sometimes your partner grows distant from you and both people can become lonely in a marriage. I'd recommend trying to work things out with your spouse possibly even with a marriage counselor before turning to a lover.

is MORE fucked up than "cheating".

I'm referring to your "excise your balls through your ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon" comment - and can only hope you are trying to be 'cute'.

Just like open relationships.

Yes, I was trying to be funny. However, emotional violence is real. I've been on both ends.

I find it weird that people clutch their pearls and get bent out of shape over other people's sexual and relationship arraignments.

I wonder, is this somehow threatening on some personal level? If other people are okay with arrangements like this is it dangerous to your own relationships?

And why do people feel it's okay to call women 'whores' when they don't approve of their sexual and relationship choices? Personally, I think it's a mechanism of social control because of the aforementioned perception of a threat.

and what they should be doing, i dont think it jives with your post.

i think everyone on this thread has pretty much said "what other people do in their relationships is their own business"

that is not the argument or discussion. you missed the boat


and fuck the tired old pearl clutching line. same old, same old....

without anyone else's moralizing, jealousy or possessiveness?

is telling this author of the book, that she should not be out fuckin who ever she wants, or have the relationship she chooses to create.

show me one poster

should a poster have an argument before making one up?

I just said people should live and let live. Partners in a relationship should be free to decide their own "rules." They do not need anyone else's help.

out of nowhere as you say, ... where no poster on this thread has made a comment contradicting your statement. then accuse strawman on another poster.

interesting.

you do understand that posters point that the very argument you made in your post is that author dictating how all should live... her way. not vice versa

Do you agree or disagree that adults in a relationship should be free to define their own rules?

Do you agree or disagree that adults in a relationship should be free to define their own rules?

Which is what this Sugarbabe idiot is doing.

Because I did. Several paragraphs of the woman advising other women to accept infidelity by their husbands.

No one should have to accept or tolerate coercive, unwanted, or dangerous behavior in a relationship though.

Peace.

This whore (yes I am calling her a whore) wants women to just get over it and accept that she is using their husbands to get her grubby hands on some money. Married women would be better off if they just allowed her to fleece their husbands. Just grand.

If they *do* agree that their partner can have sex with another, then why do you care?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can we use them here? It seems she referred to the men she dated as "sugar daddies". Is it OK to call her a slut or a whore?

true that. and i hear ya.

or all men have to cheat beause it is biological?

This just sounds like male bashing... if you have a cheating significant other and you aren't OK with it you should have gone for the less exciting "nice guy" who would be trustworthy instead. Of course from my nice guy point of view.. nice guys finish last while 99.9% of women pick the guys that are players because they find them more "exciting" and then are shocked to find out that hey.. they play around... um DUH..

:yoiks:

And this is coming from a woman who strongly believes in the ideals of the polyamory movement and knows for pretty damn sure that lifelong monogamy is great for others who want it, but not good for me.

"Negotiated infidelity" is nothing of the sort if there's a spouse somewhere who is left out in the dark or pressured to accept something s/he does not want.

Evo-psych bullshit that revolves around the idea that men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love (or money) is utterly crapola.

Any woman who accepts money in exchange for sex is, well, I don't like the words "slut" and "whore" at all because they are way more hateful than the reality: the truth is, she's a sex worker.

Any man who is so overrun by hormones he'll stick it anywhere without taking his longterm partner's feelings into account isn't a man at all, he's a BOY living out a 14-year-old's wish-fulfillment fantasy.

I know all about negotiated non-monogamy, but it takes a LOT of hard work, honesty, self-awareness, and long face-to-face conversations with ALL parties involved.

Does it have saw blades on it?

Is that how you rich people with superfluous flatware talk to each other?

To excise all that citrusy goodness. I inherited a set from my grandmother. Have used them exactly...never. They're moldering in a drawer somewhere next to the fish knives.

And, to everyone who has taken exception to my jest, I apologize. I don't advocate violence in any form, for any reason, although the emotional violence that infidelity and dishonesty can inflict is real, and painful.

--non-consensual non-monogamy. And no, men are not the only humans for whom novelty is an aphrodisiac.

And even if you and partner decide on polyamory, the list of people that are off limits for various reasons is still many times larger than the list of people who are not.

What do you think chimps and gorillas do? Humans may have even more tactile areas for instant "preparation". So Na na na na boo boo. You got anthropology blasting you in the face with galactic gobs of wisdom.

Sure you may pretend that humans are monogamous, but they are not. And if you want to blame only one gender, shame on you. For it takes more than one to tango!

This actually happened:

Once while riding with my fellow anthropologists they decided to extract revenge on me, for I had gotten plastered the night before and was lying in the back of the jeep blankets over me and they had ventured into a town where there were no males! So they were stopped by a band of females. (human females!) On the prowl. There they were taken to a matriarch and forced to have sex with them. I thought it was hilarious as I continued in slumber land.

So to get back at me they dumped me off and told me to hike back to civilization through the rain forest. Soon the morbid animal sweat came out of me for I knew crazy people would purchase "cute" baby tigers, etc and then release them in the wild when feeding costs got out of control. I began to hear over the next mountain. Eventually though I detected an odor of Homo Sapien female. There behind me, having stalked me, was "Yahaira". Both the devil and angel on each shoulder said, "Hey this could be good!" Being as monogamous as the OP hopes people are, I had my doubts. She was wearing only a toothy smile. She scratched at my chest in a way I guess "civilized" women have long since forgotten. Still I resisted her.

Later there was a dance and she was crazy with many other males. So I did nothing. Finally my buddies were awaiting me and the local doctor on the other side of the forest thinking I needed shots. But Ha ha ha. Joke on them again!

The biological imperative to "spread one's seed" justifies rampant promiscuity. However, if companionship is the main reason for marriage, monogamy is the only acceptable practice.

there is a need for people of both gender to simply connect with one person. an innate need. not all, but most. that is what i hear so often, over and over and over.

to different degrees with people.

we never think much about that.