Tome Reader
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 297
.
Last edited:
Dom out of line?
- Thread starter Tome Reader
- Start date
kitty4ever
Insert title here
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2004
- Posts
- 1,119
Tome Reader said:
That's all any of us can do.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Tome, there's lots of finger pointing and insult from you, but without a bit of substance on the issues.
The thread began with a question about 'should a dom be fucking aroung with someone else?' Next came, by the way, the 'someone' is me.
You ask for opinions on a third party, and his fidelity, NOT knowing essential things about his relationship. And therefore none of us do, called upon for opinions.
Not surprisingly you get to
Tome Reader:
I've been doing a lot of reading. I found something that I thought was rather interesting -it had to do with certain types of Doms and the games they play with subs.
For instance, there is the "lure of ownership," or there is the Dom who "collects" subs, and uses them without thought or obligation to their well-being. One thing I read said, "Even dominants who are sincere in their BDSM lifestyle pursuits will still attempt to use unowned submissives while avoiding any real commitment or responsibility towards them. "
Anyway, the more I read, the more I started to realize his behavior really does seem innapropriate, especially if he takes his Dominance as seriously as he says he does. He should not have treated me the way he did; he should not have played with me, been intimate with me, declared his love for me, or attempted to keep up contact with me afterward -if he had pledged himself to another. Bad, bad, bad.
------
You ask people to moralize with you about what the guy, in a short time 'should have' done. *OF COURSE* he shouldn't have been intimate; look whom he hurt. He 'declared his love,' IYO insincerely, got right in there....and that's 'bad, bad, bad.'
You do leave that *little* question about his pledge to the other. You didn't have an answer, and probably don't. The appearance is that you want to hear from us, "Yep, where there's a collar, there's a fidelity pledge; that's BDSM rules.'
Somehow that would make what you did OK, and what he did, wrong.
-------
Tome Reader said:
Could I have been smarter, given the situation? Hell yes. That's not the question. The question was if this Dom acted out of line in regards to his collared submissive.
"That's not the question." This is clever, in that 'smartness' is declared as your issue and 'out of line' (not moral) is declared as his issue. May any of us (assuming we're all to play the moralizing game), whom you want to approve, ask about the 'out of line' (immoral) quality of what you did?**
May one not ask, "Was it 'out of line' for Tome to call the sub to rat out the guy?" This we do know, happened.
Note: Contrary to your suggestions I have no interest in moralizing about you. People do self interested things all the time, esp. when the genitals get congested. I just think, 'ho hum.'
Married guy wants something extra. Well big news. 'Other woman' feels mistreated; not the first. Lies in relationships. As common as grass. You're on the same 'me first' level as most other people, and I include myself.
Your twists and rationalizations (see below) are pretty standard too: we all want the moral high ground.
I simply say: IF we want to apply moral standards, you're arguably no better than he, and perhaps in regard to the collared one, worse (it has an air of spite or malice, in my impression).
Tome Reader:
Did I act appropriately given the information I had -which was, at best, half truths? Yes.
My goodness. You met a guy and got 'half truths.' Since we don't know your age, let's just say, if you're over 20, which I think is the case, perhaps it's "appropriate" to consider males' statements a bit more carefully.
By the way, given your insistence on how things should be, have you ever wondered if you mightn't have a lot of 'switch' or 'domme' in you?
I'm biased, perhaps, having gotten so aggression and insult, but it would seem you don't react well when things don't go 'your' way-- which you happen to equate with moral law.
Have you thought of the paradox of
"I want a dom who will serve me morally and appropriately"?
----
**I do note, in postings since the above was composed, the *new* statement 'I'm not perfect,' and perhaps you don't quite divide things so clearly as the paragraph suggests.
The thread began with a question about 'should a dom be fucking aroung with someone else?' Next came, by the way, the 'someone' is me.
You ask for opinions on a third party, and his fidelity, NOT knowing essential things about his relationship. And therefore none of us do, called upon for opinions.
Not surprisingly you get to
Tome Reader:
I've been doing a lot of reading. I found something that I thought was rather interesting -it had to do with certain types of Doms and the games they play with subs.
For instance, there is the "lure of ownership," or there is the Dom who "collects" subs, and uses them without thought or obligation to their well-being. One thing I read said, "Even dominants who are sincere in their BDSM lifestyle pursuits will still attempt to use unowned submissives while avoiding any real commitment or responsibility towards them. "
Anyway, the more I read, the more I started to realize his behavior really does seem innapropriate, especially if he takes his Dominance as seriously as he says he does. He should not have treated me the way he did; he should not have played with me, been intimate with me, declared his love for me, or attempted to keep up contact with me afterward -if he had pledged himself to another. Bad, bad, bad.
------
You ask people to moralize with you about what the guy, in a short time 'should have' done. *OF COURSE* he shouldn't have been intimate; look whom he hurt. He 'declared his love,' IYO insincerely, got right in there....and that's 'bad, bad, bad.'
You do leave that *little* question about his pledge to the other. You didn't have an answer, and probably don't. The appearance is that you want to hear from us, "Yep, where there's a collar, there's a fidelity pledge; that's BDSM rules.'
Somehow that would make what you did OK, and what he did, wrong.
-------
Tome Reader said:
Could I have been smarter, given the situation? Hell yes. That's not the question. The question was if this Dom acted out of line in regards to his collared submissive.
"That's not the question." This is clever, in that 'smartness' is declared as your issue and 'out of line' (not moral) is declared as his issue. May any of us (assuming we're all to play the moralizing game), whom you want to approve, ask about the 'out of line' (immoral) quality of what you did?**
May one not ask, "Was it 'out of line' for Tome to call the sub to rat out the guy?" This we do know, happened.
Note: Contrary to your suggestions I have no interest in moralizing about you. People do self interested things all the time, esp. when the genitals get congested. I just think, 'ho hum.'
Married guy wants something extra. Well big news. 'Other woman' feels mistreated; not the first. Lies in relationships. As common as grass. You're on the same 'me first' level as most other people, and I include myself.
Your twists and rationalizations (see below) are pretty standard too: we all want the moral high ground.
I simply say: IF we want to apply moral standards, you're arguably no better than he, and perhaps in regard to the collared one, worse (it has an air of spite or malice, in my impression).
Tome Reader:
Did I act appropriately given the information I had -which was, at best, half truths? Yes.
My goodness. You met a guy and got 'half truths.' Since we don't know your age, let's just say, if you're over 20, which I think is the case, perhaps it's "appropriate" to consider males' statements a bit more carefully.
By the way, given your insistence on how things should be, have you ever wondered if you mightn't have a lot of 'switch' or 'domme' in you?
I'm biased, perhaps, having gotten so aggression and insult, but it would seem you don't react well when things don't go 'your' way-- which you happen to equate with moral law.
Have you thought of the paradox of
"I want a dom who will serve me morally and appropriately"?
----
**I do note, in postings since the above was composed, the *new* statement 'I'm not perfect,' and perhaps you don't quite divide things so clearly as the paragraph suggests.
Last edited:
Gil_T2
KICK ASS !
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 19,757
I wonder what the collered sub thinks of it or even if they know?
To me any relationship is built on HONESTY & TRUST with lots of open talk anything else isn't worth the effort.My sub BANDIT has posted here with her views which do not differ from mine on this, if the guy can't be HONEST to either you or his sub he ain't worth the time.
To me any relationship is built on HONESTY & TRUST with lots of open talk anything else isn't worth the effort.My sub BANDIT has posted here with her views which do not differ from mine on this, if the guy can't be HONEST to either you or his sub he ain't worth the time.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Gil T said,
To me any relationship is built on HONESTY & TRUST with lots of open talk anything else isn't worth the effort.
OK, that's great. Now answer the simple question, Do you, where you see a relationship is, IYO, possibly less than honest, make sure to phone/email all parties so that they know the truth?
Would your having been involved in the dishonesty be relevant?
Would it give you special license to 'right the wrong' or would it undermine your moral authority to do anything except leave?
Just wondered.
To me any relationship is built on HONESTY & TRUST with lots of open talk anything else isn't worth the effort.
OK, that's great. Now answer the simple question, Do you, where you see a relationship is, IYO, possibly less than honest, make sure to phone/email all parties so that they know the truth?
Would your having been involved in the dishonesty be relevant?
Would it give you special license to 'right the wrong' or would it undermine your moral authority to do anything except leave?
Just wondered.
Gil_T2
KICK ASS !
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 19,757
Pure said:
Your got me wondering as I only commented on HIS lies to both as it's not in my book of things to do, I admit when i was in my teens & early 20s my cock did rule my brain but when you grow up it's meant to a mature nature you show. although all the ladies I slept with all new if I had other ladies I was seeing too.
Tome Reader
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 297
I refuse to be baited by you or anyone anymore, Pure. You've effectively turned this thread into yet another debacle, and I refuse to play the game. The only thing you've proved by continuing is your confrontational holier-than-thou nature. Go bully someone else.
Tome Reader
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 297
Pure said:i love it when you order me around!
This is actually funny!
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
How do you know he lied to his sub?
From what I've read the answer is that you don't know. If you don't know then I would imagine that you don't know his sub very well, if at all. How did you decide that it was in her best interests for you to disclose your affair with her Dom?
I slept with a married man once. I knew he was married. I knew his wife. I knew it wasn't okay. I did it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do and I knew it and he knew it.
About two weeks later he came to me because he needed to talk. We'd been avoiding each other because the physical attraction was still very strong but we both felt enough remorse that we didn't want to risk repeating our infraction. He told me he wanted to tell his wife what had happened.
I asked him why he wanted to tell her and he said because he had wronged her and she should know. I called bullshit. I told him he wanted to tell her so that she could get mad at him and he might be able to be forgiven.
It wasn't about her. It was about his own guilt and need to confess. He felt shitty and - short of a time machine - the only chance he had for absolution was her forgiveness. I told him that was simply the price we'd have to pay - we'd done something awful and we couldn't be forgiven for it. It was bad enough to betray her, but it was even worse to show her how she'd been betrayed when there was no way to undo it. Needless suffering for her in order to assuage the conscience of two people who knew exactly what they were doing when they hopped in the sack together.
I've never personally known anyone who revealed a secret affair to the injured party out of care or selfless motives. You tell your girlfriend that her husband is stepping out on her because you want to hurt her. When you care about her, you either hope he stops doing it, confront him, confront the other woman or wait for an invitation from your girlfriend to confirm suspicions that she has about his fidelity. It's extremely rare for anyone to tell on a cheater. If it were common it wouldn't be so easy for peole to get away with.
From what I've read it appears that you knew this man for several months before having sex with him. This means that you knew him for months before he ever collared his sub. Was he seeing her the entire time that he was also flirting with you or did she come later? Is it possible that there was a sense of competition on your part with his other woman?
If you knew about her then why would you assume that she didn't also know about you?
The answer to your original question is that he only did something wrong in regards to his collared relationship if he actually broke an agreed upon rule in that relationship. He may not have. You don't know. You didn't ask him to elaborate. You decided that he had and you then informed his other woman because whether or not he'd wronged her he certainly hurt YOU and it was only fair if you could cause some strife in his life.
Now, if he was stepping out on her then that's the chance he took, but I think it's less than straightforward to say that you alerted this woman to his infidelity out of concern for her. If you were all that concerned for her you wouldn't have been fucking the guy she was seeing.
If you want to continue to explore BDsM and it appears that you do, the best thing to do is to get right with yourself about who you are. You can't be honest with a lover unless you're honest with yourself. If you say you had only altruistic motives at heart when you decided to contact this woman, then I have to take you at your word. I can only express my surprise at how uncommon an action that is.
-B
From what I've read the answer is that you don't know. If you don't know then I would imagine that you don't know his sub very well, if at all. How did you decide that it was in her best interests for you to disclose your affair with her Dom?
I slept with a married man once. I knew he was married. I knew his wife. I knew it wasn't okay. I did it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do and I knew it and he knew it.
About two weeks later he came to me because he needed to talk. We'd been avoiding each other because the physical attraction was still very strong but we both felt enough remorse that we didn't want to risk repeating our infraction. He told me he wanted to tell his wife what had happened.
I asked him why he wanted to tell her and he said because he had wronged her and she should know. I called bullshit. I told him he wanted to tell her so that she could get mad at him and he might be able to be forgiven.
It wasn't about her. It was about his own guilt and need to confess. He felt shitty and - short of a time machine - the only chance he had for absolution was her forgiveness. I told him that was simply the price we'd have to pay - we'd done something awful and we couldn't be forgiven for it. It was bad enough to betray her, but it was even worse to show her how she'd been betrayed when there was no way to undo it. Needless suffering for her in order to assuage the conscience of two people who knew exactly what they were doing when they hopped in the sack together.
I've never personally known anyone who revealed a secret affair to the injured party out of care or selfless motives. You tell your girlfriend that her husband is stepping out on her because you want to hurt her. When you care about her, you either hope he stops doing it, confront him, confront the other woman or wait for an invitation from your girlfriend to confirm suspicions that she has about his fidelity. It's extremely rare for anyone to tell on a cheater. If it were common it wouldn't be so easy for peole to get away with.
From what I've read it appears that you knew this man for several months before having sex with him. This means that you knew him for months before he ever collared his sub. Was he seeing her the entire time that he was also flirting with you or did she come later? Is it possible that there was a sense of competition on your part with his other woman?
If you knew about her then why would you assume that she didn't also know about you?
The answer to your original question is that he only did something wrong in regards to his collared relationship if he actually broke an agreed upon rule in that relationship. He may not have. You don't know. You didn't ask him to elaborate. You decided that he had and you then informed his other woman because whether or not he'd wronged her he certainly hurt YOU and it was only fair if you could cause some strife in his life.
Now, if he was stepping out on her then that's the chance he took, but I think it's less than straightforward to say that you alerted this woman to his infidelity out of concern for her. If you were all that concerned for her you wouldn't have been fucking the guy she was seeing.
If you want to continue to explore BDsM and it appears that you do, the best thing to do is to get right with yourself about who you are. You can't be honest with a lover unless you're honest with yourself. If you say you had only altruistic motives at heart when you decided to contact this woman, then I have to take you at your word. I can only express my surprise at how uncommon an action that is.
-B
E
esclave_PP
Guest
I agree with most of the things said here. Unless the relationship is an open poly situation, then cheating and going behind the back is a big nono, not to mention just not cool. Honesty is vital. I am glad that you cut contact. When you seek a good Master or Mistress that Honesty, Integrity and loyalty go a long way. Good luck to you!
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
What BB said.
I'm also perplexed about the months of emotional involvement leading up to this. While SOME men will lie point blank if asked "are you seeing anyone else seriously" most are more into sins of omission and will come clean.
Of course, a lot of people don't ask the question. I've learned better if I want an answer.
I'm also perplexed about the months of emotional involvement leading up to this. While SOME men will lie point blank if asked "are you seeing anyone else seriously" most are more into sins of omission and will come clean.
Of course, a lot of people don't ask the question. I've learned better if I want an answer.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi N,
Your last point about the steaming bit of evidence is quite strikingly phrased.
Coming to your response:
Originally posted by Pure
By the way, given your [Tome's] insistence on how things should be, have you ever wondered if you mightn't have a lot of 'switch' or 'domme' in you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netzach replied
I resent this implication, bucko.
I'm the police but I'm not the morality police.
================
Let me rephrase, and not address Tome personally.
1. If a hypothetical person finds they have a strong, contintuing desire to *control, theY might wonder about the suitability for them, of a 'sub' lifestyle.
2. Likewise if they are keen on taking steps to enforce what they see as the moral law.
Perhaps most relevant to your point:
3. Fits of aggression or domineeringness in a person (in situations of discomfort) do NOT a dom/me make. For one thing, having such behaviors shows that one is quite REactive** (defending against perceived threat).
**Speaking of reactivity, I note Tome has deleted most postings, including the early ones setting out her situation and responses. It's unfortunate that her account of a complex and hurtful situation is not let stand since, as Tome herself noted, no one is perfect. We're all in the same boat.
Your last point about the steaming bit of evidence is quite strikingly phrased.
Coming to your response:
Originally posted by Pure
By the way, given your [Tome's] insistence on how things should be, have you ever wondered if you mightn't have a lot of 'switch' or 'domme' in you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netzach replied
I resent this implication, bucko.
I'm the police but I'm not the morality police.
================
Let me rephrase, and not address Tome personally.
1. If a hypothetical person finds they have a strong, contintuing desire to *control, theY might wonder about the suitability for them, of a 'sub' lifestyle.
2. Likewise if they are keen on taking steps to enforce what they see as the moral law.
Perhaps most relevant to your point:
3. Fits of aggression or domineeringness in a person (in situations of discomfort) do NOT a dom/me make. For one thing, having such behaviors shows that one is quite REactive** (defending against perceived threat).
**Speaking of reactivity, I note Tome has deleted most postings, including the early ones setting out her situation and responses. It's unfortunate that her account of a complex and hurtful situation is not let stand since, as Tome herself noted, no one is perfect. We're all in the same boat.
Last edited:
FungiUg
Waves at Cats
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Posts
- 10,242
Pure said:
There's a lovely, well-known un-quote (Attributed to Edmund Burke):
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
Except that I don't believe this is about a "moral mandate", other than perhaps someone trying to say that "I was right, and HE was wrong." And I agree (I think) with Pure in that it's not a case of right and wrong.
Firstly, it still sounds to me like the Dom in this case wasn't entirely honest with all parties. Secondly, that all parties didn't get enough information before getting involved. And thirdly, I don't think "ratting out" the Dom had anything to do with a "moral mandate" -- it was all about revenge for betrayal.
So... finger pointing aside, this is yet another example of humans doing what humans do: fuck around. And being dishonest and vengeful while doing so. Any surprises there?
Which leads me to the quote from Pure than I know I DO agree with:
Here are my thoughts:Pure said:
When you find out you have been lied to, even by omission, it fucking hurts. The common reaction is to lash out at the offending party.
No one is perfect. Any Dom who claims to be perfect is probably someone who refuses to acknowledge their humanity and failures. Be wary.
Finding out that you are the victim of "infidelity" is awful - sort of like a third hand version of rape. I do admire in this case that Tome has been willing to talk about it, and seek opinions, and also to admit she herself fucked up. So for having the courage to talk about it, I offer my "Bravo!"
It's not about what was "right" or "wrong". It's simply about dealing with dishonesty and how we learn from our mistakes.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sounds like a good summary* Fungi,
In particular:
I don't think "ratting out" the Dom had anything to do with a "moral mandate" -- it was all about revenge for betrayal.
That's close to my conclusion, to date. It's clear the 'third party' (Tome) knew of the other, and hence knew of the triangle. The third party, however, didn't know all the facts, in particular, the strength of the first party's (dom's) attachment to the second
(collared).
Hence the third party entered into an attempt to 'pull away' or 'win' the first party, and was encouraged by talk--possibly sincere-- of love. That is a fateful step (into a moral morass), freighted with consequences not wished for.
The key event quite common and classic and hurtful, comes when the third party learns or realizes her true state, and her subordinate status.
At that point she is understandably angry, and takes certain retaliatory measures, including attempting to influence the 'second party' (collared). With hindsight one can see that this is a *very dicey move, destined often to fail. In a typical situation, it's hard for a mistress who's 'lost' to convince the wife who's 'in possession' to leave (even if the wife becomes angry at her husband). Further there is an element, possibly, of spite, since *even if* the second party 'tosses out the #$#$%$ on his ear', it won't necessarily benefit the third party.
That's my view of the matter, given what little we know.
There are rarely 'white hats' and 'black hats' in life, and considering we had only what one person chose as 'relevant facts', the safest assumption is that no one is 'pure.'
I'ts unfortunate that my comment on one ACT as sleazy brought forth such a counterattack, which is turn caused me to press the point. And in a less than diplomatic manner. Since one party chose the facts, I resist having that person dictate the agenda ('the topic' 'the question').
A simple concession would have sufficed: "Jeez, that's indeed a possible 'out of line' act I'll have to think about. There are, I see, consequences and motications that bear examination."
I assumed that the 'doms' possible dishonesty had been dealt with; it possibly existed. Hence I was not saying "you only" but "you too" (may have been 'out of line'). As I said, 'all are in the same boat.'
Further, the ethics of the situation are NOT simply those of "What does a good and moral dom do?" There is the ethics of a situation where something less than perfect is done, and various people have to choice what to do, and *who to tell.* (I had the distinct impression of wanting to tell the whole community-- such as it is.)
But, along the lines of bridgeburner, the ethics of 'telling' are complicated indeed.
I found this so, (especially?) with a friend. In one case of my own, I found out about a woman-friend's husband's unfaithfulness and the name his lover.
I at first inquired carefully of her, to see if there were suspicions. Though she knew the marriage was in trouble, and had, along with hubby, sought counselling, she did not suspect anything.
I agonized for a year, and found out her hubby was transferring assets to his name (preparing for an exit). So I told her, with the predictable results. I do have the confirmation several years later, that she's glad she was told, since it put the timing of the divorce earlier, and in her hands. Yet, in cases where worlds are going to be shattered, it's best to tread very lightly. Another issue, of course, is the parties' desire to hear the truth; which isn't always there, but was, in this case.
Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Fungi.
----
*I do have a quibble with your last sentence, I believe it should read "dealing with possible dishonesty."
In particular:
I don't think "ratting out" the Dom had anything to do with a "moral mandate" -- it was all about revenge for betrayal.
That's close to my conclusion, to date. It's clear the 'third party' (Tome) knew of the other, and hence knew of the triangle. The third party, however, didn't know all the facts, in particular, the strength of the first party's (dom's) attachment to the second
(collared).
Hence the third party entered into an attempt to 'pull away' or 'win' the first party, and was encouraged by talk--possibly sincere-- of love. That is a fateful step (into a moral morass), freighted with consequences not wished for.
The key event quite common and classic and hurtful, comes when the third party learns or realizes her true state, and her subordinate status.
At that point she is understandably angry, and takes certain retaliatory measures, including attempting to influence the 'second party' (collared). With hindsight one can see that this is a *very dicey move, destined often to fail. In a typical situation, it's hard for a mistress who's 'lost' to convince the wife who's 'in possession' to leave (even if the wife becomes angry at her husband). Further there is an element, possibly, of spite, since *even if* the second party 'tosses out the #$#$%$ on his ear', it won't necessarily benefit the third party.
That's my view of the matter, given what little we know.
There are rarely 'white hats' and 'black hats' in life, and considering we had only what one person chose as 'relevant facts', the safest assumption is that no one is 'pure.'
I'ts unfortunate that my comment on one ACT as sleazy brought forth such a counterattack, which is turn caused me to press the point. And in a less than diplomatic manner. Since one party chose the facts, I resist having that person dictate the agenda ('the topic' 'the question').
A simple concession would have sufficed: "Jeez, that's indeed a possible 'out of line' act I'll have to think about. There are, I see, consequences and motications that bear examination."
I assumed that the 'doms' possible dishonesty had been dealt with; it possibly existed. Hence I was not saying "you only" but "you too" (may have been 'out of line'). As I said, 'all are in the same boat.'
Further, the ethics of the situation are NOT simply those of "What does a good and moral dom do?" There is the ethics of a situation where something less than perfect is done, and various people have to choice what to do, and *who to tell.* (I had the distinct impression of wanting to tell the whole community-- such as it is.)
But, along the lines of bridgeburner, the ethics of 'telling' are complicated indeed.
I found this so, (especially?) with a friend. In one case of my own, I found out about a woman-friend's husband's unfaithfulness and the name his lover.
I at first inquired carefully of her, to see if there were suspicions. Though she knew the marriage was in trouble, and had, along with hubby, sought counselling, she did not suspect anything.
I agonized for a year, and found out her hubby was transferring assets to his name (preparing for an exit). So I told her, with the predictable results. I do have the confirmation several years later, that she's glad she was told, since it put the timing of the divorce earlier, and in her hands. Yet, in cases where worlds are going to be shattered, it's best to tread very lightly. Another issue, of course, is the parties' desire to hear the truth; which isn't always there, but was, in this case.
Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Fungi.
----
*I do have a quibble with your last sentence, I believe it should read "dealing with possible dishonesty."
Last edited:
AvaAdore
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2002
- Posts
- 488
bridgeburner said:
you know, if i were the one who was cheated on, i'd like to know. yes, i would be upset and angry, but if i didnt know about it i would be living a lie.
if i were in Tome Reader's position, i would have done exactly the same thing, though perhaps i would have asked the sub a few questions about it first.
i cant stand being lied to. i would rather know the truth if it hurt me than live blissfully unaware. shit, and if i knew one of my friends was being cheated on, i would sure as hell tell him/her.
shy slave
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Posts
- 8,255
Finding out about infidelity is never pleasant, whether you are the person who knows and has to make a decision about wether to inform the other party or whether you are the person who has an unfaithful partner. My 2c worth ~ I have had an unfaithful partner and my neighbours husband chose to tell me. I did not believe him and thought he had misintrepretated the situationPure said:
. Once i discovered the truth for myself I was able to speak to him about the situation and I felt less alone (it was my husband with his wife). I would not contact the the other pyl, if I found I had been lied to in a situation. She either knows and accepts, or is fooling herself; at some point find out for herself. All telling tales does is make you feel victorious for a brief moment before realising that it will have little or no effect on the unfaithful person and make a third person miserable. Therefore it achieves little in the longer term. Other peoples relationships tend to be unique and based on a series of 'acceptances' by both parties. If the acceptance is he cheats but she turns a blind eye because of other reasons then it is no-one else business but each other. Tome, I am curious, did the collared slave know and do you know what has happened in their relationship since your revelation to her? Pure thank you summing up, I find it helps to do that when a thread starts to explore lots of areas.sorry about the layout - return button on the blink again 
