Is it really safe, sane, and consensual?

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina said,


We were discussing cheating on a long term repeated basis, while the SO remains so called blissfully aware for their own protection, and the cheater sets up a new life so when they leave they won't have any of the long, cold lonely nights to deal with unlike their unsuspecting, trusting spouse.

You forgot to add, "[spouse], who spends all his/her free time working in a leper colony."

You've never answered my question. Does the phrase 'long term repeated' [cheating] include with one person, but many fucks (e.g. one lifelong, secret mistress)? or just repeated affairs with a number of persons?

Pure, I sometimes find myself scratching my head wondering where yours is lately. You seem to come up with the most extraordinary off the planet statements that seem like thye have been mistakenly plucked from another conversation entirely. I think you have in your haste lost the issue being discussed.

You see it began as a discussion of a woman hiding her interest in BDSM from her SO and going outside the marriage to get her jollies without giving him the opportunity to say yay or nay, or consider the risks to himself emotional or physical.. To me, though it could lead to affairs with several D's, I really just dealt with the issue of going outside the marriage for her release w/o considering her SO. To me that makes serial cheating with one or many really of no consequence as the issue being discussed is that she sees nothing wrong with her deception. The discussion did also include the position of the D and whether they may feel her behaviour is consistent with someone they felt they could trust 100%.

As Netzach says, isn't it odd that you want to morally condemn the 'repeater' of extramarital sexual acts. Consider: Suppose I said, I wish to strongly condemn those who rob several of more banks. For one or two, there may be extenuating circumstances.
Suppose I said "I strongly condemn those who plan and carry out more than one or two murders."

I don't see I have condemned anyone morally or otherwise.....to the contrary I have acknowledged no-one including myself is perfect and must make their own choices, but in so doing be prepared to accept responsibility when their action affect another, especially someone they have previously committed to and established a position of trust with and now wants to negate that and tell Dominant x they can be trusted to swear 100% loyalty to them and be trusted. The evidence just does not back it up.

I find it interesting though when people have ethics and wish to stand by them, also admitting their own shortcomings and frailties, that there is always an element of people who find it very disturbing, and necessary to return to rehash over and over again. Is it that unique and unbelievable someone can be honest about themselves as well as others? As I have said before, but will again as it seems to be skipped over, I see no reason why someone who makes a mistake should then continue to make the same mistake using the excuse they already did it once so it is too late now. I know it is an easy out for many, but I prefer to learn from mistakes and rectify them in a responsible way.

And this naturally leads to extenuating circumstances. It would be very unusual for many successive extenuating circumstances to keep arising with the one person. In other words, you have a situation that is a little out of the ordinary, more than a person feeling a little like spicing up their life with an illicit affair, BDSM or not...to me you deal with it by either getting out, waiting until the circumstances change, or discussing it with your SO as is their right. Getting involved with another is only going to compound your problems, not solve them.

Once again your analogy of bank robbery or murder does not really seem to fit for me, though I guess I could stretch imagination in the circumstance of euthanasia, or someone pushed over the edge in a DV situation, or an act of passion as in protecting your child, as these situations are not usually repeated and are extenuating. Still and all I do not think they equate with extramarital affairs..then again perhaps they do as the cheater could be instrumental in bringing about the death of their spouse without giving them the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to take that risk. A woman in Oz has just been awarded AU$700,000 for not being informed by doctors her then intended husband had AIDS even though they were aware she was planning to marry him. Unfortunately it does not give her back her life.

Yes, I've use publicly known figures about whom we have extensive biographical material from multiple sources. They illustrate points as well as anything. To my mind, it's better than saying "Mrs. Jones up the street, ...." or "Sexy Slave of this board." Maybe you suggest first person. "I cheated repeatedly and believe me I'm not bad at all, and I've completely reformed." Seems weak, possibly self serving.

Yes there are auto/biographies (I have a library bulging with them), often conflicting, often presenting what looks good for the subject. And as I pointed out I preferred dealing with average people when talking about average people as there is a similarity in lifestyle and behaviour without the celebrity trappings and pressures which more often than not are influential in shaping their lives and guiding their decisions.

As to your statement:
//There is already an established relationship of which you are interferring in whether by invitation or your own desires. If you are out for number one I guess you don't owe anyone, but then nor does anyone else owe you so we may as well all go around killing each other when we have a bad day. Sure solve the world population issues.//

This is most unfair. I explicitly said that for your 'man at large' I acknowledge ('owe' as it were)the Criminal Code. I don't want to steal from him, or accept stolen goods a friend--or his wife-- has stolen. And I conceded certain 'good samaritan' duties. I also conceded duties to friends.

I did say, though, I wouldn't try to protect the (unknown) person (assumed male ftsoa) from the 'private sphere' acts of his wife. You've jumped from that to 'looking out for number 1' to going around killing. If I may say, it resembles JM's arguments from one act or episode, to an character/essence that works itself all the time.

Let me give you an example, Catalina. I do repay loans from friends. It's not criminal to default, but it's wrong. I also expect repayment, in most cases. Suppose, though, X borrowed $500 dollars from me, and is about to repay it. And I'm a bit strapped.
I find out that X also owes Joe blow $500 and that was promised and tardy. Do not assume X is my friend, or that Joe is.

The problem: X is going to repay me, and put the other guy on further hold. I don't know why I'm chosen. Should I refuse the money?

The seems to me to be the kind of scene JM and you like to consider and say, "You ought to look out for the other guy, Joe. " Iow, I'm to guard the morality of X, though he appears to be letting it slip (presuming the rule is, other things being equal, pay off the longest running debt first.)

I say here I will take the money. If I know Joe Blow's kids will be hied off to the orphanage, I might not, but in normal situations I would. It's simply not my role to sort out X's moral priorities, or second guess the apparent assignments. If X is my friend, as feels so obliged he's going to default on rent owed to his landlord, I would not accept repayment at that time.

Well I have been in this situation and didn't need to give it much thought. I suggested repaying half to both of us, and the rest when it was possible. That way I was not choosing my needs over theirs, nor sacrificing my own for theirs. Once again though it is far removed from the issue in debate, that being whether it is necessary and consistent with SSC in the BDSM sense, especially on the points of trust and honesty.

It is not possible to apply one ethic to all situations as has long been recognised in psychological studies. It is necessary however to have some sense of yourself and your values and ethics to lead a life not completely taken up with mopping up the damage of your undirected decisions and behaviour. It is what forms the fabric of our lives and though there may at times be rents and tears in the fabric, you learn to prevent repeating the destruction so overall it remains intact and strong.

Catalina

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Hmmmm...a point I should add. Being involved with a married person involves them being engaged in a constant state of deception. That isn't a 'past transgression', it is a current, ongoing one.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hmmmm...a point I should add. Being involved with a married person involves them being engaged in a constant state of deception. That isn't a 'past transgression', it is a current, ongoing one.

So true.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Oh, and maybe we shouldn't actively support people who brag about how wonderful their life is now that they have decided to cheat on a spouse.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Consensual means to me that all parties agree.

I agree. No way would I ever secretly fuck around with a woman who was involved!

As for the cloak and dagger part, I have my own theory: Some people who cheat aren't so turned on the by the actual cheating. They really get off on all the deception, scheming and machinations.

So there are two groups of cheaters. Sort of like two types of drug users. Some just like the actual effect of drugs. And some just like running around like a crazy person looking for a fix and going through all kinds of chaotic episodes for the end result...oh, and the actual drugs are sort of an afterthought. They could have just bought a case of beer and gotten drunk, but that would've been too easy.

(If that makes any sense....)

 

[Temptress_1960]

Adding my 2 cents...

To those folks who say, "I would NEVER.... "

Well, life has a way of turning around and biting you in the ass. Never is a long time, and you don't know what life has in store for you.

Being judgmental about others is, to me, a bit sanctimonious.

Each person is ultimately only responsible for what they themselves do.

In any relationship, only those directly involved can make the decisions, right or wrong.

Reading the posts in this thread, I'm seeing a lot of very judgmental remarks, and what looks to me like a lot of condemnation from people who are not involved in the relationships they are condemning.

I agree with Netzach. If you don't like a person's ethics, don't fuck them, don't play with them.

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina

Thanks for your answer:

I said,
//You've never answered my question. Does the phrase 'long term repeated' [cheating] include with one person, but many fucks (e.g. one lifelong, secret mistress)? or just repeated affairs with a number of persons?//

Catalina:
Pure, I sometimes find myself scratching my head wondering where yours is lately. You seem to come up with the most extraordinary off the planet statements that seem like thye have been mistakenly plucked from another conversation entirely. I think you have in your haste lost the issue being discussed.

You see it began as a discussion of a woman hiding her interest in BDSM from her SO and going outside the marriage to get her jollies without giving him the opportunity to say yay or nay, or consider the risks to himself emotional or physical.. To me, though it could lead to affairs with several D's, I really just dealt with the issue of going outside the marriage for her release w/o considering her SO. To me that makes serial cheating with one or many really of no consequence as the issue being discussed is that she sees nothing wrong with her deception. The discussion did also include the position of the D and whether they may feel her behaviour is consistent with someone they felt they could trust 100%.

I think you're saying "Both; it doesn't matter to my argument."

You've just taken from me, previous record holder, the 'long winded' prize.

The difference is important since both you and JM want to say it's pretty likely to happen again, and that the Extramaritally Active Person is gonna betry her new dom/me, if given the chance.

The ONE lifelong (or longterm) lover scenario is not uncommon, though you don't want public examples--I gave Eisenhower; certainly not JFK, manwhore of the decade-- where readers and I have common sources of information, but John/Jane Doe ones.

So I ask, anyone reading this: Did you have a single affair [secret, extramarital, or outside-relationship activity, {Added: where there is no prior agreement to 'open relationship'}] which was not repeated (e.g. followed up by an affair with another)? If you're still in an affair that is your first, do you think it likely you'll 'follow up' with another, or add another 'on top'?

J.

 

[Pure]

Johnny said,

//Hmmmm...a point I should add. Being involved with a married person involves them being engaged in a constant state of deception. That isn't a 'past transgression', it is a current, ongoing one.//

Add to what, JM. You've never answered my argument, except to say to folks: "Believe my claims, my ethics are superior to Pure's." Seconded by Catalina who adds, "Watch out for what he says, he encourages people going around killing people."

I added a couple phrases, in my response to you {7-08 --4:46 pm}, to include the present. The issue, Is the 'one episode' in the past or up to the present is utterly immaterial. I challenged your claim that it's going to be followed by another episode (a second affair, roughly speaking), in particular, cheating on the dom/me if given the chance.

J.

 

[Temptress_1960]

So I ask, anyone reading this: Did you have a single affair [secret, extramarital, or outside-relationship activity] which was not repeated (e.g. followed up by an affair with another)? If you're still in an affair that is your first, do you think it likely you'll 'follow up' with another, or add another 'on top'?

J.

Well, sort of.

But, my husband is well aware of my other relationship. He also has a gf, whom I love dearly.

This is indeed the first extra-marital relationship I've had.

Well, unless you count group playing.

Does it count as extra-marital if hubby is playing with you too???

I don't know that I'd follow this extra relationship up with another, and I'm pretty sure I won't add to it. My reasons - this relationship is because we love each other, and I can't imagine wanting anyone else the way I do him. We've been together online and RL for close to 2 years now, long distance but very much in love.

And yes, I do still love my husband, very much.

Am I seeking approval here?? Hell no. I live my life the way I do because it works for me. I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone, besides my husband and my lover, thinks.

Which reminds me... I used to chat at Main Hall, a D/s site, and one of the Doms had a great profile... So many of them say, "So and so is my beloved sub, if you have a problem with her, tell me and I'll punish her..." This one Dom, his said, "So and so is my beloved sub... if you have a problem with her, too fucking bad. She pleases me and that's all that matters." ROFL

Sorry, couldn't help but digress there.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

[On pure's example of accepting loan repayment to which another may have a claim. The issue being whether I have a duty to protect another from a not-illegal (private sphere) act done by someone else.]


Well I have been in this situation and didn't need to give it much thought. I suggested repaying half to both of us, and the rest when it was possible. That way I was not choosing my needs over theirs, nor sacrificing my own for theirs.

That's exemplary. I wouldn't expect less, Catalina. You are far closer to sainthood--based on your account-- than I. The qustion, however, was, "Am I *obliged* to refuse to take all the money? Is it *wrong* to take it?"


Once again though it is far removed from the issue in debate, that being whether it is necessary and consistent with SSC in the BDSM sense, especially on the points of trust and honesty.

Well, Francisco long ago conceded that these issues have nothing to so with SSC. See below.

He says, that other things are required in good SM relationships, e.g., honesty. I think we all agree on that. What we don't agree on, is whether one 'dishonest' **act/episode (a single affair, e.g.,) will predict dishonesty in the proposed BDSM relationship, or, for instance, a subsequent marriage.

Francisco


I agree, cheating in my book does not have to do with SSC, those are different things. However honesty has to be a corner stone in a BDSM relationship, if you can not trust your BDSM partner then you might end up in a situation where you do not want to be.

** I'm currently avoiding the terms 'dishonest' 'cheating' etc. as prejudicial and inflammatory, but he and I were both using them, at that time.

Best,
J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well, sort of.

But, my husband is well aware of my other relationship. He also has a gf, whom I love dearly.

This is indeed the first extra-marital relationship I've had.

Well, unless you count group playing.

Does it count as extra-marital if hubby is playing with you too???

I don't know that I'd follow this extra relationship up with another, and I'm pretty sure I won't add to it. My reasons - this relationship is because we love each other, and I can't imagine wanting anyone else the way I do him. We've been together online and RL for close to 2 years now, long distance but very much in love.

And yes, I do still love my husband, very much.

Am I seeking approval here?? Hell no. I live my life the way I do because it works for me. I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone, besides my husband and my lover, thinks.

Which reminds me... I used to chat at Main Hall, a D/s site, and one of the Doms had a great profile... So many of them say, "So and so is my beloved sub, if you have a problem with her, tell me and I'll punish her..." This one Dom, his said, "So and so is my beloved sub... if you have a problem with her, too fucking bad. She pleases me and that's all that matters." ROFL

Sorry, couldn't help but digress there.

I'm not going to comment on the elements of your secondary relationship as it's irrelevant to this discussion. As mentioned in another thread recently it is good to read more than the last post as it has been mentioned repeatedly the issue is with those not enlightening their significant other, not doing it with full approval and knowledge.

And as I have also said before, to pronounce someone is judgemental, sanctimonious, etc., for presenting their opinion, which I believe is still a right at this point in time, is rather judgemental in itself. No offence meant but you, like some others are only skimming from the posts what you want, not what is being said.

Our views have related to behaviour and situations, not individual persons involved, and for my part I have been open about my life and experiences as is my nature. Of course, before expressing my experience and view, I was aware it was going to trigger many paople as it is human nature. I am not sure why it seems to trigger you though as you say you have full approval, so no issue involved as I see it.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina said,

[That's exemplary. I wouldn't expect less, Catalina. You are far closer to sainthood--based on your account-- than I. The qustion, however, was, "Am I *obliged* to refuse to take all the money? Is it *wrong* to take it?"

Pure, I have in the past had respect for you but this statement is trying my patience just a little too much. I have never claimed to be a saint, far from it, and if you knew me you would realise how ridiculous your snipe at me is, but you don't and it seems you also cannot read and comprehend when someone chooses to be honest. Unfortunately, like many, you choose instead to try to use it against the person.....but you see it is difficult to do when someone is honest about their own behaviour unless you resort to fabricating facts, which sometimes in the way you twist words, delete, and take out of context, you attempt to do.

Or is it just you believe your own ethics and values are the best as it seems it has to be a competition thing for you and most....or perhaps it is do as I say and do otherwise you are trying to be better than me? Deal with your issues if you have them instead of using others as target practice to assuage any discomfort you may be feeling.....presumptious of me perhaps but it is the only explanation I can find for such a sarcastic, baseless comment from someone who usually applies intellect.

As to your question, what you do is what you do and this board does not normally discuss issues of money owed between friends. If you need to be told what is the best choice for you, you are in bigger difficulty than I or anyone ever suspected.

Well, Francisco long ago conceded that these issues have nothing to so with SSC. See below.

He says, that other things are required in good SM relationships, e.g., honesty. I think we all agree on that. What we don't agree on, is whether one 'dishonest' **act/episode (a single affair, e.g.,) will predict dishonesty in the proposed BDSM relationship, or, for instance, a subsequent marriage.

Francisco


I agree, cheating in my book does not have to do with SSC, those are different things. However honesty has to be a corner stone in a BDSM relationship, if you can not trust your BDSM partner then you might end up in a situation where you do not want to be.

** I'm currently avoiding the terms 'dishonest' 'cheating' etc. as prejudicial and inflammatory, but he and I were both using them, at that time.

Best,
J.

This is rather irrelevant though I can state he probably has even stronger feelings about the issue than I and has been something he has always felt very strongly about. As I am sure you and many know, though we feel as one, we are two very individual people who respect the other's right to differ, and Francisco has mentioned this in various posts, even pointing out we differ in our view on a topic and then asking me (actually ordering) to present my own view in contrast to his as he wishes me to retain my own voice and personality. You see we do not hold with the doormat view of slave/submissive, nor does his dominance of me include telling me what I have to think, nor what ethics I have to adhere to. Fortunately we are very alike in ethics and values so there are rare occasions when we differ, but if we do and neither can change to the other's view, both agree to disagree and get on with life the same as before.

Now can we please concentrate on the subject at hand, not attempt to portray the words of another as anything they were not intended as for sake of continuing to try and make points, and attempt to read and comprehend the message of the words written, not what you want to sensationalise them to mean.


Catalina

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,

You're getting bent out of shape for my saying:

//That's exemplary. I wouldn't expect less, Catalina. You are far closer to sainthood--based on your account-- than I. //

The smiley suggests a joke, my friend. The nugget of truth, of course is that Johnny explicitly and you by suggestion have been indicating moral superiority to me. (The 'looking our for number one' remark, and the reference to killing.)

In your case, maybe! In Johnny's, I don't think so, he's a little too shrill for credibility.

The problem of course is that the morally superior do not necessarily have better arguments or 'facts', and that the morally corrupt sometimes make true and valid points.

You have yet to say why it's my duty to watch out (to the degree you propose) for someone who *might be* morally wronged by another's legal act. (e.g. the other fellow who's owed money; the cuckolded spouse; surely you see the parallel.)

Your remark:
"you resort to fabricating facts" [none cited] is somewhat objectionable; is what's behind it anything other than your mis-taking the joke about your sainthood? Please let keep up the level of debate!

Best wishes. You are a wonderful correspondent and fine, if not concise, debator, and I hope you never take points against your points, as indicating disrepect or anything but the highest esteem for you, both in character and as a person. **
And that's no joke.





PS
**OK, I did make one reference to your checkered [ ] past, but I've apologized and offered to delete it.

I said,
//Well, Francisco long ago conceded that these issues have nothing to so with SSC. See below.// OK, I hear, from your longish reaction that you are your own person. Also that your ethical views are very similar to F's. OK, sorry I didn't ask:

Do you Catalina concede that the issue whether a dom should 'take a sub who's secretly stepping out', has NOTHING to do with that dom's practicing SSC sexual and other acts?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

But, my husband is well aware of my other relationship.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no problem here!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

In Johnny's, I don't think so, he's a little to shrill for credibility.

Right, and you gain so much credibility from personal attacks?

*Shrill=better than you at the debate thing?*

 

[Mr Blonde]

Re: Adding my 2 cents...

To those folks who say, "I would NEVER.... "

Well, life has a way of turning around and biting you in the ass. Never is a long time, and you don't know what life has in store for you.

Being judgmental about others is, to me, a bit sanctimonious.

Each person is ultimately only responsible for what they themselves do.

Once you have lived a portion of your life and been exposed to different things, things don't remain so unknown and hypothetical. If I have had four actual opportunities and (despite temptations) declined in a very decisive manner, I think it is fair to start predicting my future behavior. Some people know what they would do in certain situations and it is silly to pretend to be undecided.

That does not mean I have a superior moral compass or am fully resolved about other aspects of life. Just because I have my own code of conduct does not mean I impose expectations upon others.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Johnny said,

//Hmmmm...a point I should add. Being involved with a married person involves them being engaged in a constant state of deception. That isn't a 'past transgression', it is a current, ongoing one.//

Add to what, JM. You've never answered my argument, except to say to folks: "Believe my claims, my ethics are superior to Pure's." Seconded by Catalina who adds, "Watch out for what he says, he encourages people going around killing people."

I added a couple phrases, in my response to you {7-08 --4:46 pm}, to include the present. The issue, Is the 'one episode' in the past or up to the present is utterly immaterial. I challenged your claim that it's going to be followed by another episode (a second affair, roughly speaking), in particular, cheating on the dom/me if given the chance.

J.

Look at that strawman going!! That was never my main point. My main point is that cheaters are acting ethically wrong in the present...keep bringing up the possiblility of future cheating if it makes you feel better, but it is your argument, not mine. I didn't make the claim, you brought it up.

Oh, and it is easy to have better ethics than you, since you have(unless I misread you) declared that your interests are the only consideration, and I believe anyone would take my ethics(tarnished as they may be) over yours.

BTW, are you adding to your older posts? Kind of a cheap way of debating, if you ask me.

 

[Pure]

Hi Mr. B.,

you said,
Once you have lived a portion of your life and been exposed to different things, things don't remain so unknown and hypothetical. If I have had four actual opportunities and (despite temptations) declined in a very decisive manner, I think it is fair to start predicting my future behavior. Some people know what they would do in certain situations and it is silly to pretend to be undecided.

That does not mean I have a superior moral compass or am fully resolved about other aspects of life. Just because I have my own code of conduct does not mean I impose expectations upon others.

Thanks for your objective tone. You don't give the details of your opportunities, but presumably a married (or equiv) woman offered sex with you, unbeknownst to her hubby. I wonder how far you go in protecting others (B) from others (A) possibly non moral acts, cases:

1) Received money in debt repayment (at another creditor's expense , as in my example above?
2) Ever been on an outing with A, when you know A's promised to be elsewhere?
3) Ever been with a girl who's breaking some kind of promise to her parents re dating or sex?
4) Ever heard someone A lie to another, B, as A is going out with you; did you go with A? [A tells B, her boss, "I've got an urgent family 'situation' "and then heads for an outing with you.}

5) Ever borrow from someone who's 'shaved' their income, on their tax forms?

ON adultery (someone else's 'stepping out');

Would you sleep with a married woman--
1) whose hubby moved to a wildnerness retreat 10 years ago, but keeps in touch with her, and says "I'm not with any other woman; you'll always be my wife, I trust, and maybe one day I'll come back."
2) who left her hubby 10 years ago and hasn't communicated with him--kept all her doing secret from him-- since?
3) whose hubby she lives with told her, several years ago, "no more sex, you disgust me; but I don't believe in divorce; you may masturbate, but not 'fuck around' since I must keep up the appearance of a good marriage"; he is Catholic and came out as gay?

4) whose hubby has had a number of affairs up to the present but says "I'll beat you severely if I ever find out you're in an affair"?

Lastly. 5) A woman friend tells you of a plan to leave her very hot-tempered, but not violent, husband, whose said he'll never divorce. It involves her deceiving him, one morning at the time he must leave for work. She's to pretend illness, and go to a hospital. She will go there, in case she's followed. But you are to meet her there and drive her to another state, where she'll set up a someone she's been 'seeing' non-sexually for some time, and has decided to move in with.

All of these last five involve situations which are adulterous ('cheating') and fall under Johnny's


"participation in the breaching of a interpersonal contract[with another]."

OH, and just to come back to the original question, which of the above five women, in your view (were you a dom), is so untrustworthy, dishonest, or such a 'cheater' that she'd not be acceptable as a sub**?; or has such a 'history' that she's be a bad risk as a sub you could trust?

Best,
J.

** 'a third nipple' in Johnny's unforgetable image.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Adding my 2 cents...

Just because I have my own code of conduct does not mean I impose expectations upon others.

Well said!

Stating your own views with enthusiam does not make you judgmental. What makes you judgmental is heavy use of the term

"you should", "you are wrong", and my personal fave "you will surely burn in Hell".

 

[Pure]

Johnny, you say I misunderstood you as claiming anything about the future of a 'cheater' in a new relationship.


My main point is that cheaters are acting ethically wrong in the present

That's pretty trivial Johnny; it's true by definition, and misrepresents the issues I've been discussing with you and Catalina.

In my first post to Catalina and you, I limited myself to the question of the ethics of being involved with someone 'cheating' or in present terms, who is an 'extramaritally active person'. There has never been primary discussion of the adultery per se. You youself even formulated the issue thus:


"participation in the breaching of a interpersonal contract[with another]."

and early on,


I'll say that I have nothing but contept for people who cheat. They can dress it up however they like to justify it. They can claim that they have needs that must be met, or that the two people have grown apart. I say BULLSHIT. If you are too much of a coward to be honest, you are not worth alot in my book.

More importantly{my emphasis}, your 'submission', if that is what you claim, would be as useless to me as a third nipple. It is all a lie, isn't it?

Note the phrase, "more importantly", showing you were well aware of the main topic, the suitability of such a person in a new relationship, esp. as a sub.


Stick to your guns, don't trivialize yourself.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,

You're getting bent out of shape for my saying:

//That's exemplary. I wouldn't expect less, Catalina. You are far closer to sainthood--based on your account-- than I. //

The smiley suggests a joke, my friend. The nugget of truth, of course is that Johnny explicitly and you by suggestion have been indicating moral superiority to me. (The 'looking our for number one' remark, and the reference to killing.)

In your case, maybe! In Johnny's, I don't think so, he's a little too shrill for credibility.

The problem of course is that the morally superior do not necessarily have better arguments or 'facts', and that the morally corrupt sometimes make true and valid points.

Well I am not convinced and find your assumptions about moral highground just that, assumptions, and when reflected on in relation to my professional training and knowledge is very typical as a reaction by someone who has issues of self esteem/image. So if you indeed feel I am promoting myself as superior, I suggest this is your right as a perception no matter how far off you are, but is also indicative of your own thought patterns more so than my words and actions.

Can't agree about the 'morally corrupt' necessarily making true and valid points if you are using as an example the underlying and continuous message here in your posts that it is of no concern to you or someone in this situation what happens to another who is not so in the know, and once you make a mistake in life for whatever reason, you may as well throw up your hands and repeat it over and over. Can't buy into any thought process which promotes stagnation when it is so much more challenging and empowering to take responsibility and learn from your previous behaviours.

You have yet to say why it's my duty to watch out (to the degree you propose) for someone who *might be* morally wronged by another's legal act. (e.g. the other fellow who's owed money; the cuckolded spouse; surely you see the parallel.)

Your remark:
"you resort to fabricating facts" [none cited] is somewhat objectionable; is what's behind it anything other than your mis-taking the joke about your sainthood? Please let keep up the level of debate!

I think I have said it adequately why you should watch out as you put it. To go on more outlining it is just going to bore everyone, most of all me. And no, I don't really see the parellel as I stated in my last post. Once again to save referring back and finding it......it is recognised there is no one ethic to cover every situation in your life. Most people have a number of ethics, each oone applicable to the relevant situations they relate closely to, which to me a wronged spouse and a money loaning friend do not have a close enough correlation to regimentally apply the same ethic....and I remember I did say what my choice would be and was judged for it, jokingly or otherwise. Don't ask people what they would do if you have a set answer in mind you want to hear. Some of us have lead long lives, faced many challenges most will never have to, and lived and learned from them as is natural. As to citing...goes with past statements I don't feel energised enough to repeat yet again, not to mention it is clear with little effort when referring to posts mentioned, and the actual way they are presented repeatedly.

Best wishes. You are a wonderful correspondent and fine, if not concise, debator, and I hope you never take points against your points, as indicating disrepect or anything but the highest esteem for you, both in character and as a person. **
And that's no joke.

Well I think I will take the opportunity this time to disagree yet again and say it is not only I who seems to be less than concise in debating, nor do I have to keep dredging up the same argument over and over challenging others to restate what they have already said.

As to disrespect....I find it a waste of time to even bother contemplating. You are entitled to your view the same as I am mine, and unlike some I am not easily silenced from exercising my equal right to voice my perspective from my experience. If that were who I was I would never have acheived the things I have in my life when others tried to tell me it wasn't possible or/nor worth the bother.




PS
**OK, I did make one reference to your checkered [ ] past, but I've apologized and offered to delete it.

I am never one to ask for favours and as it does not overly bother me as I have been more than open about it, wy sweat it. You see I have no need to feel guilt or shame over something I have chosen of free will to discuss publicly. I am not surprised it is resurrected for points though, disguised or not, as this is what I find most do these days. Is a good way of moving attention and providing balm to their own wounds, real or imagined.

I said,
//Well, Francisco long ago conceded that these issues have nothing to so with SSC. See below.// OK, I hear, from your longish reaction that you are your own person. Also that your ethical views are very similar to F's. OK, sorry I didn't ask:

Do you Catalina concede that the issue whether a dom should 'take a sub who's secretly stepping out', has NOTHING to do with that dom's practicing SSC sexual and other acts?

Wouldn't have thought my 'longish' reaction would have been necessary as we have been far from sitting in the back row on Literotica....is our nature to have opinions and feel comfortable enough in expressing them when participating in open discussion.

As to asking me, I thought I had made it clear countless times that I don't concede wit your statement. Partly as I do not see SSC as applying to sexual and other acts only in a BDSM relationship, just as I do not see BDSM as purely sexual as is often the perception here and elsewhere. IMHO SSC applies to all aspects of the interaction between the dominant and submissives/slaves involved in each relationship.

So if applying it to the instance of a cheating spouse and a dominant ringing the bells together without the knowledge of the SO, I do see it as a safety issue. For instance, the discovery by the SO can easily result in homicide or suicide....to me a significant reason to apply the 'safety' rule. And that is just one of many lines of where it relates to SSC.

Catalina

 

[Temptress_1960]

I'm not going to comment on the elements of your secondary relationship as it's irrelevant to this discussion. As mentioned in another thread recently it is good to read more than the last post as it has been mentioned repeatedly the issue is with those not enlightening their significant other, not doing it with full approval and knowledge.

And as I have also said before, to pronounce someone is judgemental, sanctimonious, etc., for presenting their opinion, which I believe is still a right at this point in time, is rather judgemental in itself. No offence meant but you, like some others are only skimming from the posts what you want, not what is being said.

Our views have related to behaviour and situations, not individual persons involved, and for my part I have been open about my life and experiences as is my nature. Of course, before expressing my experience and view, I was aware it was going to trigger many paople as it is human nature. I am not sure why it seems to trigger you though as you say you have full approval, so no issue involved as I see it.

Catalina

Um, ok.

Let me test my understanding here.

Paragraph 1. My post is irrelevant. Obviously in answering the post I quoted there, my irrelevance is not worthy of your comment. Oddly enough, I have read the previous posts.

Paragraph 2. My stating my opinion that some of the posts in this thread were judgmental and sanctimonious is in and of itself being judgmental and sanctimonious, and somehow has infringed on .your right to state your opinion. My comment clearly means that I'm skimming irrelevant remarks out of context.

Paragraph 3. Obviously I have no business commenting on this thread anyway.

Is this an accurate paraphrase?

Thanks.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Re: Adding my 2 cents...

Once you have lived a portion of your life and been exposed to different things, things don't remain so unknown and hypothetical. If I have had four actual opportunities and (despite temptations) declined in a very decisive manner, I think it is fair to start predicting my future behavior. Some people know what they would do in certain situations and it is silly to pretend to be undecided.

That does not mean I have a superior moral compass or am fully resolved about other aspects of life. Just because I have my own code of conduct does not mean I impose expectations upon others.

You know, I have lived a portion of my life and been exposed to different things. And my experience has taught me that predicting my future behavior is not always accurate.

You are very lucky if events in your life have not ever, in some drastic way, upset your equilibrium or changed your attitudes or caused you to make mistakes that go against your personal ethics, and I hope that your life continues to flow smoothly and predictably.

I do appreciate that you are not imposing your code of conduct on others.

I meant in my post to point out that we can't know what the future will bring, and that things that may seem unthinkable today might just be the only solution tomorrow.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Um, ok.

Let me test my understanding here.

Paragraph 1. My post is irrelevant. Obviously in answering the post I quoted there, my irrelevance is not worthy of your comment. Oddly enough, I have read the previous posts.

No your understanding is incorrect I'm afraid. If you read the sentence I wrote, I said your relationship was irrelevant to the discussion as you had told the posters your husband is fully aware and agreeable to your secondary relationship. As i went on to point out for clarity and to avoid your misunderstanding, and going off on another tangent in the thread, the issue being discussed here has been those situations where one person becomes involved with another without the prior or current knowledge or blessing of their primary relationship SO. I thought that would be clear after stating it so simply.

Paragraph 2. My stating my opinion that some of the posts in this thread were judgmental and sanctimonious is in and of itself being judgmental and sanctimonious, and somehow has infringed on .your right to state your opinion. My comment clearly means that I'm skimming irrelevant remarks out of context.

Firstly, no, the posts of yourself and others who choose to be judgemental do not infringe on my right to state my opinion because I do not shoose to give them the power to do that. It may be the intention of some, though they want their opinion to be heard, but in no way have I said I feel I am unable to state my case and thought I had made it clear I will always assert my right to express my opinion, just as anyone else does.

As to skimming, it was the impression I got from reading your post as you had for one thing seemingly misunderstood or missed that the discussion was about those who pursue cloak and dagger relationships, unlike yourself. In this post again, you have missed it even though I had explained my reason for not commenting on your relationship. It was notr personal, and I have made it clear it is of no consequence, and those who are familiar with my relationship know we have participated in sharing and plan to again, so why would I then be stupid enough to publicly condemn or judge you for having a relationship your SO is aware of and happy with?

Paragraph 3. Obviously I have no business commenting on this thread anyway.

Is this an accurate paraphrase?

Thanks.

No, once again, it is not an accurate paraphrase or undserstanding. You, and anyone who wishes to is free to comment on the thread. As far as I am aware, no thread is closed to any posters. If you drew this conclusion from the final paragraph of my former post in response to yours, it clearly stated I had no issue with you and your relationship and in no way told you you had no place here. In fact I even pointed out our posts had not singled out particular persons, but had discussed issues and behaviours raised in the original thread post. I am sorry you have so misunderstood and know of nothing else I could have done to prevent you reading what you did into it. I attempted to make it as plain and clear and non inflammatory as possible, not offensive, alienating, and judgemental.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

Can't agree about the 'morally corrupt' necessarily making true and valid points if you are using as an example the underlying and continuous message here in your posts that it is of no concern to you or someone in this situation what happens to another who is not so in the know,

Let's look at your first clause:

//Can't agree about the 'morally corrupt' necessarily making true and valid points //

You've turned it upside down. I said that my 'moral corruption' doesn't, of itself, make every point false or every argument
IN-valid. Likewise Johnny's self-said superior ethics don't necessarily make his points valid, indeed JM's ethics have nothing to do with the validity of the points.

Let's look at the second clause:

//the underlying and continuous message here in your posts that it is of no concern to you or someone in this situation what happens to another who is not so in the know//

That's a fairly bald and simplistic account of my position; some might even label it a 'straw man.' What I've said is a kind of 'mind your own business' principle; barring illegal acts, it's often of little or no concern to me that someone I'm interacting with is possibly--or apparently**-- or allegedly**--breaching a moral duty to someone else with whom I have no connection: e.g., breaking a promise to them.

I've given some illustrations to you and 10 similar illustrations to Mr. Blond, and they're not meant to be indisputable, but at least gray, some of them. Subject to argument by fair minded people.

**It strikes me too, in emphasizing the words 'apparently' and 'allegedly', that in a number of cases there is no breach of duty, because arguably the agreement/contract has been nullified by the other. So it's simply not the case that an 'extramarital' activity is, in the blameworthy sense, 'cheating' or a breach of duty.

A virtue of the 'mind-your-own-business principle' is that I don't substitute my judgment for that of the person breaching an alleged duty. Its companion is a 'you-don't-always-know' principle : You don't necessarily know the whole picture, the rights and wrongs of another pair's situation.

The approach of JM and Catalina has me--or the third party-- attempting to assess duties and breaches in what may be an unfamiliar situation. Enunciating conclusions in such cases is bound to seem judgmental: " She's reprehensible for straying, and you (the third party) are also that way for abetting or taking part in that action."

J.