Is it really safe, sane, and consensual?

[catalina_francisco]

Pure, I didn't know we were debating 'rights and wrongs of another pair's situation', but more so thoughts on where individuals would stand if confronted with this situation. That being said, as I mentioned in the last post, it is all getting rather boring from my viewpoint as you are not going anywhere new, and if anything I do like to have my mind challenged regularly one way or another.

As to the questions you posed to Mr. B., I had contemplated answering them as I did not find them terrifically difficult, but as they were not addressed to me, and did not to me seem to largely connect to the issues in discussion, I decided against it.

So I am sorry to say, at this point I am not going to comment further as all I see is you are true to form, dissecting words, sentences, etc., in an effort to prove who knows what. Seems to me to go in an endless circle of rehashing the same old statements with no new angles. Don't be mistaken in thinking this means you win, as I am aware it always comes down to competition for you...all I am conceding is the discussion seems to have wound itself out to a point it has no life left in it, or at least not enough to keep the brain cells jumping for me.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Adultery and BDSM, the original topic

I'm reposting some of the material to Mr. Blond, and others can look at it and comment. If they're inclined.

I know it's all very boring for Catalina and maybe some others who like a challenge to the mind. But here goes, anyway.

Puzzles for the amusement of all, re involvement in adultery and bdsm, slightly adapted from my above posting to Mr. Blond:


ON adultery (your involvement in someone else's 'stepping out'); dom issues with those who 'step out

[change around the married woman to a married man, etc. if you wish; change the dom to domme, etc. as required, etc.]

Is it morally wrong for a man to have sex with a married woman (who offers it, unsolicited,)--

1) whose hubby moved to a wildnerness retreat 10 years ago, but keeps in touch with her. He sends a small check for the kid each month, 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 doings secret from him-- since (has taken nothing from him, by way of support)?

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 secretly begun to live as gay)?

4) whose hubby she lives with has had a number of affairs up to the present and has gambled, not kept his paycheck or 'provided' for the kids for several years, but says "I'll beat you severely if I ever find out you're in an affair"?

Lastly.

Is the man being immoral in the following proceeding:

5) A woman friend tells the man of a plan to leave her very hot-tempered, but not violent, husband, whose said he'll never divorce. It involves her deceiving the husband, one morning at the time he must leave for work. She's to pretend illness, and to go to a hospital. The man is to meet her there and drive her to another state, where she'll set up a household with someone she's been 'seeing' non-sexually for some time.
====


To come back to the original question, If you are a dom, or can imagine, hypothetically, being one:

Which of the above five women, according to your principles of BDSM and morality, is so untrustworthy, dishonest, or such a 'cheater' that she'd currently be UNacceptable as a sub** ?

Which, on your view, could not, at present, genuinely and honestly submit? or,

Which has such a history that she'd appear to be a bad risk as a sub you could ever trust?


** she'd [he'd] be 'a third nipple' in Johnny's unforgetable image.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Back to the original topic -

if you are hiding your kink from your married partner?

Consensual means to me that all parties agree. I feel for women who look outside the marriage, but if it is cloak and dagger stuff why not just get divorced?

It takes a great deal of courage for people to be comfortable enough with their own sexual kink to share it with someone they feel will be disapproving and critical.

It took me a long time to overcome various inhibitions and to share my needs and desires with my husband.

Even now, when I initially mention some activity that is new to us, and might be considered kinky, his first reaction is usually, "OMG, you want to WHAT????"

This is his personality. After he thinks about what I've said for a couple days, he usually is interested to try it. It can be a bit daunting still, that initial reaction.

It's very risky to open yourself to another person to that extent. It took me 19 years of marriage to get to that point. Frightening to think that the reaction is going to be along the lines of disgust, and that the other person will think your desire/want/need is unacceptably bizarre - especially if this is the person you live with 24/7.

For people who look outside their marriage, well... I used to see that as black and white. "If you don't want to be faithful, then don't be married." As time goes on, life experiences have caused me to see more grey areas. Unless I am personally in the relationship, I'm not going to judge their ethical validity.

We all bring different baggage to the party. One person's sane may be another person's crazy. Lord knows there are people who find all of D/s to be pretty insane. I have to admit, there are certain more hard-core aspects that seem pretty unlikely and unfathomable to me. That's not to say that I think those folks are crazy - we all have our own needs and desires.

Safe, well that's pretty clear. The concept posted earlier that a cheating spouse might become dangerously violent about hidden D/s activities is, to me, kind of an unlikely what-if. Sure, it happens, no doubt. But a lot of things might happen. What if the bank gets robbed while I'm there? Perhaps I should avoid the bank. What if when I'm nicely tied up, the house catches on fire? Life by its very nature is unsafe in that sense.

Consensual... to my mind, that part is between whoever is involved in the scene. Someone who admits to being married and acting without knowlege of their spouse is at least more honest than someone pretending that they are not married. I'd let them worry about their own ethics. Certainly one can choose not to play with married people; that is your right.

But here's another question. I'm married, and my hubby is fully aware of any activities I partake of. Would you require proof of that? How do you know that I'm honest about his approval, without him standing there telling you? Perhaps he finds D/s distasteful, and I come alone to the party. How can you tell if he approves or not?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Back to the original topic -

But here's another question. I'm married, and my hubby is fully aware of any activities I partake of. Would you require proof of that? How do you know that I'm honest about his approval, without him standing there telling you? Perhaps he finds D/s distasteful, and I come alone to the party. How can you tell if he approves or not?

Call him on the telephone? I'm in a semi-open relationship, and anyone is welcome to talk to my SO before playing with me...sometimes, they end up wanting to play with both of us!

 

[Pure]

Just curious about 'semi-open.'

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Back to the original topic -

It takes a great deal of courage for people to be comfortable enough with their own sexual kink to share it with someone they feel will be disapproving and critical.

Yes I agree it is difficult but don't think it is necessarily made easier by cheating on your SO.

It took me a long time to overcome various inhibitions and to share my needs and desires with my husband.

Even now, when I initially mention some activity that is new to us, and might be considered kinky, his first reaction is usually, "OMG, you want to WHAT????"

This is his personality. After he thinks about what I've said for a couple days, he usually is interested to try it. It can be a bit daunting still, that initial reaction.

It's very risky to open yourself to another person to that extent. It took me 19 years of marriage to get to that point. Frightening to think that the reaction is going to be along the lines of disgust, and that the other person will think your desire/want/need is unacceptably bizarre - especially if this is the person you live with 24/7.

It is sad you felt you had to wait 19 years but not unusual IMO. It is about making the choices in life, being yourself, and being able to choose a partner you feel comfortable with, and who is good for us. Unfortunately, this is not usually how we are when young and choosing a SO. I was fortunate to make the decisions necessary and divorce, then despite the recriminations of friends who felt I should choose anyone willing to take me just because they were nice to me, I had the strength and learned knowledge to wait nearly 2 decades for one I felt was the right one and with whom I could be myself without fear. Master has provided that valuable opportunity and we can be open always with each other.

For people who look outside their marriage, well... I used to see that as black and white. "If you don't want to be faithful, then don't be married." As time goes on, life experiences have caused me to see more grey areas. Unless I am personally in the relationship, I'm not going to judge their ethical validity.

We all bring different baggage to the party. One person's sane may be another person's crazy. Lord knows there are people who find all of D/s to be pretty insane. I have to admit, there are certain more hard-core aspects that seem pretty unlikely and unfathomable to me. That's not to say that I think those folks are crazy - we all have our own needs and desires.

Making the choice to not adopt the ethics of another does not mean you are judgemental. What it does mean is you are strong enough to know what is right for you and live it. I am happy for anyone to live as they feel fit for them, but not happy for them to then insist if I don't accept and give my devoted approval and/or join them, that I am being judgemental. Everyone needs a code by which they live otherwise you drift, end up forever trying to decide what to do in each and every situation, and come across as someone who is mixed up as what you do one day might be the opposite of your actions next week, solely because you don't have a set of guidelines by which you live your life. I know for me I do not feel I can rely on this type of person for anything. Sometimes situations can vary to necessitate altering your view slightly, but those gray areas always have the basis by which you live your life to rely on as a guide, thus the decisions are not that difficult to make, or that far removed from other decisions you have made. Because you have a set of ethics does not necessarily mean it is easy to live by them, but overall it is a lot easier than never knowing what you believe and stand for.

Safe, well that's pretty clear. The concept posted earlier that a cheating spouse might become dangerously violent about hidden D/s activities is, to me, kind of an unlikely what-if. Sure, it happens, no doubt. But a lot of things might happen. What if the bank gets robbed while I'm there? Perhaps I should avoid the bank. What if when I'm nicely tied up, the house catches on fire? Life by its very nature is unsafe in that sense.

Consensual... to my mind, that part is between whoever is involved in the scene. Someone who admits to being married and acting without knowlege of their spouse is at least more honest than someone pretending that they are not married. I'd let them worry about their own ethics. Certainly one can choose not to play with married people; that is your right.

If you are referring to my statements in earlier posts which I presume you are, I did not say a cheating spouse might become dangerously violent. In fact they are probably the least likely to. What I did say though was the actions of the cheating spouse could lead to violence in either homicide or suicide. Facts support this with intimate violence being one of the leading causes of death and injury each year. As Gavin De Becker says in his book 'The Gift of Fear'......"In (sad) fact, if a full jumbo jet crashed into a mountain killing everyone on board, and if that happened every month, month in and month out, the number of people killed stilll wouldn't equal the number of women murdered by their husbands and boyfriends each year."

While bank robbery is a risk, just as crossing the road is, the risks to your life or that of another are not nearly as high as if you are deceiving your SO, nor are they caused by your cheating, so the analogy does not work for me. While it seems there are grades of honesty etc., I like to evolve in my life and am always striving to improve on who I am, learn, and grow, so doing something which is 'more honest' than choice C, but still short of choice A, to me means I still have a lot of work to do on myself. It also makes me feel I am selling myself short to settle for half measures when I know with a little effort I can go the whole way.

But here's another question. I'm married, and my hubby is fully aware of any activities I partake of. Would you require proof of that? How do you know that I'm honest about his approval, without him standing there telling you? Perhaps he finds D/s distasteful, and I come alone to the party. How can you tell if he approves or not?

I agree with JM's response to this. I am sure I would require some sort of reason to believe the person was telling me the truth and I think often they come undone in a moment when you suggest you will call them at home, or come visit. That visible panic and lengthy list of reasons why you can't is usually a dead give away. For me anyone who is not happy to be open to visits or phone calls is immediately off the list for me. If they are not hiding a SO, to me they have bagggage I don't need to involve my life with. If you really want to know the answer to anything, there are a million ways to find it and usually with very little trouble or creativity. One I find particularly helpful is putting a person at ease at which point they tend to drop their guard and begin tripping up in their own untruths, often without even realising it.

What I am beginning to wonder though is why you are so vehemently defensive of one who goes behind the back of their SO if as you say you have been upfront with your partner and have full approval. To me it is one thing to be indifferent to it, but you seem to go beyond that to being defensive at every turn. That being said it is your right, but does keep putting question marks in my mind in trying to relate to your strength of conviction and need to defend the actions.

Catalina

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Re: Back to the original topic -

What I am beginning to wonder though is why you are so vehemently defensive of one who goes behind the back of their SO if as you say you have been upfront with your partner and have full approval. To me it is one thing to be indifferent to it, but you seem to go beyond that to being defensive at every turn. That being said it is your right, but does keep putting question marks in my mind in trying to relate to your strength of conviction and need to defend the actions.

Catalina

You know, I'm not defending anyone's actions.

I am participating in discussion, defined as "consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate."

I have a great deal of strength of conviction regarding my own actions and the way that I live my life. I do not feel qualified to judge how anyone else lives theirs. And I don't need to defend my actions to you or to anyone else.

Any comments I've made about my own life have been for the purpose of better explaining my point of view, not for the approval, disapproval, or analysis by anyone.

I don't feel that anyone should "... give devoted approval and/or join..." those whose ethics they do not share or with which they don't agree.

As far as acceptance goes... there are many people who disapprove and find unacceptable the D/s lifestyle or even the semi-open relationships, for instance, that many of us have. If someone can't accept who I am, that's their problem.

And to answer Pure's question (even though I'm not JM), what I mean by semi-open is that hubby and I play together with others upon occasion - not frequently, it's been almost a year since we've had any group play time. We each have an SO, whom we see online, talk to on the phone, and meet in RL; both are long-distance, though long-term, relationships. It's not an every week or even every month RL visit for either of us. The "semi" part to me means that it's not open in the sense of, "oh, who are you going out with tonight, honey?" In my marriage, all such extra-marital activity requires prior approval and discussion. Stopping off at the local bar by myself to pick up a hot stud for the night would not be acceptable (not a real difficult limit for me, because I have no interest in doing so). I don't know how JM defines semi-open, or what anyone else's definition might be - but this is mine.

Catalina, you seem pretty defensive about appearing to be judgmental. That raises a few questions in my mind about why that's such a hot button with you.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Back to the original topic -

Originally posted by Temptress_1960

Catalina, you seem pretty defensive about appearing to be judgmental. That raises a few questions in my mind about why that's such a hot button with you. [/QUOTE]

I have no problem answering that one. I find it is a negative word thrown around the board (and world at large) without any real basis of understanding the definition except 'you don't do as I do and have no problem saying so, so that makes you judgemental'. I find it a roadblock to open discussion, so dislike it a lot, and am amused that the ones who accuse others of being judgemental are usually the ones objecting strongly to another's behaviour.

To me saying your or anyone's behaviour or opinion is not my reality, but acknowledging we are all different and make various choices based on our experiences and perceptions, is not judgemental. Telling someone they are bad or wrong, or should not do what they do or say, IMO is judgemental....and it abounds in this world. So while I may defend why I feel a particular way, or live in a certain way, I am doing just that...defoending my right to have my choices respected and in so doing presenting a little of why I am who I am in the interests of promoting understanding, the same as I try to understand the perspectives of others. Does not mean my position has to change, though sometimes it does.

Catalina

 

[Temptress_1960]

... I find it is a negative word thrown around the board (and world at large) without any real basis of understanding the definition except 'you don't do as I do and have no problem saying so, so that makes you judgemental'. I find it a roadblock to open discussion, so dislike it a lot, and am amused that the ones who accuse others of being judgemental are usually the ones objecting strongly to another's behaviour...
Catalina [/B]

I get the impression that you've been accused of being judgmental before.

I do respect your right to make your own life choices and to choose your own behavior, and I don't believe I've implied otherwise. If I have done so inadvertantly, then I do apologise for that.

Although I am sure that it is not your intention. in many of the posts on this thread, you do come across as being judgmental.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I get the impression that you've been accused of being judgmental before.

Not overly, and not as much as some, but as I explained it happens everywhere and is a pet hate of mine as I do not like to see meanings to words changed to suit the purposes of others and try to silence anyone who is not a carbon copy of themselves.

I do respect your right to make your own life choices and to choose your own behavior, and I don't believe I've implied otherwise. If I have done so inadvertantly, then I do apologise for that.

Although I am sure that it is not your intention. in many of the posts on this thread, you do come across as being judgmental.

No need to apologise. I prefer to see someone change their behaviour to suit the words, not mouth words needlessly and then continue the same behaviour. But yes, you are entitled to your perceptions as am I.

And as I have said before, judgemental does not mean someone has a different opinion, lifestyle, or view to you or anyone else, it means you insist others are wrong for their views and need to change immediately to suit your own. To the best of my knowledge, though I am strong in many of my opinions and views, and comfortable with this as I know who I am and what I stand for, I have not gone out of my way to judge and tell others they are wrong and would be better living as I do.

Struth, I am well aware my way is not the way many choose, and that is fine by me. One of my nightmares is the world becoming the same (more than it already is), everyone saying 'I agree' to each other, and seemingly clone like. I see it a lot in our political system that they try and mold us that way, but I'm not buying it. Far too boring and stifling.

Catalina

 

[Ebonyfire]

The best part of all of this is the fact that you married subs know who will play with you, and who will not. LOL

Someone in this thread asked how would you know if the sub had persmission for his/her spouse to play.

Well I tell prospective married subs that at the first meeting I would meet them both face to face. As a swinger, that is how we screened players. It works.

 

[Pure]

Entangled Subs

OK, I do see a 'best case' where the prospective sub player can bring hubby or wifey to an interview.

Above, however, I mentioned some of the possible entanglements a sub prospect might come with, in respect of absent or nasty spouses. 7-09 9:09pm -- Adultery and BDSM the original topic-- on adultery. [six cases]

I have not even heard from Johnny of high standards as to whether they are all unsuitable; maybe they are but I wanted to bring in some 'gray' areas.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I have not even heard from Johnny of high standards as to whether they are all unsuitable; maybe they are but I wanted to bring in some 'gray' areas.

You can always come up with exceptions...but they don't disprove the general rule. I think the cases that kicked this off were women who mostly loved(or at least liked) their husbands, but were bored sexually or emotionally. The husband didn't do anything to them, they are just interesting in being kinkier now, so they cheat. And, of course, they brag about how wonderful it is to be cheating, like their husband is a peice of furniture, or a work aquaintance.

 

[Pure]

The exceptions make life interesting.

So I take it that some of these 'entangled ladies' present no problems. Which?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

The exceptions make life interesting.

So I take it that some of these 'entangled ladies' present no problems. Which?

Actually, they all present problems. I don't get involved with 'entangled' women.

 

[Ebonyfire]

When I think of courage

I do not think of being honest about ones sexuality. That does not take courage (IMHO) it just makes good sense.

Why does it make sense?

Well look at the divorce statistics. I bet those figures would plummet if people were honest with THEMSELVES first.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Ebonyfire, I think for many of us it takes a great deal of courage to suggest to our mate that we try something outside of the traditional heterosexual, vanilla idea of sexuality.

What if you are pretty certain that the fantasy you want to share would be upsetting to your partner? Sharing your deepest, darkest, sexual desire and finding that it disgusts your partner would be devastating for many of us.

Say, for instance, that a man wants to try being tied up and peed on. This is the one fantasy that is guaranteed to get him hot and right on the edge. He wants to try it for real.

In a perfect world, it would go like this:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"Yesssssssss, baby, get the ropes nowwwwwwwww... quick, cause I have got to pee..."

Worst case scenario:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"OH MY GOD!!!! You sick pervert. My mother warned me about you years ago, and I refused to listen. I'm packing now, I will be at mother's until you come to your senses!"

Middle ground:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"Ummmm... well. That's certainly interesting. Ahhh... let me think about that one.... I'll get back to you. No, not right now, I think my head is aching..."

Courage? Yep, I think so. In the worst case response, I'd be willing to bet that he wouldn't suggest anything different again.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Ebonyfire, I think for many of us it takes a great deal of courage to suggest to our mate that we try something outside of the traditional heterosexual, vanilla idea of sexuality.

What if you are pretty certain that the fantasy you want to share would be upsetting to your partner? Sharing your deepest, darkest, sexual desire and finding that it disgusts your partner would be devastating for many of us.

Say, for instance, that a man wants to try being tied up and peed on. This is the one fantasy that is guaranteed to get him hot and right on the edge. He wants to try it for real.

In a perfect world, it would go like this:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"Yesssssssss, baby, get the ropes nowwwwwwwww... quick, cause I have got to pee..."

Worst case scenario:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"OH MY GOD!!!! You sick pervert. My mother warned me about you years ago, and I refused to listen. I'm packing now, I will be at mother's until you come to your senses!"

Middle ground:

"Honey... I really want you to tie me to the bed, straddle me, and pee all over me... that would be sooooooooooo hot, baby..."

"Ummmm... well. That's certainly interesting. Ahhh... let me think about that one.... I'll get back to you. No, not right now, I think my head is aching..."

Courage? Yep, I think so. In the worst case response, I'd be willing to bet that he wouldn't suggest anything different again.

I believe you do not get My point.

If you are honest BEFORE the person becomes your mate, then you can find other reasons to be unhappy, and not use vanilla sex.

The things you mention are only an issue because the people involved were not honest BEFORE the commitment is made.

Once you set up the tone of the relationship, it is very hard to change things.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just stating My opinion.

If you are not honest about your needs at the beginning of the relationship, then you cannot expect to get them met.

Ask, for what you want and need.

 

[catalina_francisco]

As one of my favourite movie lines goes, 'To live your life in fear is to only live half a life'. Never a truer word spoken. I agree with Eb that if people were more upfront with their feelings and needs initially, at lleast in touch with who they were before getting into a relationship of any consequence, there would not be near as many divorces and extramarital affairs. What I find even more disturbing is a person will decide for their spouse they would not be into the said activity and use it as justification to cheat. Presumably the cheater has not been open about their needs and turn ons, so how can they expect to know their partner isn't into what they find they are. You can't presume that if maybe they also are hiding in fear of the response.

So what could have initially been a simple problem, then becomes humungous and for what reason. I don't think the above scenarios are very realistic as I think anyone could likely expect a negative outcome if they just sprung it on an unsuspecting partner without warning. There are ways of introducing topics which will encourage a more receptive response.

What I find sad is though people go through relationship difficulties because they did not present themselves as the person they were, or their partner didn't, or both, they then go intpo subsequent relationships and make the same mistake. I know several people who have done this 3-4 times and ended in divorce each time, then go into the next relationship and do the same and wonder why it keeps going wrong.

As to the qustion of what takes courage. I would say it takes an enormous amount of courage to admit your needs are not being met, make a decision you deserve better, and then take the steps necessary to leave and pursue the relationship you want. Far more than avoiding the whole issue and cheating.

C

 

[kayte]

I believe you do not get My point.

If you are honest BEFORE the person becomes your mate, then you can find other reasons to be unhappy, and not use vanilla sex.

The things you mention are only an issue because the people involved were not honest BEFORE the commitment is made.

Once you set up the tone of the relationship, it is very hard to change things.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just stating My opinion.

If you are not honest about your needs at the beginning of the relationship, then you cannot expect to get them met.

Ask, for what you want and need.

Eb, and if you didn't know yourself at the time you married?

I changed, and he didn't in the same way. We are divorcing and it is working out for the most part. Our divorce is at his request. He met someone who fulfilled his needs better than I did.

He is 'horrified' at my choices. He knows a bit. Since he doesn't know anything beyond the 'nilla world and didn't want to he worries.

He and his current woman think D/s-BDSM is sick. That is why she divorced her husband who has moved on to that life now too.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Eb, and if you didn't know yourself at the time you married?

I changed, and he didn't in the same way. We are divorcing and it is working out for the most part. Our divorce is at his request. He met someone who fulfilled his needs better than I did.

He is 'horrified' at my choices. He knows a bit. Since he doesn't know anything beyond the 'nilla world and didn't want to he worries.

He and his current woman think D/s-BDSM is sick. That is why she divorced her husband who has moved on to that life now too.

But the point still comes down to honesty here. You have both agreed to disagree, not one having a relationship with a third without informing the other. Your getting a divorce is a positive sign in pursuing happiness, not creating more unhappiness.

C

 

[kayte]

But the point still comes down to honesty here. You have both agreed to disagree, not one having a relationship with a third without informing the other. Your getting a divorce is a positive sign in pursuing happiness, not creating more unhappiness.

C

He and I both agree. Life is too short. We don't need to make what there is of it miserable for each other.

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina

you said,

I agree with Eb that if people were more upfront with their feelings and needs initially, at lleast in touch with who they were before getting into a relationship of any consequence, there would not be near as many divorces and extramarital affairs. What I find even more disturbing is a person will decide for their spouse they would not be into the said activity and use it as justification to cheat. Presumably the cheater has not been open about their needs and turn ons, so how can they expect to know their partner isn't into what they find they are. You can't presume that if maybe they also are hiding in fear of the response.

So what could have initially been a simple problem, then becomes humungous and for what reason. I don't think the above scenarios are very realistic as I think anyone could likely expect a negative outcome if they just sprung it on an unsuspecting partner without warning. There are ways of introducing topics which will encourage a more receptive response.

What I find sad is though people go through relationship difficulties because they did not present themselves as the person they were, or their partner didn't, or both, they then go intpo subsequent relationships and make the same mistake. I know several people who have done this 3-4 times and ended in divorce each time, then go into the next relationship and do the same and wonder why it keeps going wrong.

As to the qustion of what takes courage. I would say it takes an enormous amount of courage to admit your needs are not being met, make a decision you deserve better, and then take the steps necessary to leave and pursue the relationship you want. Far more than avoiding the whole issue and cheating.

C

With all due respect, this seems much too cut and dried. You and Eb seem to be trying to make before marriage honesty one of two keys to everything, and attribute most/all of what goes wrong to lack of it.

People just do not know themselves, or if so, they change. Yes, it's easy on an early date to say "I'm into saran wrap", and thus the honesty prescription is doable. Much more is at stake later, and I don't see a whole lot of empathy for the persons in that situation.

Hence we come to the second formula or key: be courageous and honest after the marriage. Nothing wrong with that; they are noble practices.

Catalina you seem bent on portraying the spouse who steps out as having so many character flaws. Similar to JM. Here this Extramaritally Active Person (EAP) is said to lack courage. You make the EAP the main target of moral judgements and seem to primarily 'blame' him/her, though surely you know the blame gets spread in most real life situations.

Kayte, and others, there's a fine short story about a woman whose husband asks for peeing, and her real difficulties with that.
I could dig up a ref if anyone's interested.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Pure, maybe it is more the conversation her seems to go nowhere new. As to your statement, "You make the EAP the main target of moral judgements and seem to primarily 'blame' him/her, though surely you know the blame gets spread in most real life situations."....perhaps the 'blame' so to speak is spread when talking about the reasons for a marriage breakdown, but I think most would have to stretch the imagination a bit far to see someone forcing the EAP to become involved outside the marriage without the SO's knowledge. Therefore I see the decision as residing with the EAP ultimately....there are choices you know.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,


Pure, maybe it is more the conversation her seems to go nowhere new.

I know, except for EB who agrees with you, we all bore you to tears


As to your statement, "You make the EAP the main target of moral judgements and seem to primarily 'blame' him/her, though surely you know the blame gets spread in most real life situations."....perhaps the 'blame' so to speak is spread when talking about the reasons for a marriage breakdown, but I think most would have to stretch the imagination a bit far to see someone forcing the EAP to become involved outside the marriage without the SO's knowledge. Therefore I see the decision as residing with the EAP ultimately....there are choices you know.

I find your almost prosecutorial zeal surprising in a feminist and (I think) counsellor. Let's leave adultery aside since it's so 'hot' for you.

Consider a 'burning bed' scenario. There have been a few cases.
Wife is physically abused by an often drunk husband. After years, one day she gets gasoline, douses the sleeping guy in bed, lights it.

Now the prosecutor makes the same moves youre making. Narrow focus. Her overt criminal act. Free will. She had a choice. She premeditated it, since she went out to the garage to get the gasoline. Maybe he wasn't good, but he had a right to live. *Nobody 'forced' the woman to do it. Nor was is done in a rage, so it's essentially cold blooded murder, which has an appropriate penalty.

The prosecutor might well add your points. The woman had options. The door was open, and she could have *left* while he was sleeping. Where was her courage? Instead she made a cowardly 'sneak attack' while in no immediate danger.

The defense--feminist, btw-- says look at the history. Look at other acts, including violent ones done to her. Look at the terrified or intimidated self-blaming mental state that the hubby seems to have worked to create, etc. In the end, it's a bit of a judicial stretch--or 'new ground'--but it's self defense (against the attacks certain to come in the future). Maybe the critical act of the bedburnner can be seen as one of courage, since it arguably faced a danger, dealt with it, and likely saved her life.**


In the present instance not only do you ignore overt acts of the spouse of the EAP, but (even if we assume hers is the only overt act against anyone) you ignore the whole context, possible emotional abuse, mental state and so on.

Simply put, dishonesty and lack of courage are not the only relevant 'sins' (or dimensions) in the Extramarital Activity situation or a number of others.

Thanks for reading this far; I'm sure it's been a chore.



**Added 7-12. I don't necessarily say the bedburner is 100% in the right or should 'get off' scot free. Simply that it's not a black and white issue whether she's a coldblooded murderess.