The Way Less Than Perfect, drawn to the lifestyle

[niteshade]

Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

I run my relationship the same way, you are not weird, we are, just, unfortunately, in the minority.

If I meet someone who'se SO hasn't figured this out, I don't consider that my problem, however. People who demand to be lied to and then get upset if lied to will always mystify me.

Here Here. Though, I do still tend to feel bad about the idea of being "the other woman," so there must still be some of societies views clinging to me. This is not to say that I feel that way about women I know who ARE the other woman, just that I feel sick at the idea for myself, though I have been in that postiton twice. And I ask, why is it that there is sooo much hatred of the woman who "helps" a man to cheat? At what point is it her job to make his decisions for him? If he is unsatisfied, that is hardly her fault. Does it all go back to Eve and the Apple? Is it a case of believing that the strayer must have been tempted, and so it is the other woman's fault? Horse pucky.

Oh, my, did I hijack this thread? Sorry.

 

[Caitlynne]

Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

I run my relationship the same way, you are not weird, we are, just, unfortunately, in the minority.

If I meet someone who'se SO hasn't figured this out, I don't consider that my problem, however. People who demand to be lied to and then get upset if lied to will always mystify me.

Me too! One of the things I do for myself is this.... I never ask a question I do not RELLY want to know the answer to. Just in case the answer is the worst case scenario, I want to be able to hear it without flipping out.

I try to do my own work, before I ask. My own work meaning, the inner questions that need to be asked and answerd first. Then and only then, if I still have questions that I MUST have answered, I ask. But I am already prepared to hear the worst.

It cuts down on my emotional outbursts to be prepared, and it makes it much easier for someone to 'tell' the truth because I make it safe for someone to do just that. But then these are the things that evolve over time..

The thing about trust is it goes both ways... In order to tell the truth (with NO omissions) you have to see that the (hard) truth can safely be told, otherwise you will get evasions. Evasions lead to secrets, and secrets can lead anywhere. When it comes to trust, it goes both ways. Each needs to know that they can trust that the other is telling the truth and each needs to know that the truth can be spoken safely.

As I've stated before, all this takes time and nurturing. There are no easy 1-10 steps when it comes to trust.

I'd also like to add something about those who have ever been untrustworthy in the past. I think that many people learn their lessons, albiet the hard way, still, they learn the value of trust and the consequences of breaking that trust. While I can certainly understand not wanting to 'waste' ones time with someone who cannot be trusted, I'm hesitant to label all past transgressors as completely without merit or character. Many people make mistakes and learn profound lessons.

And while we are all entitled to our preferences and judgments about what we want in our own lives..... (after all it is our own life)... I'm thinking that where this line is drawn, is at the point where one's preference is offered as 'better than' anothers. I'm just guessing here, I could be wrong.

~ Cait

 

[Temptress_1960]

Way to go, Cait.

You said it perfectly.

 

[Netzach]

Why don't more people realize that part of trust is creating an atmosphere where someone can say the truth and be assured they are not going to be flipped out on or ridiculed?

Not only through making mistakes and doing things we probably "shouldn't" do CAN we learn profound lessons, as you eloquently put it, I argue it's the ONLY way to learn "profound lessons"

I do a lot of things I "shouldn't" do. I've done a couple I shouldn't have (internal voice of conscience and reason speaking, not someone else's BS.) Learning to tell A from B has been one of the hardest things to learn, for me, anyway. Other people's "shouldn't" is almost always a way to circumscribe my behavior, induce guilt, and reduce complexity that I might want to go up against, conventional wisdom has a lot of holes in it.

 

[Caitlynne]

Why don't more people realize that part of trust is creating an atmosphere where someone can say the truth and be assured they are not going to be flipped out on or ridiculed?

Yes, I quite agree! We all develop trust (or the lack of it) in others from consistent behavior. Telling the truth does not happen in a vaccum, it is told to someone. If one tells a hard truth (the easy ones are--well easy) and it is met with ridicule, judgment and hystrionics, what is created?

Folks, we learn this response as children and it is a hard one to break. What happened the first time your parents told you you wouldn't be punished if you spoke the truth? If it was only a trap and you were punished anyway, what was learned?

If, as we have been discussing, one partner has tried over and over again to explain personal needs and desires, and they are never listened to (or seldom), or worse yet, dismissed as inconsequential, then what is created?

Not only through making mistakes and doing things we probably "shouldn't" do CAN we learn profound lessons, as you eloquently put it, I argue it's the ONLY way to learn "profound lessons"

I agree completley!

There is a saying (well I have one anyway) that lessons learned the hard way can never be taken away. They are enbedded in the consciousness. And this is because of the painful manner in which the lesson learned. Just as in most things, the lessons learned through pain are the ones we remember long after the details of easier and more pleasurable experiences have faded from our memories.

I do a lot of things I "shouldn't" do. I've done a couple I shouldn't have (internal voice of conscience and reason speaking, not someone else's BS.) Learning to tell A from B has been one of the hardest things to learn, for me, anyway. Other people's "shouldn't" is almost always a way to circumscribe my behavior, induce guilt, and reduce complexity that I might want to go up against, conventional wisdom has a lot of holes in it.

Nice distinction here, I couldn't have said it better.

I learned a long time ago, (In a painful lesson) that in the end, I need to make the decisions that *I* can live with. What I can live with and what another person can live with are, in most cases, two different things. But I have to live with myself, so I use this as a yardstick.. (or I sure try to), "What can I live with?"

Needless to say, this kind of approach takes a degree of self-awareness, but then that's what it is all about, isn't it?!

~ Cait

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

And I ask, why is it that there is sooo much hatred of the woman who "helps" a man to cheat? At what point is it her job to make his decisions for him? If he is unsatisfied, that is hardly her fault. Does it all go back to Eve and the Apple? Is it a case of believing that the strayer must have been tempted, and so it is the other woman's fault? Horse pucky.

.

I hardly think a woman who chooses to accept a cheating lover as her own is able to claim all innocence, though far be it from me to judge. I would think in answer partly to your question as to why blame the poor 'innocent 'who out of all the single men in the world can't find that one which fits her needs, but also doesn't understand being condemned, (let's get real, she wants what she gets in that she wants sex with the married person and to hell with everyone and everything else)...I would think though not as serious an act, it is sort of the same as someone who is charged with being an accessory after the fact of murder or robbery due to their complicity in helping the one who has committed the initial act.

They may not have hatched the plan, may not have even been aware before the crucial moment, but unfortunately they chose to be part of the whole deception at some point so though not seen as wholly responsible, are held at least in part accountable for their actions. I hardly think any 'other woman or man' is held at gunpoint an forced to commit adultery....that is assault/abuse. To play the innocent and helpless victim of circumstances is a serious case of denial I would think, and as the saying goes, 'reality bites' when others do not exactly gush and congratulate you on your conquest.

My opinion only, but I do like to deal in realities, and take responsibilty for my actions and as a feminist I am not that hot on the 'poor innocent babe in the woods' routine when things don't go as one would like.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

Me too! One of the things I do for myself is this.... I never ask a question I do not RELLY want to know the answer to. Just in case the answer is the worst case scenario, I want to be able to hear it without flipping out.

I try to do my own work, before I ask. My own work meaning, the inner questions that need to be asked and answerd first. Then and only then, if I still have questions that I MUST have answered, I ask. But I am already prepared to hear the worst.

It cuts down on my emotional outbursts to be prepared, and it makes it much easier for someone to 'tell' the truth because I make it safe for someone to do just that. But then these are the things that evolve over time..

The thing about trust is it goes both ways... In order to tell the truth (with NO omissions) you have to see that the (hard) truth can safely be told, otherwise you will get evasions. Evasions lead to secrets, and secrets can lead anywhere. When it comes to trust, it goes both ways. Each needs to know that they can trust that the other is telling the truth and each needs to know that the truth can be spoken safely.

As I've stated before, all this takes time and nurturing. There are no easy 1-10 steps when it comes to trust.

I'd also like to add something about those who have ever been untrustworthy in the past. I think that many people learn their lessons, albiet the hard way, still, they learn the value of trust and the consequences of breaking that trust. While I can certainly understand not wanting to 'waste' ones time with someone who cannot be trusted, I'm hesitant to label all past transgressors as completely without merit or character. Many people make mistakes and learn profound lessons.

And while we are all entitled to our preferences and judgments about what we want in our own lives..... (after all it is our own life)... I'm thinking that where this line is drawn, is at the point where one's preference is offered as 'better than' anothers. I'm just guessing here, I could be wrong.

~ Cait

Wow, I would love to present this caase study and the others reflected here to a feminist tutorial for discussion. Are you all so brainwashed that now it is you, or another woman in a man's life, who is accountable for his inability to have a little bit of backbone and be honest? It may surprise you to know women have been freed of the yoke of men's guilt for the last few decades now and do not have to take the blame for their mistakes, nor protect them from themselves. And no, it has nothing to do with being a submissive, it has to do with that word h-o-n-e-s-t.

I cannot believe you have managed to sell yourself this line that if you are not nice to poor boy, he can't be expected to tell you or his wife the truth, and it is all your fault or hers for not being nice and open and creating the 'right' atmosphere. I think the day you commit to a relationship it is understood both parties will do their best to be trustworthy and honest if nothing more as a mark of respect for someone they are supposed to care for. What may I ask is this cheating spouse doing to create this perfect atmosphere by the way? Fucking his little heart out to make sure he gets his candy on time?

Just goes to show denial is alive and well in the 21st century and if we do not watch out and be nice enough, we can fully expect to be murdered or beated non-consensually of course by our SO as we left him no other choice. As I said before, get real.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I suppose I am that brainwashed that I think men AND women are entitled to personal fulfillment however they need to find it, doing the best they can do to get it.

You don't seem to consider it possible that someone can be something other than completely blameless or completely sociopathic. It's not a question of me "being
nice" we are talking about a global, ingrained inability to find acceptance at any corner. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

It's much harder to be a sub guy than it is to be anything else, in my opinion, anyhow.

Since I'm very sociopathic by these standards, yes your honor, I fuck him. Regularly. And I enjoy it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I suppose I am that brainwashed that I think men AND women are entitled to personal fulfillment however they need to find it, doing the best they can do to get it.

You don't seem to consider it possible that someone can be something other than completely blameless or completely sociopathic. It's not a question of me "being
nice" we are talking about a global, ingrained inability to find acceptance at any corner. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

It's much harder to be a sub guy than it is to be anything else, in my opinion, anyhow.

Since I'm very sociopathic by these standards, yes your honor, I fuck him. Regularly. And I enjoy it.

Fine Netzach if that what makes you happy go ahead, fuck whoever you want to. Just do not claim innocence or claim no responsibility for your actions.

It is all very simple, stop being hypocrite about it, stop justifying your actions or claim to be justified by actions done by others. Take responsibility for your actions, for your fucking.

Fuck anyone who you want to fuck, but do not claim that you are doing it because the world is so bad, just be honest about it and say you fuck whoever you want to because you want to.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Francisco,

in saying to N,

Fuck anyone who you want to fuck, but do not claim that you are doing it because the world is so bad, just be honest about it and say you fuck whoever you want to because you want to.


you forgot to add your classic line

You however seem to take this personal. There is no reason for it, if you have cheated there are enough out there that will accept one such as you and there are some that will not.

I kinda liked Johnny for not beating around the bush: Why not, following in his shoes, simply say "I'm moral and you're amoral."

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

All I can say is I have to thank you ladies as I have not had such a laugh in a long time. Thought it was better than to cry, and far more therapeutic. I just am gobsmacked to find women in this enlightened age can have such outdated concepts of reality in male/female relationships, responsibility, and honesty. In fact I wondered for a moment if it was all a joke and am not coinvinced 100% it isn't.

I do not expect anyone to be blameless or sociopathic, but I do hope as we reach adulthood we realise we have to be responsible for our own decisions and actions...as the saying goes, where the buck stops. Not the world, or the unsuspecting, trusting spouse, or the shopkeeper who scowled at you when you entered his shop that day.....just you. If it is such a right decision for you, why feel you have to lay blame everywhere but your own front door. It is your right to decide, but also to do so with maturity and awareness of those you affect by those decisions.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Catalina,

As usual, your point to N could be put a bit more concisely:

"I take responsibility for my acts and you don't, for yours."

I'm not sure what your evidence is, for someone you don't know, but that's another issue.

J.

 

[Pure]

Question to all the morally low-lying folk:

Has ever a day gone by, on this or the 'parent' thread when either Catalina or Francisco did not attempt to occupy the moral 'high ground'?

Just wondered.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Francisco,
you forgot to add your classic line

You however seem to take this personal. There is no reason for it, if you have cheated there are enough out there that will accept one such as you and there are some that will not.

I have never claimed that cheating is amoral. I have only ever claimed that if you do I am not interested in you. That is all there is to it.

But I find it so much bullshit about the grey areas or the justifications of your actions. Come be honest about it, for crying out load stop playing the martyr. If you cheat it is because you want to.

So fine cheat but do not act the innocent victim, or claim that is not your own responsibility or claim that you have to because of other factors outside your own control.

I fuck however I want to fuck because I want to fuck that person I do not need any bullshit reasons to justify my actions why do you feel you need to.

If you want to cheat, go ahead who cares but stop playing the innocent saint and admit you cheated because you wanted to cheat.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Question to all the morally low-lying folk:

Has ever a day gone by, on this or the 'parent' thread when either Catalina or Francisco did not attempt to occupy the moral 'high ground'?

Just wondered.

J.

Sure outdone yourself with this NON-JUDGEMENTAL post haven't you. Running out of steam or saving the best till last?

C

 

[catalina_francisco]

Question to all the morally low-lying folk:

Has ever a day gone by, on this or the 'parent' thread when either Catalina or Francisco did not attempt to occupy the moral 'high ground'?

Just wondered.

J.

Now you have nothing left but to make a personalised attack and even more pitiful you seem to have to ask for help. Are you not able to defend your own standpoint without the help of others? Very sad and pathetic.

Francisco.

 

[Caitlynne]

Catalina,

I'll be honest, I have not met with such a unresponsive response in quite some time--but so be it!

You appear to be defensive and read into my post something that is clearly not there. I suggest you go back and reread the post you quote without the bias that has perhaps built up over the duration of these discussions. My guess is, you projected your issue onto my comments without reading them in context.

My assertion that there are two sides to trust is not only a truth, it is an obvious one. I made no reference in my post to which gender was cheating, which gender was tired of explaining and/or which one was not listening. I did that for a reason, an obvious one I thought, but apparently not. **I did it because no one gender has a monopoly on any facet of infidelity or the reasons for it.**

In an attempt to clarify, in ANY relationship that seeks to establish truth and honeslty there are two sides, each person usually taking on both roles at one time or another. Those sides being the telling of a truth and the listening to a truth. Both of these roles/sides are the foundation of trust.

To assert (as you do) that women who would even consider their own contribution to a spouses infidelity are brainwashed is as laughable in reality as you claimed my post to be. Are there men who cheat with NO provacation from their wives? Of course there are, but the same can be said of women who cheat on their husbands.

But, NOT ALL men who cheat do so with no provacation, and NOT ALL women who cheat do so with no provacation. What that provacation is, is usualy specific to the relationship itself and in a relationship, where people are relating, usually there is two sides to any action. I, quite frankly, consider this to be so basic as to not need much elaboration. I merely presented it to balance the discussion, it appeared to be slanted to only one side of the equation.

There is a duality in trust, and it has a flow, each person contributing to it. It grows, it devleops and it can be destroyed by either party-- from either side of that polarity. To suggest otherwise suggests a different kind of brainwashing, (Feminist in variety), but I don't know you well enough to assert that, and so I won't.

~ Cait

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually Pure, if facts are correct, and you like facts, I had personally told you in the parent thread I was not interested in further discussion as your side of it was just repetitive (and still is), but from memory, you keep putting questions to us....so my take on this is not only is our presence here your responsibility, but you are actively seeking it, repetitively.

C

 

[Pure]

catalina said,

Actually Pure, if facts are correct, and you like facts, I had personally told you in the parent thread I was not interested in further discussion as your side of it was just repetitive (and still is), but from memory, you keep putting questions to us....so my take on this is not only is our presence here your responsibility, but you are actively seeking it, repetitively.

Let me get this straight. [Your message to the morally corrupt is
"Take responsibility for your actions."

Also "our [C and F's] presence here [is] your [Pure's] responsibility."

I caused this by putting questions to the two of you (that making it my responsibility).

The facts are as follows:

You are both welcome here, despite--maybe because of--your urbane distaste for those you hold to be of lesser intellectual or moral stature. It's a public forum, and us plebs--having no king and queen, this side of the Atlantic-- always thrill when moral 'royalty' drop in, even to wave dismissively. We like the show of 'class.'

The thread started by me, 7-12 2 pm and no questions were put to Francisco, though I did comment on persons proclaiming their high principles.

Francisco appeared five hours later [7-12 7:13 pm] with a long posting declaring as it were: I'm not judgmental but really don't expect me and my kind to have anything to do with the likes of you and yours.

You turned up about 10 hours later [7-13 5:22 AM, not in response to any questions, but iirc, to make a detailed response to the suggestions that some folks saw the world in very black and white terms.

It's fine by me--though not up to me--for you both to hang around as long as you want. I suppose I'll get used to the yelps and protests, as I already have, the denunciations. Your and Francisco's postings are redeemed by their intellectual flare and content and impossible to resist because of their genial condescension for the reader and compulsive analysis of the mental problems--psychological 'hang ups'-- of those you don't know.

Bienvienue

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

Wow, I would love to present this caase study and the others reflected here to a feminist tutorial for discussion... Catalina

Case study? Excuse me?

 

[A Desert Rose]

Question to all the morally low-lying folk:

Has ever a day gone by, on this or the 'parent' thread when either Catalina or Francisco did not attempt to occupy the moral 'high ground'?

Just wondered.

J.

I think there is no corner on the market of people who try to take the high moral ground on this and some other forums.

Understand that I am not agreeing with your specific statement in regard to Catalina and Franciso.

There is plenty of snobbery to go around and plenty of fingers who enjoy doing the pointing.

 

[Pure]

Questions for Francisco

//For me the reasons are simple. I build relationships on honesty and trust. It is not in my self interest as a dominant, and in essence that is what we dominants are looking out for, number one, to try to teach honesty and trust to anyone. Nor am I inclined to take the risk of being involved in a ménage trois of which one participant does not even know they are part of a ménage trois. //

1) You say dominant persons are 'looking out for number 1" and that makes sense in a way, but in what way is it compatible with honesty? Usually honesty (say in keeping a promise; or, in not stealing) and 'looking out for number 1 are _opposed _(breaking a promise that in one's interest to break if he can get away with it; stealing when it won't be punished.)

It's occurred to me that in asking if one who committed adultery would be accepted by you or someone as a suitable sub, maybe that's the wrong question. After all this adulterer has also been said by posters to be 'out for number 1"; putting his/her desires ahead of the spouse's. Clearly that's against 'submission' which by definition is putting another's desire's first.

2) If you were speaking to an adulterer about the world of dominance and submission, would you recommend instead--assuming some flexibility-- that they become a dom/me? Is the 'looking out for number one' that they have, according to most, more or less the same 'looking out for number one' characteristic that you give yourself and dom/mes?

3) Indeed this adulterer may have another quality that would make a good 'top' if not dom/me. He's doing something that often may hurt people (or does hurt them) and he knows it. In a word, he (she) could be said to be a bit sadistic. Yet being sadistic also fits with being a top or dom. Taking delight in another's pain or humiliation. Question: does the 'sadism' of the adulterer form a possible useful basis for the sadism of a top or dom/me.?

I suppose you'll say that the adulterer is unprincipled. But isn't that just to say s/he'll put 'number one' ahead of an principle.
If so, is that the 'number one' pursuit that you attribute to a dom/me?


I find these genuinely puzzling questions.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

a story

A story from the other side of the Atlantic.

Two children are sitting at the kitchen table both eating a cookie. On the table there is a cookie jar, closed but made of glass and both of the children can see all the wonderful tasty cookies inside. But both are still content because they still have a cookie.

Now one of the children finished eating his cookie, he remembers his mother saying to him, “Only one cookie, no more.”

He looks at the cookie jar; he looks at his empty hands and decides to take another cookie. The other child who has also finished his own cookie sees that the other is taking a cookie and thinks, this is not fair. I also want another cookie, and takes another cookie.

The mother comes in and asks the children, “have you only taken one cookie as I told you to?”

The first child responds, No mom I have taken 2 and I know I was only allowed one, but I liked the cookie and took another one.’’

The second child first denies it, and then when confronted with the proof claims. It was not my fault, he took another cookie before me so I had to take another cookie. It is only natural as you left the cookie jar on the table, you should not have done so, I was hungry one cookie is not enough for me I need at least two.’’

Some will claim that it was not the children who are at fault; it is the mother for asking the children to do some thing that she should have known before hand they could not keep to. The mother should have put the cookie jar on a high safe place where the children could not take another one. The mother should have explained in more detail to the children they should not take a second one. In reality it is not the children’s fault at all, they where forced to eat a second cookie by the mother.

I would take the second cookie, but I would also take responsibility and be more like the first kid who had the guts to admit to his mother the truth.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

More questions Pure? Mmmmm......this whole situation reminds me of the time I worked for a wonderful organisation based on 'truth and honesty'. My superior spoke 'confidentially ' to me about how the big boss was really not good and didn't have a clue but we should play the game, and how much she appreciated me, and felt it important to tell me 'privately' that she was my 'best friend' and I could trust her with anything. Well I being me found it strange she had to reassure me repeatedly in 'private' that she was my friend and not to take notice of any way she may act toward me publicly.

Didn't even imagine what was going on until I was told by persons in the know that not only had she told the boss I had admitted drug problems (and me never even smoking a joint in my life as I see it a waste), but she had also confessed to people she was concerned I might threaten her position because of my ethics, honesty, and knowledge. The strange thing was I never woiuld have had her job if offered it because I love the work 'I' do. Strange how insecurities can play witha persons mind and behaviour. I had forgotten the essence of this lesson I learned until recently, but now have revised it well.

Catalina

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other woman speaks

Wow, I would love to present this caase study and the others reflected here to a feminist tutorial for discussion...
Catalina

I repeat, case study???