The Way Less Than Perfect, drawn to the lifestyle

[catalina_francisco]

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

I repeat, case study???

Hello Tempress_1960,

I am speaking for Catalina since she does not have an internet connection at the moment.

The term case study is used loosely here, to specify that the case presented by three contemporary women is something that would create great interest in a feminist tutorial. The fact that you three feel that it is your responsibility to create an environment in which the partner has to feel comfortable enough to speak the truth, something that should be a given in any relationship.

Not that Catalina would ever use material posted here without the permission of the individuals involved in any of her tutorials, just to specify how interesting and curios the statements are to her.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Is there a theme, here?

Some excerpts from Catalina and Francisco, of late:


I would also take responsibility and be more like the first kid who had the guts to admit to his mother the truth. --F

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

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.

Fine N[...]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. ---C
-----

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. --F

-----

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. --C

[end]
=====
=====
I say.

In sum, the person who 'strays', or is involved with one who is straying (the 'other woman') just doesn't 'take responsibility.'
They blame others, and claim to be innocent victims. Some even claim, as it were, to be saints. And this continues; they just don't change that tune.

Question: I wonder--Is that, according to C and F, just true of those who've posted here: that in Caitlynne, Netzach, Temptress, etc. we have a collection of adultery-involved persons** who just don't (ever) come clean and be truthful about what they're doing?

** {a term I will use for the adulterers and those who abet or fuck them; strayers and co-strayers, perhaps I could say.}

Probably not, since the lines above crop up elsewhere in the CF tome. OK, so is it just that most every one _at Literotica_ who strays is being irresponsible and denying what they are doing?

I'm not sure, but my guess that C and F claim ALMOST ALL or THE VAST MAJORITY of those who stray, or are 'third parties' do not take responsibility. In this corrupt, evasive social milieu, the strayers mostly say, "My spouse forced me to resort to this; my need was so great I couldn't help myself; I'm the victim here, having suffered so long. [etc.]"


I'm just wondering, of course, whether that's true.

I'll agree that those who stray may have the same proportion of whiners, and shirkers of responsibility as in the general population. And maybe that's a high proportion, lets say ftsoa, three fourths in both 'strayers' and general population.

But is irresponsibility RAMPANT among almost all the 'cheaters', i.e. especially, disproportionately, characteristic of them? There isn't among 'cheaters' even a one quarter or 10% who'll say, 'Yes I did it and I take responsbility for it.' A pathetic bunch.

Is this a sociological observation, then, of the lots of 'cheaters' that C and F have known, e.g., who've turned up in Catalina's counselling sessions?

Is it almost true by definition that a 'cheater' is not taking responsibility? I suppose because s/he is not telling the truth, perhaps?

Maybe this links to another point of C and F, somewhat clear in the above quotations, and elsewhere: The 'cheater' is a shirker, one who lacks courage, who hangs back; doesn't say what needs to be said.

Perhaps a sociological observation.

Again, perhaps almost true by definition: a skulker isn't bold or courageous, else why sneak around at night. Were a strayer courageous, they would say to the world (including the spouse) "I'm fucking whom I please."


Any thoughts, anyone?

 

[Quint]

Hi.

I evaded responsibility at the time. I justified myself left and right, was dishonest, and while it is untrue that I thought of no one but myself, I obviously didn't think enough of either of them to come clean.

That was then. This is now. While I am not in a similar position and thus cannot say exactly what I would do were I to be faced with infidelity again, to assume that I am defined by my irresponsibility of the past is not to give any credit to my ability to grow and mature.

Have I payed? I don't think that question means anything. I carry shit around, yes. I still have guilty feelings, yes. I question my ability to commit in a long-term relationship, yes. I don't know if I ought to feel any of this. I made a decision; it hurt somebody I loved and was loved by. It also put me in a situation where I am now in love and loved. My former fiancee is in a parallel situation. I made a decision and it caused things to happen. I expect that pretty soon I shall make another decision and more things will happen. I'm not reduceable to the sum of ALL my actions; why in the world would I accept being reduced to one of them?

For what it's worth, I'm hard-pressed to think of any decision that involves another person yet is in every way SOLELY dependent upon the person acting. Case in point: cheating. It involves three people. So you have two people's worth of factors affecting the center person's decision. I don't believe this is anti-feminist or even irrational. There were things I needed and was not receiving in my former relationship. I do blame my ex-fiancee for some of that--some, because I know exactly how much I tried. I could have tried more, and so I blame myself for that part. But I couldn't make myself truly not need those things anymore. And I do not blame myself for that.

But I think the crux of the debate is honesty about the infidelity. I might be wrong about that--it seems like even in cases where the person admits up-front to their infidelity, they still face a certain degree of contempt. I know that I fucked it up. But I don't think that makes me a fuck-up. I don't think it makes me a chronic cheater. I don't think it makes me a lost cause. That's all. My view.

 

[Temptress_1960]

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

Hello Tempress_1960,

I am speaking for Catalina since she does not have an internet connection at the moment.

The term case study is used loosely here, to specify that the case presented by three contemporary women is something that would create great interest in a feminist tutorial. The fact that you three feel that it is your responsibility to create an environment in which the partner has to feel comfortable enough to speak the truth, something that should be a given in any relationship.

Not that Catalina would ever use material posted here without the permission of the individuals involved in any of her tutorials, just to specify how interesting and curios the statements are to her.

Francisco.

For some reason, that makes me feel like a lab specimen.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Hi.

I evaded responsibility at the time. I justified myself left and right, was dishonest, and while it is untrue that I thought of no one but myself, I obviously didn't think enough of either of them to come clean.

*snip*
But I think the crux of the debate is honesty about the infidelity. I might be wrong about that--it seems like even in cases where the person admits up-front to their infidelity, they still face a certain degree of contempt. I know that I fucked it up. But I don't think that makes me a fuck-up. I don't think it makes me a chronic cheater. I don't think it makes me a lost cause. That's all. My view.

Two things: One, for me it is about honesty before anything else. If you need to leave someone, then leave them. I feel like alot of people cheat because they cannot bear to be alone, and therefore they want to make sure they have the next relationship in place.(I'm not saying you did that.)
Two, while it may not be true that anyone is 'once a cheater, always a cheater', if you approach me to cheat on your SO, you are at that moment cheating. At that time in your life, you are being dishonest, and I want no part of it. Later in your life you may or may not cheat, of course.

I don't even know if it was just the cheating that bothered me at teh start of all these threads. I think it was the flippant dismissal of the fact that the person being cheated on also has feelings. The whole attitude of "Oh well, I'm getting what I want, so it doesn't matter who gets hurt" is what lit a fire under me.

Sometimes we have to do things, and sometimes we do them the wrong way. I think we need to accept the negatives as well as teh positives of our actions.

 

[catalina_francisco]

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.

Pure, I was going to address you in the other thread but as they, and your entries here are almost identical, right down to electronic 'shouting' to try and enforce your presence and skewed views, I will get it out of the way here.

Number one issue is one which has bothered me for awhile, and before you seize on my post as an 'excuse' for what was said, save your typing. Master's use of the term 'one such as you' was not meant in the context or way you have tried to insinuate, but more a translation from a first to third language which as most know, does not always successfully translate to matched meaning. I have mentioned before he is not a native English speaker, though most I am sure would never guess from his exceptional grasp of the language which often exceeds English speakers I know, even myself. Perhaps a better English interpretation would have been 'one who shares a common view as you' or 'one who has no problem'.

Issue 2 : Kindly shove your reinterrpretation of my/our words to you or other posters where the sun don't shine as you usually have it way out of whack and strongly influenced by your own issues. I am sure Temptress loves you have declared she is one who does not tell her spouse when she has clearly stated on more than one occasion he knows. I am also sure the posters who do support their right to cheat etc., like that in a post you put them in your self proclaimed camp which you seem to think is the moral lowlands, and us on a moral pedestal we have never put ourselves on nor would. Sad you see only 2 alternatives in life, exulted state, or in the gutter. I seem to remember you referring to other posters as 'plebs' somewhere this morning (though may by now have been edited out by you as is a habit)...I am sure they are all honoured with your assessment of them. And what, no gray area in between where most humans reside?

We have constantly maintained we are expressing our choices only as asked for in both threads and do not have a personal issue with anyone who differs. Choices are there to be made and because we have a different opinion or ethic to some, does not say we hold ourselves above anyone. they are your words of judgement not ours, as so often seems to be the case from the one who throws judgemental accusations around daily. I/we have the right to our choice the same as every other poster including yourself, the difference is we do not insist those that differ are lesser beings or wrong, just not where we are at. Would love to dissect your words as you do ours and add up the judgemental and downright predjudiced and rude as compared to ours but don't feel like feeding your habit any longer.

Issue 3: your stats broken record routine and lack of ability to accept or analyse. I am surprised you have not demanded the name of every dead spouse, their lovers, and the number of times they fucked both souse and lover, what position and date, etc., so you can decide how next to avioid reality. As to doing our homework, it seems I was doing mine years before even coming to this board, through first self choice and knowledge seeking, and secondly through academic demands......sorry you see it as an issue I don't quote every book, page, paragraph, article, lecture, date, and circumstance but apart from the fact I generally read 4-5 books at once making fingertip reference these days a bit difficult (not to mention most are still in packing boxes), I find it a bit dull to continually being told to prove myself when you cannot or will not support your own.

You see Pure where we differ is in the desire to be honest, even when it is not that pretty, take responsibility for our actions, and continue to evolve into a more rounded and enlightened human being. I love many celebrities, their work, their personalities etc., but my role models and those I look up to as examples of a life worth leading from the last century of time include figures such as Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, Ani Pachen, Peter Garrett, Diana Spencer, Nelson Mandela, Oprah Winfrey, Diana Spencer, Hazel Hawke, Cathy Freeman, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Dick Smith. They have character, they have ethics, they have purpose outside themselves, they have credibility especially for integrity, compassion, commitment, and a desire to do more than serve themselves.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

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

For some reason, that makes me feel like a lab specimen.

No need to feel like a lab rat Temptress. As a feminist, there have been several discussions in the last few years about the younger women not being as committed to issues relating to women as they once were, and the suggestion it is perhaps due to the fact they did not live in a time when it was not so nice to be a woman, did not take an active part in making those changes happen, and now reap the benifits without fully realising the alternative. It usually is a topic of hot debate as you can imagine.

My thoughts were the thoughts refected here last night were reminiscent of those which belonged in an age gone by where woman was the reason for all bad in the world, and man the innocent victim so to speak. Unfortunately the issue is still alive and well in the legal system and society as a whole where a woman raped or beaten by her partner is still asked what she did to 'make him do it', 'why didn't she stop it', etc. In other words blaming the victim/survivor and holding them responsible for male behaviour. Has always provided a good way out for the abusive male, and statements proposing the necessity to provide a suitable atmosphere to enable male honesty, as was the case being stated by female posters (ie. female statements about male possible lovers), not only hit me in the face as anything but helpful to women, but to me belittled men as well. I will elaborate more in my next post.

My statement of tutorial case study was just that. A case study is usually a discussion of a specific issue relevant to the subject, in this case feminism and have there been any real change in the ways women perceive their roles and position if this is the thought process in the general public? As I am no longer in tutorials it was totally hypothetical based (as would have been the study subject offered) and refective of the discussion and positiveness I could see coming out of it from the time I was there. I miss those discussions as they are a way to get differing views and keep abreast of what perceptions exist in differnt contexts and forums.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Cait, and other posters,

I am sorry if my astonishment, and subsequent reaction has caused some to feel upset in any way. Was not exactly my intention but I do admit I was caught off guard and am still shaking my head, partly as I see it perhaps as a way of denying the dynamics of the situation yet again. Firstly I acknowledge no-one is perfect as I believe I state repeatedly, even going as far as volunteering my own information which demonstrates I am also not perfect. And yet still get accused of judgemental statements because I have voiced my opinion the same as others here, and reached a point where I have a set of ethics I adhere to, or at least try to most of the time though not always successfully. I am human after all but in saying take responsibility for my actions even when it may be a bitter pill to swallow. Like JM says, the attitude that the cheated on spouse was worthy of no consideration was what initially got me and still does. What you do, and I do, are our own affair, but I can't see how an unsuspecting party should wear it in all ways.

As to the gender issue in my statements to last night's remarks about the need for the 'in the dark' spouse to create a conducive atmosphere for the cheater to feel like being honest...I referred to it in feminist terms as the statement was made and supported by all female posters, not males. It smacks to me as I stated in the previous post of too much like victim blame that has been alive and well for centuries in the situations of male rape or abuse of females. Poor boy was not to be blamed when the woman was obviously asking for it. To me honesty is honesty. If it were gender role reversed, I would have the same reaction about the avoidance of responsibility by the cheater and their lover. True it needn't be a gender issue specifically but the statements were made by women and it concerned me where their heads were at.

To me as a submissive, if I felt that disempowered to need to blame it on my spouse for not making me feel I could be honest, I would question how I would deal with the demands of a D/s relationahip, especially which was going to be founded on deception and necessarily continued decsption. If a dominant, I would question the level of dominance he possessed, not to mention honesty.

Everyone has a right to do as they think is right for their situation at the time, but unlike those that see it as a non-issue to cheat, I choose as is my right not to share that view. This opinion does not mean it is a judgement as seems to be the perception when agreement is not unanimous, just different strokes for different folks. If you like Indian food and I don't, does not mean I am saying you are obviously bad and wrong in your taste. just our tastes are not the same...and as I think variety is indeed the spice of life I welcome difference...I just choose which differences to include in my lifestyle choices the same as you do.

Catalina

 

[Quint]

Two things: One, for me it is about honesty before anything else. If you need to leave someone, then leave them. I feel like alot of people cheat because they cannot bear to be alone, and therefore they want to make sure they have the next relationship in place.(I'm not saying you did that.)

Thank you for not saying it for me, but I'll go ahead and say it for myself. I was terrified at the prospect of being alone. I did see flaws in my relationship but had I not had somebody lined up as a replacement, I would have been entirely content to keep covering my eyes. I was a coward. No allowances for that.

Two, while it may not be true that anyone is 'once a cheater, always a cheater', if you approach me to cheat on your SO, you are at that moment cheating. At that time in your life, you are being dishonest, and I want no part of it. Later in your life you may or may not cheat, of course.

I don't even know if it was just the cheating that bothered me at teh start of all these threads. I think it was the flippant dismissal of the fact that the person being cheated on also has feelings. The whole attitude of "Oh well, I'm getting what I want, so it doesn't matter who gets hurt" is what lit a fire under me.

Again, we are mostly in agreement. I felt guilty and ashamed of myself almost all the time--with the obvious exceptions of when I was enjoying the infidelity itself. So it is somewhat of an exaggeration to say that it didn't matter to me how much I was hurting my partner. It did. Just not enough to change my behavior. It's a technicality and it really doesn't mean that much to me, either. I put myself first. I don't condemn it strictly based on that.

Sometimes we have to do things, and sometimes we do them the wrong way. I think we need to accept the negatives as well as teh positives of our actions.

Agreed. Just because we both ended up in better places does not mean that the ends justified the means. I know what I was going through and at the stage of emotional maturity I was at, I don't know if I could have done it differently. But that does not make it right and it does not make me brush it off.

Thank you, Johnny. That was nice and diplomatic. o)

 

[Caitlynne]

It smacks to me as I stated in the previous post of too much like victim blame that has been alive and well for centuries in the situations of male rape or abuse of females. Poor boy was not to be blamed when the woman was obviously asking for it. To me honesty is honesty. If it were gender role reversed, I would have the same reaction about the avoidance of responsibility by the cheater and their lover. True it needn't be a gender issue specifically but the statements were made by women and it concerned me where their heads were at.

Thank you for clarifying, I did think your tone was out of line, not just inquisitive, but I accept your reasoning and can see your POV.

The issue here, as I see it, really is one of responsibility and how that is defined. As you and I (and several posters for that matter) have stated on numerous occasions, it is all about taking responsibility for one's actions.

Included in that is NOT making someone else responsbile for any actions you take. You're quite correct in this, but then I don't think I ever argued that you weren't correct.

That said, it does not mean that s/he is the ONLY one responsible. The spouse who does not look at their own actions is also taking the easy way out. Because invariably s/he has taken actions s/he needs to take full responsbility for. Not because s/he is assuming the cheating spouses responsibility, but because s/he needs to take responsbility for his/her own actions.

Often when it comes to responsibility if one person says, "yes I am responsible", no one looks any further..... and MY mind-set and my POV tell me otherwise. I believe that we are all responsible for our own actions...... that means ALL of us for all of our actions.

In the example I used of the spouse not making it safe to tell the truth, I don't offer that as an excuse for a cheating spouse, s/he is still responsible for the choices s/he makes. This I can see we agree on.

But the spouse who was cheated on does need to look at their own actions. And only theirs. A spouse who had denied affection and spurned intimacy over an extended period of time, and refused to talk about it, needs to take responsibility for those actions. Does it justify cheating? I can't answer for anyone else.

I do think however, that it does explain how all the dynamics came into play. And that understanding only comes about with brutal self-honesty. This is the stuff personal evolution is made of, not because we need to blame ourselves for whatever happened, but because we all need to look at the part we played and take respsonsibility, learn and grow.

We don't have the luxury of pointing a finger at another and crying out "Look at what you did!" unless we look at our own actions with the same scrunity--the same level of honesty and responsibility we are demanding from another.

Basically I see a difference between taking responsibility and blaming yourself. One is a truth of its own, the other is assuming blame for the actions of another. We do not live in a vacuum, I'll admit it is a fine line, and as I stated it does require a degree of self-awareness and self-honesty, but in the end, I've found it to be very rewarding.

I don't blame others for my actions, and I don't allow them to excuse their actions by blaming me.. But in the examples we've used here in this thread, I still believe that each party needs to take a look at their actions and to take full responsibility. But that is different than someone pointing a finger, blaming another and using that as an excuse to behave badly.

I'll admit this is a VERY fine point, but it is a point I see quite clearly. I hope this helps to understand my mind-set.

~ Cait

 

[Netzach]

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.

I'm confused.

I've never claimed innocence, righteousness or moral certitude of any kind. I think that what I'm doing is quite possibly not karmically the best idea. Maybe even *wrong.*

However I'm doing it, doing it anyway, and planning on continuing it.

I'm not claiming anything remotely like innocence. I have simply dared to suggest that otherwise moral people make dire decisions in an amoral light where sexuality is concerned. As one factor of many, one of which is a conscious decision on my part to be selfish.

Yes, selfish. Completely self centered, blind, looking out for numero uno and doing something *purely because I felt like it.*

Love me, hate me, ignore me or whatever you please because of it. I spent far too much time in my life worrying about what the people might think, and I'm making up for it.

 

[Netzach]

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

No need to feel like a lab rat Temptress. As a feminist, there have been several discussions in the last few years about the younger women not being as committed to issues relating to women as they once were, and the suggestion it is perhaps due to the fact they did not live in a time when it was not so nice to be a woman, did not take an active part in making those changes happen, and now reap the benifits without fully realising the alternative. It usually is a topic of hot debate as you can imagine.

My thoughts were the thoughts refected here last night were reminiscent of those which belonged in an age gone by where woman was the reason for all bad in the world, and man the innocent victim so to speak. Unfortunately the issue is still alive and well in the legal system and society as a whole where a woman raped or beaten by her partner is still asked what she did to 'make him do it', 'why didn't she stop it', etc. In other words blaming the victim/survivor and holding them responsible for male behaviour. Has always provided a good way out for the abusive male, and statements proposing the necessity to provide a suitable atmosphere to enable male honesty, as was the case being stated by female posters (ie. female statements about male possible lovers), not only hit me in the face as anything but helpful to women, but to me belittled men as well. I will elaborate more in my next post.

My statement of tutorial case study was just that. A case study is usually a discussion of a specific issue relevant to the subject, in this case feminism and have there been any real change in the ways women perceive their roles and position if this is the thought process in the general public? As I am no longer in tutorials it was totally hypothetical based (as would have been the study subject offered) and refective of the discussion and positiveness I could see coming out of it from the time I was there. I miss those discussions as they are a way to get differing views and keep abreast of what perceptions exist in differnt contexts and forums.

Catalina

This is an example of the unmitigated arrogance that has caused me to reject almost all second-wave feminist rhetoric.

The tone of this post is a mighty backpedal from the sarcasm of the prior. No, of course I'm not meant to feel like a lab-rat or a quaint example of all you find wrong. Please pat my head again and tell me I'm ok.

You may find my views a throwback, personally I find them liberating. I think removing the guilt and bullshit from sex, sexual desire, and messy, wrong, BAD adult decisions to do something society pales at are in fact the name of the game.

If feminism means consistency and devout worship of holy matrimony (NEED we get into how fucked up an institution THAT is????) I need the first ride out of town.

 

[Pure]

Thought for the day:


many feminists have forgotten two of the most important standpoints of feminism to be non-judgemental, and to support all women in whatever choice they make for themselves.

Catalina - 2-28 (Lit. posting)

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

"Cait, and other posters, I am sorry if my astonishment, and subsequent reaction has caused some to feel upset in any way."

I really appreciate how you take responsibility for the 'reaction' [not action] which 'has caused some to...' Hey at least you're here; Francisco is a bit scarce around this topic.

I suppose "Sorry I threw insults at you" would be _too much of a good thing_ in the responsibility department. **

I want to look at bit more at the 'reaction' you had to certain posters. I include F's reactions cut from the same cloth: making a distinction seems unnecessary.

Stern Directions from Francisco and Catalina:

do not act the innocent victim

stop playing the innocent saint

do not claim innocence

stop being hypocrite about it

just be honest about it

I am not that hot on the 'poor innocent babe in the woods' routine

To play the innocent and helpless victim of circumstances is a serious case of denial

[this thread last few days]

====

Now these injunctions were said in response to several different people: niteshade, netzach, caitlynne and me.

I'm just wondering where exactly they(we) protested innocence and said they(we) were victims.

In view of the lack of information about their(our) lives, where exactly was the evidence of [N's] hypocrisy -- pretending to be something (good) that one is not?

If there are no such instances, these directions are not really 'responsive' to anything, but rather routine, verbal knee-jerk: sermonistic boilerplate available on a 'one size fits all' basis.

I suppose it's some kind of insinuating rhetorical move akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"; in this case "Stop beating your wife." (Stop protesting innocence).

Much material for thought and analysis in this thread.

J.

**No, I'm not under any illusions that you would be able to say 'sorry' to me, about anything.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Cait, and other posters,

I am sorry if my astonishment, and subsequent reaction has caused some to feel upset in any way. Was not exactly my intention but I do admit I was caught off guard and am still shaking my head, partly as I see it perhaps as a way of denying the dynamics of the situation yet again. Firstly I acknowledge no-one is perfect as I believe I state repeatedly, even going as far as volunteering my own information which demonstrates I am also not perfect. And yet still get accused of judgemental statements because I have voiced my opinion the same as others here, and reached a point where I have a set of ethics I adhere to, or at least try to most of the time though not always successfully. I am human after all but in saying take responsibility for my actions even when it may be a bitter pill to swallow.

Catalina

Perhaps it's the way you state your opinion. You often come across as being judgmental, although that may not be your intention.

 

[Netzach]

Additionally...

I'd love to see this thread move from extramarital fucks to other pecadillos...

Like failure to submit outside a ten foot radius of the bedroom or dungeon...

or being a Dominant who does not have %99.999-%100 of "ones own shit together"

remember, how dare you tell someone what to do or flog them unless you are in control of yourself first.

Ok, not terrible advice, but can someone please tell me how we are defining this, what are the magic criteria? Tidy rooms, balanced checkbooks, a regular paycheck and a running car?

Are most of us, really now, really, fucked up in some way?

*raises her hand*

 

[Temptress_1960]

*also raises her hand*

 

[Netzach]

Not that I'm you know, trying to hijack a perfectly good argument.

*sheepish look*

 

[Mastersprincess]

Not that I'm you know, trying to hijack a perfectly good argument.

*sheepish look*

I think I'd pay for this....Netzach looking sheepish lol.

 

[niteshade]

*raises hand as well*

 

[Pure]

To move from extramarital fucks

Thanks for the reminder, Netzach. This thread was set up for the _way less than perfect_ and related SM issues, especially around honesty, particularly about one's leanings.

Contrary to certain pillars of virtue, esp. of Calvinist or Catholic persuasion, the sexual sin, the illicit fuck is not necessarily the central issue of character, the touchstone of righteousness. ("Flee fornication"-- NT)

OK, the Reverend Dimmesdale (Scarlet Letter) and Jerry Falwell said so, but cumon.

We need a bit of Tanakh/OT around here.

So I'm adding the following questions, to the starting ones of this thread (added there also). Thanks N!


It's especially important for person practicing a perversion, or SM in particular, to really really have their shit together (to be past having _major personal issues_ that 'need to be worked on.'). Comment.
Are the requirements higher than for simple fucking?

OK, to command (dominate/top) others you have to know a bit--unless you're the 'Commander in Chief'--. But to command/top just one, do you have to be a General Patton? A 'self-realized' person--Ramakrishna or Krishnamurti?

How do you know when this blessed shit-togethered-ness is achieved? (If you have) How DID you know?
(If not) Can one be just a tiny bit deviant
in the mean time?

On a lighter note, consider:


Could a person who fucks, through every orifice, with every implement, every thing and every one who's semi-cooperative and sorta legal (or could look that way with the lights out) be
really together?




"pure"

J.

--of the low cuntry

 

[Temptress_1960]

A bit of a tangent...

I'm thinking that, in a way, not directly, but similar...

a Dom or Domme is someone who guides the submissive.

It made me think of some analogies, not sure how closely they fit.

A doctor, who smokes, drinks, doesn't watch his weight... is this person qualified to supervise your health?

A therapist, whose own life is in a shambles... is this person qualified to guide you to improving your life choices?

A clergyman, who is divorced... is this person qualified to counsel you about your personal life?

A priest, never married... is this person qualified to help you with marital counseling?

It just made me wonder a little.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

Pure,

I'm really starting to wonder about you. Are you having some sort of philosophical mid-life crisis or something?

*eyeroll*

~anelize

 

[catalina_francisco]

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

This is an example of the unmitigated arrogance that has caused me to reject almost all second-wave feminist rhetoric.

The tone of this post is a mighty backpedal from the sarcasm of the prior. No, of course I'm not meant to feel like a lab-rat or a quaint example of all you find wrong. Please pat my head again and tell me I'm ok.

You may find my views a throwback, personally I find them liberating. I think removing the guilt and bullshit from sex, sexual desire, and messy, wrong, BAD adult decisions to do something society pales at are in fact the name of the game.

If feminism means consistency and devout worship of holy matrimony (NEED we get into how fucked up an institution THAT is????) I need the first ride out of town.

N, you have totally missed the point here which in no way had anything to do with arrogance, or 'patting you on the head', and if you knew me as a person personally you would find such an accusation hilarious. Perhaps this is a result of your thought processes but not mine and I will not accept being accused of such patronising behaviour just because I think things only change through exploration of varying views and perspectives, whether personally or publicly. I suspect you think many things through and even may discuss them with others but does that mean you are patronising the views of those you do not agree with or seek to understand? I think not.

But like you I deal in reality and though I do not like a lot of the feminist crap, most especially the liberal feminist viewpoint which pushes women to 'take on men by becoming like them', I do believe in fighting the oppression of women, as with any minority group discriminated against because of their particular minority, not the person.

In that, and academic study, as well as groups within that area who seek to bring about positive change through something more than textbook fodder, I did think this statement would be a good point of discussion in a feminist tutorial, which would be most likely at least 85% younger women, so give an opportunity to see their viewpoint and where it comes from whichevere way it went. In such tutorials I have found anything but conformity, but a lot of valuable discussion displaying a wide variety of perspectives, especially when you consider not everyone in a feminist tut is a feminist....some are even men who wish to explore the concept from the core and not the propaganda. Such topics highlight the issues that are out there so at least someone might go about changing the negativeness, even if only in their own life which is a point in feminism.

Feminism supports the variety of choice for women, though the more publised views would not give that impression because the powers that be find it serves their purpose to promote it otherwise. Very effective way to destabilise an opponent...corrupt their image. Your thoughts on what feminism constitutes is what I hear repeatedly from thoise who believe the myths and think it is about conforming, not choice. Must admit though I have never heard any feminism supposedly worshiping matrimony, usually the opposite....maybe it is something endemic to your area.

As to challenging sexuality and it's negative image, I don't think I lack experinece in that area. I have written papers supporting porngraphy, prostitution, and BDSM, and the irradication of our present censorship system for a feminist who is highly respected and believed quite the opposite....and yet I was able to succesfully present my POV in such a way that as she put it 'for the first time she saw there actually could be a feminist argument to support these areas'. Outside of writing which in reality can be seen as rather passive, I have taken actions in support of oppressed and victimised GLBT people which saw me threatened to change my plans and disappear or face expulsion from university (for which I had worked hard for 5 years fulltime studying to get to that point so could not afford to throw away), and the loss of my job. I chose to stick to my principles and fight the oppression despite the threats....and surpriseingly not only survived but was eventually given many apologies and congratulated for having the guts to stand up for what I said I believed. Unfortunately many in this world say 'x is wrong and should not be allowed to happen to people', but when it comes to the crunch decide it is much better to keep quiet and allow it to continue. I'm not like that and much prefer to practice what I preach so to speak.

Apart from this more public displlay of my challenges, I have also raised my own children ion a way many found unusual. No myths allowed spoken about to them about growing hairs on the palm, or blindness striking them down if they masturbate. no stories of wicked out of marriage sex leading you straight to hell. Just a rounded education where they were given the facts from the minute they began to question, with unbiased, non discriminatory language and information from various sources, and a message their choices were to be their informed choices made from a full and comprehensive knowledge base, not the back of the toilet block gossip, or the one who tells them to fuck them to prove they really care.

C

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: A bit of a tangent...

I'm thinking that, in a way, not directly, but similar...

a Dom or Domme is someone who guides the submissive.

It made me think of some analogies, not sure how closely they fit.

A doctor, who smokes, drinks, doesn't watch his weight... is this person qualified to supervise your health?

A therapist, whose own life is in a shambles... is this person qualified to guide you to improving your life choices?

A clergyman, who is divorced... is this person qualified to counsel you about your personal life?

A priest, never married... is this person qualified to help you with marital counseling?

It just made me wonder a little.

LOL..this is the age old question which sways both ways. My take is all the scenarios include people who are just human, not infallible gods. In fact, the fact they are less than perfect often makes them a better choice as they can appreciate the difficulties involved and not just paraphrase what is known to be 'right' or 'true'.

As to the priest question, once again I think it depends on the individual. Some priests, and people in fact, are those often referred to as 'being here before' because of their ability to have clear and intelligent insight into an area they may never have come close to personally experiencing. Maybe they can also offer a view unbiased by their own perceptions and experiences, but reflective of the behaviour they see and hear, the expectations of those they counsel. Is always an interesting concept to ponder though and I'm sure there is no right answer as all will change depending on the individuals involved.

Catalina