The Way Less Than Perfect, drawn to the lifestyle

[Pure]

To my surprise they where excerpts out of yahoo messenger discussions between her and a prospective new dominant, after checking the date they went back as far as 1 year. That to me is cheating and that dominant was now her new owner. She had been talking with him behind my back for one year, she had been meeting him in secret for over one year and to make things even worse I knew the dominant quite well.

I am sure it was all my responsibility for being the Dominant and not fulfilling her needs, I am sure it was my fault for not creating an environment where she felt she could talk openly about looking for a new dominant. Or maybe it was the fact that I could not handle my whip good enough. Yes the relationship was over and had been slowly going down the drain for about one year, and I am sure that it was my entire fault as the person being cheated on not hers. Which in effect was her standpoint on it, she felt I was not fulfilling her needs so she decides to find another way to fulfil her needs without even taking the courtesy to inform me.

I can tell you it does not feel very good, to say the least, to be cheated on. What did feel good was when she came crawling back after I married Catalina offering to do anything to be accepted back as my property. Of course true to form when I informed her of Catalina and our marriage and Master/slave relationship, she claimed she was also (2 days after her offer) now with the Master she was meant for and getting married too. Convenient…..more like her usual deception….as I think demonstrates her level of honesty and right to be trusted…not.

My personal experiences combined with my personal beliefs have made my position on cheating very simplistic and straightforward. I do not cheat and have never cheated, and I do not want to be involved with anyone who does, nor will I participate in the cheating processes. I will not cover up for anyone, and I will not fuck anyone whose partner is not aware of it.

I find this an intriguing story. Yes I can try to imagine being cheated on for months; it isn't pretty.

When I get to
//I am sure it was all my responsibility for being the Dominant and not fulfilling her needs, I am sure it was my fault for not creating an environment where she felt she could talk openly about looking for a new dominant. ...
I am sure that it was my entire fault as the person being cheated on not hers.//

This seems like you're being tongue in cheek or ironic? correct? You're ribbing the folks who blame the 'victim' of the cheater, right?

But seriously, and here's where 'taking responsibility' is concerned, how do you see your part, if any, in what took place?
I will concede some whimsical types leave out of the blue when the 'other' isn't doing anything at all unfavorable. Is this what you're saying?

I do understand, to a degree why you've adopted the policy, but let me put this question to you. Since all around you are cheaters, maybe half the men and one third the women, what do you think they do, on learning or sensing this "I don't tolerate this or want to be around it." I propose that they either keep quiet or lie. People have radar about attitudes. So the result is that this 'protective policy' will engender dissimulation. And if you go ahead into a relationship, you'll be on false ground. So the policy has, paradoxically, and adverse impact, in *lessening* your protection from cheaters.


All of us who've had affairs are sensitive to such attitudes. So your screening, I suggest, is not likely effective. It's sort of like a guy who says, "I want a virgin." Well, the experienced lady, if interested in sticking around will just keep her mouth shut.

Just some thoughts, and certainly we all have our policies for our own reasons.

J.

 

[Netzach]

Glad you found it so enlightening....must come from a different 'doctrine' to the one I am familiar with. Mine does not preach perfection and labeling, admits human frailties, and has an over riding desire to think of the way your behaviour affects others before yourself.

C

Is she/he even reading anything I'm writing?

My rigid notions of perfection and lack of complexity are crowding out the other views.

I do, however, fail to always think of others first. My overriding desire is definitely to think of me and what I want and need in a situation. I think this *is* a radical gesture for a contemporary woman, for ANY woman.

Wasn't it Tina Modotti who left her husband and kids and went off to take photographs? A reverse-Gaugin manouever, if not her some other icon from my art school daze.

Whoever she is, she's a hero to me.

I also think that the amount of energy expended on symbolic and small-scale ethics in a situation like this could be better spent examining big picture issues. It's like people who scream at the Prodomme how unethical she is without examining the crisis of ethics inherent in her prior job as a waitress or secretary.

 

[Netzach]

Interesting you may find it, but not I, but then I'm not male I guess. Seems one thing predominant in feminist philosophy you missed is a degree or education is not the essence or necessary, especially if you don't practice what you say, or begin to understand. As to myself, I don't have one close friend who has a degree as it is not who I am, or where I am at, or have been. My own degree I obtained a few years ago while overcoming many difficulties others find frightening to even contemplate, but only pursued it as I needed it to be allowed achieve what I wanted, not because I thought it made me better.

Funnily enough though many feel those with degrees do it for that reason and show their own insecurities in doing so, even if they have one themselves. What such thinkers fail to understand is a thirst to learn which has been with me, and many, since a child, so a degree changed nothing but provide the piece of paper required by the powers that be and enable me to use the opportunity to benifit others. As a child I took books where others took their toys. It is me and I don't expect to have to apologise for that, the same as I do not ask you to apologise for who you are.

I note Netzach must have a 2 degree lover/SO...for me I just need honest and intelligent enough to understand reality, which 10 degrees don't necessarily fulfil if the holder cannot apply the knowledge to lived reality. In other words you may have the highest IQ on earth, but as a person not have a clue how to even feed yourself, or understand why people differ without necessarily being wrong, or supposedly superior/inferior. I was raised with ethics and I fail to see why I have to adopt the ethics of every Tom, Dick, or Harry who feels slighted or confronted by that simple fact, just to make them feel better about themselves....that is their responsibilty.

Would imagine to try and fit with all of you to your satisdfaction, I would be so fucked up in the head trying to remember who I was each day, dependent on who I was speaking with, not who I was in reality. I am me, you are you....if you find issue with that and feel judged or that asserting my right to speak makes me superior, so be it....your hang up and words, not mine. Interestingly, I have never found anyone of you support your claims with a post of ours saying the words 'we are superior to you', or 'we know we are better'. Strange that.

C

I'm going to add something contextual, since I'm obviously an elitist in preferring a partner who's gone to college.

My reasoning is not that they are more smart, more intellectual, more capable of anything. And I don't fall for types who can't tie their own shoes, trust me, and yes, there are many of those....

it's simply, to me, a common point of reference. We'll have, by default, read some of the same books, done some of the same things, been obsesssive and self indulgent in some of the same regards.

Radical, I know, to want a partner you have a significant commonality with.

Incidentally, I was, till my mother recently finished her degree while working full time, a first-generation college student with all the things that entails. This will come as a shock, but....I get it.

You can write all the diatribe you want about how I can't and don't, or the people who don't agree can't and don't get it. But I do. You assume a lot about people you don't know.

For all your harping about how my staunch disagreement is an effort to deprive you of your opinion, it's not. You sound like the conservatives I went to school with, constantly complaining about nobody respecting their personal opinion or their ethical system or their political stance.

They simply disagreed with all those things and were going to continue to do so.

This is somehow seen as a condemnation of having an opinion. Expect your opinion to be responded to, sometimes, it's you know, a forum. You should not have to adopt my views. You should expect that other views will get aired, and that other people will feel as strongly about them. Debate doesn't work like this:

"You shouldn't cross against the light, it's dangerous."

"I guess your're right, you're entitled."

It goes like this:

"You shouldn't cross against the light."

"Yeah, but there's no light on my corner, or in fact in my whole town."

"Really? I do all the time, in midtown manhattan it's safer to cross when lots of people are going and they never go with the light."

 

[catalina_francisco]

Is she/he even reading anything I'm writing?

My rigid notions of perfection and lack of complexity are crowding out the other views.

I do, however, fail to always think of others first. My overriding desire is definitely to think of me and what I want and need in a situation. I think this *is* a radical gesture for a contemporary woman, for ANY woman.

Wasn't it Tina Modotti who left her husband and kids and went off to take photographs? A reverse-Gaugin manouever, if not her some other icon from my art school daze.

Whoever she is, she's a hero to me.

I also think that the amount of energy expended on symbolic and small-scale ethics in a situation like this could be better spent examining big picture issues. It's like people who scream at the Prodomme how unethical she is without examining the crisis of ethics inherent in her prior job as a waitress or secretary.

The essence of life is that no-one is perfect, even the Dalai Lama who openly admits his frailties which do not reflect his Buddhist beliefs realises it is so....this I admire, but have come to expect from him.

As to women running off to do what they want with a 'to hell with the rest' attitude....I do not see that attitude as a gender issue in particular, more a personality or behaviour characteristic, which in saying I am not passing judgement one way or the other. I do not personally find it fulfilling to follow a feminist message which may tell me I can do that because men have for years. To me we do not have to repeat the mistakes of our oppressors, try to emulate their behaviour, be like them in any way. Men and women are different...fact of life....and I celebrate my difference as a woman and hope my actions can be independent of some men's previous actions, and hopefully a little bit more thoughtful, while still respecting my own needs.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm going to add something contextual, since I'm obviously an elitist in preferring a partner who's gone to college.

My reasoning is not that they are more smart, more intellectual, more capable of anything. And I don't fall for types who can't tie their own shoes, trust me, and yes, there are many of those....

it's simply, to me, a common point of reference. We'll have, by default, read some of the same books, done some of the same things, been obsesssive and self indulgent in some of the same regards.

Radical, I know, to want a partner you have a significant commonality with.

I don't think it that unusual or strange to want a relatiosnhip with someone you share commonalities. I already know you siad your degree necessity in a partner was not an intellect thing, and yet to me in rfeferring to similarly read books etc., it is in part. I have actually found many people who have never been in tertiary education have read more books, as well as the same, as I and fellow students had to in completing studies. It is a matter of who you are and a tirst for knowledge which does not need to be guided, but comes more from within. Not right or wrong, but I don't like to limit my choices in that way as I have found it can be deceptive.

Incidentally, I was, till my mother recently finished her degree while working full time, a first-generation college student with all the things that entails. This will come as a shock, but....I get it.

Why should it be a shock? I am also a first genertation tertiary qualified person in my family, and like your mother did not find it easy while bringing up 2 children single handed with no input financially or emoptionally from their ever absent alcoholic father, and battling my own continual health problems and hospital stays throughout, and living below the poverty line....and all this on top of going back to high school full time for 2 years before it with regular students, and not taking the mature age level study, but the same quota as the students as I saw this as only fair. Would have been much easier to take the easier road offered by the education system, or throw in the towel, but I had to remain true to my purpose and get through it so I could improve my life and also that of others, and feel in the process I did not accept any handouts because of my circumstances. So you see I am not coming from a higher moral ground, but do appreciate the opportunites I had, and learnt a lot about myself in succeeding against all the odds, and don't need to hide from that or apologise for it. It has gone a long way in helping others to achieve the same when they had given up hope, as well as provided valuable insight into many people's situations and circumstances.

You can write all the diatribe you want about how I can't and don't, or the people who don't agree can't and don't get it. But I do. You assume a lot about people you don't know.

I try not to but I also do not lay down and allow others to walk over me and paint me to be something I'm not, especially as you say, when they do not know me.

For all your harping about how my staunch disagreement is an effort to deprive you of your opinion, it's not. You sound like the conservatives I went to school with, constantly complaining about nobody respecting their personal opinion or their ethical system or their political stance.

They simply disagreed with all those things and were going to continue to do so.

This is a welcome change of judgement in some ways and amusing to me. I have a reputation politically and personally as being one of the most radical thinkers and doers most have encountered. In fact the conservative camp were, and are, forever telling me I need to see things are fine jusyt the way they are and I should learn to conform much more as all things will change in time if left to do so without any effort from anyone. Strange but as one of many examples, I never saw woma=en get the vote that way. What I have found though are the conservatives like to employ ways to silence their opponents through trying to continually discredit their statements and beliefs.

This is somehow seen as a condemnation of having an opinion. Expect your opinion to be responded to, sometimes, it's you know, a forum. You should not have to adopt my views. You should expect that other views will get aired, and that other people will feel as strongly about them. Debate doesn't work like this:

Think you will see throughout all my posts this has been my view exactly.....discussion needs variation of views, not smothering those differences out of self interest, so I am happy you recognise my right is equal to yours. What I don't agree with is the way it has become personal and judgemental with those who feel slighted by someone not afraid to have a differing view, while still respecting theirs. In so doing I, as much as you, have a right to respond to a post I do not agree with or understand. I'm afraid I like to learn and evolve, not read something and say, 'Oh that is so not me, but I won't bother trying to understand it, just reject it and move on.' Nothing but ignorance and stagnation is achieved by so doing.

Overall Netzach, I have held most of your posts in high regard, as I have told you publicly and privately on more than one occasion. I may not always see things the way you do, but I try to respect your right to differ, and understand your viewpoint. I do not understand the recent changes I have seen in your postings, but I still try as I have found you to be intelligent, and at times pleasantly open and honest, and even able to joke about the ways you see about yourself as 'less than perfect' Even in your view of your imperfections I have not always agreed, but I respect you to know yourself better than I and realise we all judge ourselves sometime more harshly than others. I have liked you are not phased by this and accept yourself as you are without the usual hangups people develop. I just don't understand your recent mood.

Catalina

 

[lady-kat]

When you enter a committed relationship, you have given up your right to only think of yoursefl and your needs. If that isn't what you want, then you shouldn't get into a committed relationship...and if your needs change, you should leave.

agreed... up to a point.

not many, i suspect, enter into a marriage/comminted relationship with the intention of stepping out on it with a third party. i sure as hell didn't.

*shrug* people change. affections change.

but...
sometimes, JM,
leaving is not an option.
or even, & speaking only for myself here, the wanted option.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

agreed... up to a point.

not many, i suspect, enter into a marriage/comminted relationship with the intention of stepping out on it with a third party. i sure as hell didn't.

*shrug* people change. affections change.

but...
sometimes, JM,
leaving is not an option.
or even, & speaking only for myself here, the wanted option.

Uh huh.

 

[Pure]

Hi All,

Initially and periodically this thread is about some things. The discussion of 'manners' can only go so far. "You're rude." "No, I'm forthright, and you're rude to say I'm rude."

Or "you're wrong in thinking X is the best thing to do in the given case.."
"Don't try to take away my right to my thoughts and to express them. That's aggression."
"But you constantly express your thoughts aggressively"
"That's just me, I call a spade a spade."

I'm going to pull a bit from the parent thread, which seems to have reached stasis. The question is, when is it permissible to deceive your partner(1-1 committed or married).

Here is the exchange, about a hypothetical woman who may be facing domestic violence:

Pure said,

3) If you--a female--befriend her and take her out, etc, you risk causing her to be called 'disobedient', which is also a precursor to some murders.

Catalina said,
...yes, you have to be careful, and she has to decide whether she wishes to risk it. More often than not it is wiser to set up per chance meetings in public places, often with more than one on one to look less suspicious.

This, of course, is a deception scenario. It may go on for a while, while the woman builds confidence and shapes plans and secures 'back up' peoples. Also there was a further passage in Catalina about arranging for the woman to go somewhere, like a shopping mall, then be spirited away to a secret place, like a shelter. {I'm merely using the exchange as a stepping off point; the views that follow would best be considered as 'purely' my own, though there may be overlap to an unknown degree.}

So the rule, A: "Be honest and non-deceptive with your partner." clearly has an exception, or several. I would agree with Catalina, absolutely. I have also mentioned that I helped an abused woman move out unannounced, while her husband was away for the weekend. No lies were told, but as he planned the trip, she and I planned the exit, having found an apt.

So let's look at the "moral proposals" that might be made by one we shall call 'the Observer'.


A.If you're in a committed relationship, be honest and non deceptive. You undertook that obligation; you made a promise.

B.If the relationship doesn't suit your needs, then leave.

Seems straightforward, but the example shows a violation, and not a momentary one, of the first principle (A.). (And Catalina and Francisco have mentioned the exceptionality of abuse cases several times. This is not a controversial statement. Their views are not quite those of the Observer, afaik.)

Why, the Observer might ask Catalina, doesn't the woman just leave, instead of skulking around, pretending to 'bump into' groups of people that include certain friends or helpers.

So I will stipulate that the woman has been told, "You will be beaten severely if you try anything sneaky, or try to leave. I won't kill you, however; there are chores that need to be done. You are mine; you married me and promised to honor me at all times."

It will also, take a fair degree of planning, to leave successfully, I stipulate.

I think the bind is obvious: In planning a 'leaving' or departure, does one tell about it or not?

The 'honest' and moral line of the Observer is, yes, tell about it. But in this case, that has dangers. In fact, we will suppose that not only will she be beaten, but the attempt will be frustrated (she'll be kept under surveillance). So the Observer can't say, "OK, take your beating on the way out; think of it like the penalty for civil disobedience. You gotta go through it, that's the only honest and open thing."

The Observer might say, "Openness is best, even though it's not going to be a bed of roses. How much nastier for him to 'find out' about arrangements, a little up the road.

Lastly, since the Observer might state that the general principle that
C. it's objectionable to disregard the feeling of a partner, and to put their interests far behind yours.

Well, surely the latter applies. The husband's interest is to have housekeeping, sex, childcare, etc. She wants her own life. She is clearly placing her interests far ahead of his.

Questions:

1) Is the woman just being selfish? (assume no kids).
2) If she's being moral, how can that be so, since she's largely ignoring and dealing callously with someone's interests--an intimate she's pledged to stick with in sickness and in health?

It can be seen that the woman could be accused of disregarding the feelings of her Other. She's leaving him in a pretty pickle, possibly to face the low point of his life, and even die. Though he's an assaulter, he doesn't deserve a de facto death penalty.


BDSM? OK, is the above deceiving woman of sufficient morality (or trustworthiness) to be a good dom/me or sub. Could she be trusted as a sub? Mightn't she skulk around toward the end of that relationship, also?


J.

 

[Quint]

So I'm going to try to recap what has been said. This may cross with Writerdom's SSC thread, as there is hella overlap. If this is in any way inaccurate, let me know--I'm really trying to a.) verify that I understand everyone's main points, and b.) remind everyone of said points and positions to help remain on topic.

In no particular order...

Pure: Infidelity is not necessarily "bad," due to any number of extenuating circumstances that must be defined on a case-by-case basis and cannot be put under any blanket rules. Nor is an unfaithful person necessarily "worse" than a person who is faithful--again, take it case by case and weigh all of the traits, and the unfaithful one may come out morally ahead. {Added at 2:40 upon request:} Even the term "unfaithful person" a few sentences back makes a judgment that may not be fair--it implies that this is the core of what the person is: The Cheater. A person is not reducible to one action and it is also not necessarily true that future behavior, character, or actions may be predicted based upon the fact that this person has been unfaithful. Emphasis on NO blanket judgments.

Catalina: Infidelity can lead to serious problems for the unfaithful one, such as disease or murder by a jealous partner. Most of the time, it signifies the end of the relationship--is a cause of the end? {Added at 2:50 because I feel this was insufficient:} If you are going to cheat, at least have the courtesy to feel bad about the harm that you are causing to your partner. "Good" cheating does not exist. But you make up your own mind.

Francisco: Infidelity is perhaps only truly harmful when coupled with dishonesty about the deed. Think of your partner and the harm you are doing to them. Be open about it. {Added at 2:40 because I feel this was insufficient:}] I believe that past infidelity will lead to future infidelity, although I admit that this is more of a feeling than a fact. Due to this, I personally choose not to involve myself with someone who I know to have been unfaithful in the past--it is just another trait on my personal list.

Johnny_Mayberry: If you're going to cheat, a.) it WILL hurt your partner, b.) don't try to pretend there was any good intentions towards your spouse involved, because you are only adding self-bullshitting to the list of bad actions, and c.) do not even ask to be my submissive because I'm not interested. Whether or not this indicates that predictions can be made in the future based on past infidelity is ambiguous.

Netzach: Reiteration of case-by-case judgment over blanket statements. Make the decision that is best for the circumstances that you find yourself in; take responsibility but don't feel obligated to blame yourself if what you did really was what you thought was the best option.

More to come...

 

[Pure]

AD:
In case anyone is interested, in the mother thread, I have, in two detailed postings, evaluated the risks of a married woman's infidelity vs. her dying in a traffic accident, using real figures for 'crimes of passion' (France) and 'intimate homicide vs wife'(US). I make it that, in the US, she is about 15 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Temptress_1960,

We seem to have gone through reverse path in life. In my younger years I thought there were a lot of grey areas surrounding cheating. I would have absolutely no problem seeing where my prospective fuck for the night was coming from if she was cheating on her partner.

With time and life and experiences my own position has become a lot more black and white. It is not my place to tell people what to do or what not to do. So my only option left to me is to put my beliefs in place first and foremost concerning myself.

That is why is simply have withdrawn, have taken myself out of the cheating equation. If someone wants to cheat they will have to find a different partner then me.

The second part I have done was out of self-defence; I do not feel the need to go through the same ordeal again. This means that I will not start anything with a partner that has cheated before. And no it has not to do with once a cheater always a cheater, but there is increased risk that if they have cheated once they will cheat again, I have no data on that it is my gut feeling. Out of self-interest I have decided not to let them into my world.

I still do not see any reasons why anyone should choose to cheat instead or either trying to work through their problems or terminate the relationship. I know there are cases possible when those decisions are very hard, I can imagine certain relationship where abuse (be it physical or mental) comes into play, or where the women or men involved simply do not see any other option. I am not a counsellor nor am I equipped to judge someone else’s life. Would not want to be and since it becomes impossible for me the judge or even make an educated guess what is the best option for a person involved in such. I leave them to it; they may do whatever they need to do with someone else.

Francisco.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Francisco,

We do seem to be traveling reverse paths.

I can certainly respect your choice not to be involved with anyone who has strayed outside of their marriage or other supposedly exclusive relationship.

I personally choose not to be involved with people with poor hygiene, for instance. I can understand that their upbringing or culture may be the reason behind that, but to use your words, "they may do whatever they need to do with someone else."

I don't mean that to be a facetious example, not being flippant or sarcastic, just saying, yeah, we all have our deal-breakers.

 

[Quint]

Originally a post on page 1 with bolds by Pure, non-bolds by catalina_francisco

Would you answer some simple questions:

By all means Pure, if it makes you feel better.

Assume for the sake of argument that they were interested in submission and finding a dom/me. OK?

Do you agree with Johnny, that your two friends couldn't genuinely submit, and that a dom needs them like a third nipple?

Most definately, if they were in the relationship with their SO, or had a succession of cheating relationships. In fact, depending on the friend, I might actually tell them they need to get their shit together before messing with anyone elses life, and in the process potentially endager, or at the least, mess her own life up for many moons to come. If I were them I would appreciate someone waking me up to my insensitive, dangerous, thoughtless, and careless ways.

Do you agree with Francisco, that they are shown to be untrustworthy, and that it'd be a fools errand for a dom to try to teach them honesty?

Yes I agree they are basically dishonest if they are happy to cheat and see nothing wrong with it. I see honesty as something integral in your personality. You may do something dishonest, and go through mental hell with guilt over it, but to continue indefinately, and with a list of excuses of why it is in your SO's best interests, is dishonest and denial. Let's face it, I doubt a person goes out looking for an affair in the interests of their So's health and mental well being....more in their own interests of momentary pleasure. If not happy....leave. As was stated before....you are not going to change, your partner is not going to chanfge, why prolong the agony. Life is too short.

Did you say to them, I'm roughly quoting Francisco, "Maybe you can find find some persons for relationships who do not mind people such as you."

Best,

J.

Wel I don't really get this question as I don't know to whom I am to have said it, but I might tell a friend they may find someone willing to accept their deception, as I am sure there are, but I would also give them my take on how far they could maybe excpect to trust them, advise they question their motives, and look at safety. For myself if a D was happy with dishonesty etc., I would presume he had no trouble being dishonest himself, and I would certain ly not happily and gullibly say 'Oh great domly one, tie me up and have your way....I know you'll stop if I use the safe word." Then again many are gamblers aren't they...***** is a high stake though in my books.

So how did this never get discussed? Infidelity automatically involves "insensitive, dangerous, thoughtless, and careless ways"? There are NO hypothetical situations in which a person who has and perhaps is still cheating on their SO could do anything but "[mess] with anyone elses life, and in the process potentially endager, or at the least, mess her own life up for many moons to come"? Or were those just not conducive to your point?

The main point I take offense to in the next paragraph is that it seems to imply that if Person A has cheated in the past, their only redemption can be found by feeling ashamed of themselves. No, really. Read this: "Yes I agree they are basically dishonest if they are happy to cheat and see nothing wrong with it." So in order to avoid seeming dishonest as well as their current crime of infidelity, they must admit that it was a bad choice. See the above paragraph for the thought that Person A may very rationally NOT feel like it was a bad choice. It may not be the best choice in an ideal environment--but as environments are rarely if ever ideal, not accepting any action but the ideal one is blanket judgmentalism. I personally don't buy it.

Forgive me if this has either been answered before or is none of my damned business, but Francisco, I wonder about the facts that you have repeatedly said you would not accept a submissive who has been unfaithful, and Catalina's admission that she has been unfaithful in the past. Or are there mitigating circumstances?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Forgive me if this has either been answered before or is none of my damned business, but Francisco, I wonder about the facts that you have repeatedly said you would not accept a submissive who has been unfaithful, and Catalina's admission that she has been unfaithful in the past. Or are there mitigating circumstances?

Hello Quint,

I have no problem answering your question. I do feel that there is a difference between a slip up and a repetitive cheater.

There are two kinds of cheating to me:

1) A person cheats once, admits the cheating to his partner and then stops cheating or terminates the relationship, or tries to work together with their partner to resolve their issues, basically being honest about it and truthful.
2) A person cheats, does not tell their partner and keeps on cheating be it with one person or several.

This division is of my own, it is how I see it, do not claim it is the truth for everyone, just for me.

In the case of Catalina, she told me about it before we entered into a more permanent relationship, which was more then I did since I did not tell her that I had been cheated on until after 6 months into our bonding. Although there were lots of mitigating circumstances, what made it acceptable to me was that she, right after the deed, broke up the relationship and divorced. I found it very hard and difficult to accept that Catalina had cheated on her ex-husband, but to me it was possible to accept her because she was honest and truthful about her actions to me and in her former relationship without provocation from me. Had she not been so honest about it I could not have been able to begin a relationship with her if and when I found out. Of course me being madly in love with her made it a lot easier.

I know people grow and I know people change, I am aware that once a cheater does not mean always a cheater. There are a ton of circumstances that would make it more acceptable to me. But if there had been no honesty, if she would have stayed in the relationship and went on happily cheating then Catalina would not be my SO now.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Pleased and Puzzled

I'm pleased at today's calm, gentle, non judgmental tone (see quote at the end), and the emphasis on something that's not the fellow's personal cuppa, but who's to judge others; because I was burned, I decided just for myself.

Then I look at the three days ago and I get puzzled:
====

7-13


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

====
7-13
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

7-13
You want to cheat fine, go ahead, know the risks, know what you are doing to others and do not expect us to be interested in a relationship with you. That is the whole message.

===
7-13
If you want to go around and fornicate while not informing your partner, it is your life, your decisions and your future, not mine, and I do not judge you on it as a person. Be informed about the risks you take. However I will just not be interested in you as a partner, you will not meet my criteria to be let into my world.

=====
Some questions come to mind, in line with the 'take responsibility' theme favored by that writer.


a)Were the earlier things said in kindova rage/exasperation and hence don't reflect the calm considered recent view?

b)Were they in any way inaccurate, as to who's pretending innocence?

c) If a) and or b), would he take responsibility and say to the persons addressed, "I'm sorry I was in such a state, and insulted you."?

OTOH, If the earlier things are very considered and are still held, that would be interesting to know.

d) Then one would have to ask, do the calmer words accurately represent the views and feelings? How does all this fit together:


7-16 nor am I equipped to judge someone else’s life.

AND

7-13 stop being a hypocrite [addressed to a poster]
just be honest

e) Does the fellow still think certain people should stop being hypocrites?

f) If so, is the 'nor am I equipped to judge' a forthright, true position?

I really am baffled. No doubt the fellow has intellectual complexities and nuances that I'm just able to grasp. No doubt I'm misreading or missing some clues, but I'm really perplexed.

J.


=====
[new posting]

F: 7-16

With time and life and experiences my own position has become a lot more black and white. It is not my place to tell people what to do or what not to do. So my only option left to me is to put my beliefs in place first and foremost concerning myself.

That is why is simply have withdrawn, have taken myself out of the cheating equation. If someone wants to cheat they will have to find a different partner then me.

The second part I have done was out of self-defence; I do not feel the need to go through the same ordeal again. This means that I will not start anything with a partner that has cheated before. And no it has not to do with once a cheater always a cheater, but there is increased risk that if they have cheated once they will cheat again, I have no data on that it is my gut feeling. Out of self-interest I have decided not to let them into my world.

I still do not see any reasons why anyone should choose to cheat instead or either trying to work through their problems or terminate the relationship. I know there are cases possible when those decisions are very hard, I can imagine certain relationship where abuse (be it physical or mental) comes into play, or where the women or men involved simply do not see any other option. I am not a counsellor nor am I equipped to judge someone else’s life. Would not want to be and since it becomes impossible for me the judge or even make an educated guess what is the best option for a person involved in such. I leave them to it; they may do whatever they need to do with someone else.

 

[Quint]

So, not to paraphrase too loosely or lead the witness, would you say that since your decision to accept Catalina's infidelity was based on what she did AFTER the infidelity (namely, learned what she could from it, admitted it, and moved on), it is the future actions the person who has been unfaithful takes that determine their desirability as a mate,* rather than the mere fact than they have been unfaithful?

The point that I'm getting at is that there has been so much emphasis on Person A (s/he who has in the past been unfaithful) once he has strayed that even though you say you believe in Person A's potential to grow and learn from their infidelity, it is still somewhat lost in the translation. Person A is starting from a deficit of "moral character," having to redeem himself in order to break even.

But in your private life, regardless of the standards that you consciously set, you chose to say that the actions taken by Catalina after her infidelity more or less cancelled out whatever "wrong" she was doing to any involved parties, leaving her with a clean slate in your book. (Mixed metaphor, sorry.)

Originally posted by catalina_francisco, italics my own addition

Pure,

Time does not permit at the moment for me to address your over excited response which to me did not argue any valid points IMHO, but I do take a little exception at you trying to infer (well that's my take on it) I cheated on a long term, regular basis. I was honest and said I had one extenuating circumstance where I had sex once only (yes 1 fuck, not a night of passion even though I had not been allowed sex with my SO in many months) and that was where it began and ended because that was all it was needed for to serve it's purpose of which I decided before hand....and then surprise, surprise, I called the marriage quits as I had the answer to my question. And that was the end of any 'cheating' for the rest of my life, and was not a situation I would normally have been in due to my ethics. And I figure it was close on 20 years ago now and I have never been tempted again, nor did I run out at that time and find another lover, nor get into another screwed relationship.

In this post, Catalina says that there was something she needed to learn, an answer to some unspecified question. I would like to know what she would have done if that one fuck had not given her the answer to her question, but only presented her with more. If it gave a teasing hint at an answer, but neither a "your marriage is not working, give it up" nor a "this infidelity was a mistake, your husband is worth more than this so go back to him and never do it again," then I personally would think that there would be no more reason to cheat while remaining with the spouse. Without such a clear-cut answer, it's trickier to know what to do next.

I think Catalina had the advantage in knowing her question beforehand--many people, myself among them, have acted without complete self-understanding, let along complete understanding of the dynamics of their relationship. (What's missing, what is bad, etc.)

By this rambly tangent, I merely want to raise the thought that Catalina admits she had a reason to cheat. A question that needed answering. We all have these questions, known or unknown, but a single occurrence of infidelity may not always be the catalyst to achieving the answer. As she managed to find acceptable (to her) circumstances for her infidelity, so I propose that there may in fact be acceptable circumstances for people other than her. People who have done it once, and people who have been "repeated offenders." That's all.

*Substitute "moral rightness, etc."

 

[catalina_francisco]

So, not to paraphrase too loosely or lead the witness, would you say that since your decision to accept Catalina's infidelity was based on what she did AFTER the infidelity (namely, learned what she could from it, admitted it, and moved on), it is the future actions the person who has been unfaithful takes that determine their desirability as a mate,* rather than the mere fact than they have been unfaithful?

Without being lead by the prosecutor this witness will try to answer the question.

Yes you put it very adequate and in a way I had not thought of putting it myself. It was not the amount of times she did it but how she dealt with it afterwards. She grew personally from it and she was honest and straightforward about it.

Do feel that for me personally this is a must. I have seen 4 cases in my direct environment were infidelity has taken place in a relationship and where the adulterer (male or female) has had he guts and it is not easy I know to come forward with it. In 3 the relationship ended and in one of those 3 really bad, and I mean really bad. But in one the relationship survived and both are still happily together.

Of those 4 ‘cheaters’ I would not mind getting involved in a relationship, I know that if the relationship goes bad, if their needs are not met that they would have the guts to tell me. I would not have to be worried if they are playing cloak and dagger games. And I still do not condone them going outside the relationship, but I know people are human and sometimes people are forced to do things which they do not want.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In this post, Catalina says that there was something she needed to learn, an answer to some unspecified question. I would like to know what she would have done if that one fuck had not given her the answer to her question, but only presented her with more. If it gave a teasing hint at an answer, but neither a "your marriage is not working, give it up" nor a "this infidelity was a mistake, your husband is worth more than this so go back to him and never do it again," then I personally would think that there would be no more reason to cheat while remaining with the spouse. Without such a clear-cut answer, it's trickier to know what to do next.

I can answer you Quint.....there was only two answers possible in my situation and in relation to the question I had to have answered. Either there was a problem with me or there wasn't. So I knew I had no need to worry about 'what ifs'. As the marriage was an abusive one, and he an alcoholic, I do not equate it with normal marital problems as I have stated and explained repeatedly, but it seems some cannot differentiate between abusive and non abusive and like blanket statements that apply for both.

My feelings as to why I was accepted by Master, and no, I am not speaking for him but while here, and as we have a fairly good understanding of each other will help you understand as I undrestand your need to, were for a number of reasons. The least likely is it was 20 years ago when I was much younger and inexperienced in life, and though I never tried to justify my infidelity, he could appreciate the circumstances I told him of, and that it was a 1 event in all ways by my choice, not my partner in crime who was more than willing to rescue me and enter a LTR, and most likely in many ways that count would have been exceptional.

Probably the bigger reason is I volunteered the information of my own free will in conversation not even relating to what either of us had done or not done in the past....in other words I chose to be honest about it with him,and felt it important I do so upfront, when I could have kept quiet and he would never have known as the only people to ever know were myself and the other person, and one friend both of whom I have not seen for 19 years. So I could have kept my mouth shut and pat myself on the back with my successful deception, but it is not me and he could recognise that. It demonstrated to him the depth of my honesty, and the risk I was prepared to take to ensure he had all the facts.

By this rambly tangent, I merely want to raise the thought that Catalina admits she had a reason to cheat. A question that needed answering. We all have these questions, known or unknown, but a single occurrence of infidelity may not always be the catalyst to achieving the answer. As she managed to find acceptable (to her) circumstances for her infidelity, so I propose that there may in fact be acceptable circumstances for people other than her.

*Substitute "moral rightness, etc."

So there may and we have always acknowledged that despite the efforts to blot it out by some. As to me finding it acceptable for myself, you have made the wrong assumption. I didn't, and never did, which is why it was not for pleasure, or with the thought it may continue on, and was never something I excused for myself. Life lessons are learned and though one can empathise with another, it is not productive personally to pretend a lesson was not learned. If asked I have no problem telling what my experience and thoughts are, whethre someone wants to act on that is their choice which I have always maintained and held to. I cannot see the value in denying learned lessons, and trying to stay level with those around you. When around people that do, then finding out later they didn't speak the truth or withheld to make me feel OK, I feel uncomfortable and tend to wonder what else about them is real or unreal.

And as to moral rightness, once again I find it astounding people here are so ready to label and rephrase the words of others to support whatever argument they want. Fortunately I have found my own words thankfully have power to stand on their own and be recognised by many for exactly the words they are, not reinterpretations. I do speak in english so there really is no need for translation that I see. If you want to debate, use your words and own them, not 'substitute' words for me and assign them to me as if you know. More significantly astounding is the ones so ready to label are usually the very ones who protest any labelling done by others as wrong and bad, not to mention unacceptable.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Pure,

Since you like so much quoting peoples other posts and going back through posts. Let’s take a look at a couple of the remarks made by a so called non judgemental person.

Though it's more delicately phrased, the new argument has the same rotten (fallacious) core,

This is non judgemental, respectful of other views?

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.

And this of course is a prime example on how to behave like an adult?

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.'

It is very interesting to see that we need your permission Pure to post on this board.

No doubt the fellow has intellectual complexities and nuances that I'm just able to grasp. No doubt I'm misreading or missing some clues, but I'm really perplexed.

This is another example of an underhanded insult.

These citations of yours are pretty much a smokescreen aimed at the uninitiated, to cover the absence of anything to prove your point.

A long winded way of saying I am lying, interesting that later on the data and statistics I posted are used, by you.

Had you any numbers from that report about cheating and murder, you'd post them; but you don't.

Same can be said again.

That's coy. Again if they support your claim, just cite them. If not, cut the smoke and mirrors.

Again being called a liar because someone does not know how to read or open pdf files.

And I could go on and on and on. I mean if I am being called judgemental and if I am being constantly miss-quoted and insulted I am now supposed to answer your questions?

I am supposed to try to have an intelligent discourse with someone who is only insulting me. Pure really, post your questions to someone who has the patience to converse with you.

Francisco.

 

[Quint]

Originally posted by Quint, bolds by Quint, non-bolds by catalina_francisco
In this post, Catalina says that there was something she needed to learn, an answer to some unspecified question. I would like to know what she would have done if that one fuck had not given her the answer to her question, but only presented her with more. If it gave a teasing hint at an answer, but neither a "your marriage is not working, give it up" nor a "this infidelity was a mistake, your husband is worth more than this so go back to him and never do it again," then I personally would think that there would be no more reason to cheat while remaining with the spouse. Without such a clear-cut answer, it's trickier to know what to do next.

I can answer you Quint.....there was only two answers possible in my situation and in relation to the question I had to have answered. Either there was a problem with me or there wasn't. So I knew I had no need to worry about 'what ifs'. As the marriage was an abusive one, and he an alcoholic, I do not equate it with normal marital problems as I have stated and explained repeatedly, but it seems some cannot differentiate between abusive and non abusive and like blanket statements that apply for both.

My feelings as to why I was accepted by Master, and no, I am not speaking for him but while here, and as we have a fairly good understanding of each other will help you understand as I undrestand your need to, were for a number of reasons. The least likely is it was 20 years ago when I was much younger and inexperienced in life, and though I never tried to justify my infidelity, he could appreciate the circumstances I told him of, and that it was a 1 event in all ways by my choice, not my partner in crime who was more than willing to rescue me and enter a LTR, and most likely in many ways that count would have been exceptional.

Probably the bigger reason is I volunteered the information of my own free will in conversation not even relating to what either of us had done or not done in the past....in other words I chose to be honest about it with him,and felt it important I do so upfront, when I could have kept quiet and he would never have known as the only people to ever know were myself and the other person, and one friend both of whom I have not seen for 19 years. So I could have kept my mouth shut and pat myself on the back with my successful deception, but it is not me and he could recognise that. It demonstrated to him the depth of my honesty, and the risk I was prepared to take to ensure he had all the facts.

By this rambly tangent, I merely want to raise the thought that Catalina admits she had a reason to cheat. A question that needed answering. We all have these questions, known or unknown, but a single occurrence of infidelity may not always be the catalyst to achieving the answer. As she managed to find acceptable (to her) circumstances for her infidelity, so I propose that there may in fact be acceptable circumstances for people other than her.

*Substitute "moral rightness, etc."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So there may and we have always acknowledged that despite the efforts to blot it out by some. As to me finding it acceptable for myself, you have made the wrong assumption. I didn't, and never did, which is why it was not for pleasure, or with the thought it may continue on, and was never something I excused for myself. Life lessons are learned and though one can empathise with another, it is not productive personally to pretend a lesson was not learned. If asked I have no problem telling what my experience and thoughts are, whethre someone wants to act on that is their choice which I have always maintained and held to. I cannot see the value in denying learned lessons, and trying to stay level with those around you. When around people that do, then finding out later they didn't speak the truth or withheld to make me feel OK, I feel uncomfortable and tend to wonder what else about them is real or unreal.

And as to moral rightness, once again I find it astounding people here are so ready to label and rephrase the words of others to support whatever argument they want. Fortunately I have found my own words thankfully have power to stand on their own and be recognised by many for exactly the words they are, not reinterpretations. I do speak in english so there really is no need for translation that I see. If you want to debate, use your words and own them, not 'substitute' words for me and assign them to me as if you know. More significantly astounding is the ones so ready to label are usually the very ones who protest any labelling done by others as wrong and bad, not to mention unacceptable.

Catalina

Catalina,

I appreciated your first paragraph until the last sentence. May I suggest that in the future, as a means of assuring that the person you are replying to continues reading and does not entirely lose their patience with the post, you rephrase statements like "but it seems some cannot differentiate between abusive and non abusive and like blanket statements that apply for both." You have said that you call a spade a spade. That statement is the equivalent of "some tools lying around the shed, which may be spades," when you're looking right at the damned thing. If you believe that I am applying blanket statements to your life and arguments, please say something like "Quint, I felt that last statement was the exact type of blanket statement that you are so loudly protesting from others." I would feel a lot more confident in our mutual ability to intelligently debate if you would oblige me in said manner.

On a related note, I believe that statements like the one I just listed above are what contribute to the belief many of the posters here have of you as condescending. No matter how many times you SAY you do not have a higher opinion of yourself than of anyone else, or SAY that you know you are mortal, fallible, etc., nobody will believe it until your tone reflects it. You're saying one thing, showing another. And as any good author knows, showing is more effective than telling. I understand that this may be the voice you use in real life, but on a forum where faces cannot be seen nor intonations heard, one's words always must be used in the most effective way possible. You are speaking about something which I assume you have a personal interest in; you want people to eventually see that you are correct, that your points are valid. Be aware of your audience and your purpose in speaking to them. I apologize if this has sounded condescending in turn, as I realize you have not solicited any such advice.

Now back to the post. I do agree with the point you made in the first paragraph about abusive relationships presenting different circumstances for Person A than relationships where abuse is not involved. I do not see this as negating my point that in ANY relationship, an individual examination of the circumstances and people is necessary. That's one blanket statement I will stand by.

I personally think that praising or rewarding someone for being honest is like thanking a stranger on the street for not killing you. It's not necessary. My mileage may vary.

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by accepting your reasons for infidelity. You said "As to me finding it acceptable for myself, you have made the wrong assumption. I didn't, and never did, which is why it was not for pleasure, or with the thought it may continue on, and was never something I excused for myself." What I meant was that you understand your reasons for why you were unfaithful that once, and you have accepted that you learned what you needed to from the experience. I did not mean to imply that you condone the activity, even under your circumstances, merely that you found the lesson in the action and moved on. Is this incorrect?

See the first paragraph I wrote in this post in reference to your reply "And as to moral rightness, once again I find it astounding people here are so ready to label and rephrase the words of others to support whatever argument they want." Again, call me on it directly if at all. Preferably using "I feel" statements.

However, I don't feel that what I said re: moral righteousness was in any way directed personally at you or Francisco. I was trying to think of other circumstances under which The Cheater has been discriminated against. Not only as being an undesirable partner, but also seen as less "good" of a person in general. It's the connotation more than the explicit words, granted. I hope that makes sense and I'll be willing to clarify further if it doesn't.

Francisco,

Respectfully, I don't believe that resorting to "Pure's a dick because he said these judgmental things" is constructive in any way. I'm trying to refrain from the same.

Thank you.

 

[catalina_francisco]

For now I am not bothering to continue reading as I don't need the aggravation, plain and simple, nor do I need to be told by you how to word a sentence to as you say 'oblige' you. I am not here to oblige you or anyone, as I'm sure you're not either, but have a right to state my situation without being told how I should say it from someone who has already reworded my previous statements incorrectly according to what I repeatedly stated was the meaning. You will take what you want from it as is your right.

As to 'many' on the board, my feedback seems to number a few, as in very small single number having a problem compared to double figure others having no problem at all and reflecting it back to me.....most complete strangers to me until recent events. Perhaps it is more a position we both find ourselves on our karmic wheel, and lessons to be learned to evolve. I am happy with my progress and approach to others and feel no need to continually correct the words of another and tell them what they were trying to say.

Maybe it is I who needs to evolve more, maybe you....who knows, but for now I think it safer to just agree to disagree and move on as this whole issue here is getting to status I no longer find of any positive value. I am not one to denigrate or judge others and avoid the negative effects of those who do as much as possible. I have lived over half a life which is rich with experiences and lessons, and plan to continue learning, not on returning to my teens in my head to go through it all again to please you or anyone who feel they have all the answers, or have not as yet had the experience. Positive, open, honest discussion is a different matter.

Catalina

 

[rosco rathbone]

For now I am not bothering to continue reading as I don't need the aggravation, plain and simple, nor do I need to be told by you how to word a sentence to as you say 'oblige' you. I am not here to oblige you or anyone, as I'm sure you're not either, but have a right to state my situation without being told how I should say it from someone who has already reworded my previous statements incorrectly according to what I repeatedly stated was the meaning. You will take what you want from it as is your right.

As to 'many' on the board, my feedback seems to number a few, as in very small single number having a problem compared to double figure others having no problem at all and reflecting it back to me.....most complete strangers to me until recent events. Perhaps it is more a position we both find ourselves on our karmic wheel, and lessons to be learned to evolve. I am happy with my progress and approach to others and feel no need to continually correct the words of another and tell them what they were trying to say.

Maybe it is I who needs to evolve more, maybe you....who knows, but for now I think it safer to just agree to disagree and move on as this whole issue here is getting to status I no longer find of any positive value. I am not one to denigrate or judge others and avoid the negative effects of those who do as much as possible. I have lived over half a life which is rich with experiences and lessons, and plan to continue learning, not on returning to my teens in my head to go through it all again to please you or anyone who feel they have all the answers, or have not as yet had the experience. Positive, open, honest discussion is a different matter.

Catalina

Pure has you on the debatin' hook, baby. You aren't getting out until he lets you go-you can't help yourself.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Francisco,

Respectfully, I don't believe that resorting to "Pure's a dick because he said these judgmental things" is constructive in any way. I'm trying to refrain from the same.

Thank you.

Hello Quint,

Thank you for your well meant words of advice. I have a high esteem of you, which I have said on more then on one occasion publicly, find your postings normally considerate above average substance.

I however so now and then just get tired of tirades against my partner and myself and feel the need so now and then to point to postings which are in effect consistent with what we have been accused of. Re-editing words and being misquoted however well meant becomes very tiring. Especially if one has just gone through days of reading posts in which exactly that has happened.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Pure has you on the debatin' hook, baby. You aren't getting out until he lets you go-you can't help yourself.

Hi rosco,

I myself have been on a debating hook with the world for almost all of my life. By the way I have read a lot of your posts and you seem to be having the same addiction, although of course not with my obviously superior qualities in debating and my enormous intelligence and high standing morals.

But then I suspect you do not come from the land where morality and superiority is equivalent with living there.

Francisco.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Johnny_Mayberry: If you're going to cheat, a.) it WILL hurt your partner, b.) don't try to pretend there was any good intentions towards your spouse involved, because you are only adding self-bullshitting to the list of bad actions, and c.) do not even ask to be my submissive because I'm not interested. Whether or not this indicates that predictions can be made in the future based on past infidelity is ambiguous.

Let me just add d.) whether you have cheated in the past, or will in the future, you are cheating right now, and e.) if you think it is ok to cheat, so long as you get your rocks off, no matter what the situation is with your SO, then I haven't got alot of respect for you as a person.