Cheating Husband or Loving Husband stories?

[Britva415]

Men don't like to read about men cheating...

That's actually really surprising, unexpected and strange to me. Cheating fantasies are incredibly common. Acting on them, barely any less so.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Maybe, but I won't post them there.

Now that feels like it would fit in perfectly in LW.

 

[Cagivagurl]

That's actually really surprising, unexpected and strange to me. Cheating fantasies are incredibly common. Acting on them, barely any less so.

Simply my opinion.
That's just my take on it after writing a few stories based on men cheating on their wives.

 

[NoTalentHack]

That's actually really surprising, unexpected and strange to me. Cheating fantasies are incredibly common. Acting on them, barely any less so.

I think part of it is also this site. If you go over to Lush, for example, there are tons of "men cheating" stories, both where they get away with it and where they don't, and they do very well.

 

[RejectReality]

I think part of it is also this site. If you go over to Lush, for example, there are tons of "men cheating" stories, both where they get away with it and where they don't, and they do very well.

They also have three categories that more or less compose what LW is made of here. Cheating, Swingers, and Wife Lovers. That significantly reduces the kind of tribalism we have here.

 

[RejectReality]

Correction: Four. They also have a cuckold category that I somehow forgot about.

Nobody has a good excuse to get angry because they have to sift through everyone's "degenerate" stories to find what they want, and thus they don't get into a dick-measuring contest to see who can out-asshole the other guys to chase off the authors writing the "sick garbage that's polluting the category."

Plus, a lot of the violent BtB stuff will not fly there. Stories with no sex are strongly discouraged. ( to the point that chapters missing sex scenes are supposed to be marked ) So at least one of the more divisive angles we have here can't really take root.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'd lose a dick-measuring contest every time. Clits aren't big dicks. And while I'd love a few more categories for the married but adventurous set, I still won't publish at Lush because of certain dracooning editing requirements. Sometimes, when someone says "over-yonder-a-fer piece," "Yontoo," and such, it should be left that way.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I'd lose a dick-measuring contest every time. Clits aren't big dicks. And while I'd love a few more categories for the married but adventurous set, I still won't publish at Lush because of certain dracooning editing requirements. Sometimes, when someone says "over-yonder-a-fer piece," "Yontoo," and such, it should be left that way.

I was not thrilled the first time someone edited one of my stories before it got posted there, without asking if I wanted the change first. Suggesting is fine; changing it without author okay is not.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yeah, even using notes that misspellings inside dialog is intentional, they still changed yistiday to yesterday and every other accent showing word.

I was not thrilled the first time someone edited one of my stories before it got posted there, without asking if I wanted the change first. Suggesting is fine; changing it without author okay is not.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I was not thrilled the first time someone edited one of my stories before it got posted there, without asking if I wanted the change first.

I'm sorry... But what!?

 

[Helgamite]

I'd lose a dick-measuring contest every time. Clits aren't big dicks. And while I'd love a few more categories for the married but adventurous set, I still won't publish at Lush because of certain dracooning editing requirements. Sometimes, when someone says "over-yonder-a-fer piece," "Yontoo," and such, it should be left that way.

that sounds like someone writing hillbilly. a cultural thing. if so, I agree it should be left as it adds character to the story.

 

[lustychimera]

Yeah, even using notes that misspellings inside dialog is intentional, they still changed yistiday to yesterday and every other accent showing word.

That's bizarre. It really makes me wonder about their fine print. Is that even legal to change without consent?

This is what Lush says in their ToS:

All erotic stories in this site are deemed the property and exclusive copyright of their authors. The submitter of the story is believed to be the original author

How can they edit something they have zero ownership over, especially intentional characterizations? I didn't read anything in their ToS that gave them that right.

 

[desecration]

A cheating husband story has a completely different vibe from the cheating wives stories that go in LW. A hangover from some fairly outdated ideas about the different importance of a wife's fidelity vs a husband's. A wife cheats, it's an unforgivable betrayal. A husband cheats, and it is somewhere between "You go, dude!" and "It was a mistake, and she'll take him back unless there's a lot of money involved in a divorce settlement, then she'll completely screw him and he'll be the victim."

Maybe that was true in the 1970s, but not since, around here at least. If the husband cheats, people see it as the same thing: a shattered marriage, best to move on (if you can afford it).

 

[EmilyMiller]

unless there's a lot of money involved in a divorce settlement, then she'll completely screw him and he'll be the victim.

I think that doing anything as radical as paying alimony and supporting their children is seen as unfair by many divorced men of a certain age. It goes hand in hand with the skewed economic status that used to prevail between men and women.

Emily

 

[lustychimera]

I think that doing anything as radical as paying alimony and supporting their children is seen as unfair by many divorced men of a certain age. It goes hand in hand with the skewed economic status that used to prevail between men and women.

Emily

I'm always curious how many of those men who got "screwed over by the courts" also think that it's all his money.

It'd be terrifying, even at 30, to need to start completely over with zero resume because you stayed home to raise the kids. I see very little empathy for that.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It'd be terrifying, even at 30, to need to start completely over with zero resume because you stayed home to raise the kids. I see very little empathy for that.

Yup - I’m sure divorce sucks - but I’m guessing it’s awful for both parties, just in different ways.

Emily

 

[NoTalentHack]

I think that doing anything as radical as paying alimony and supporting their children is seen as unfair by many divorced men of a certain age. It goes hand in hand with the skewed economic status that used to prevail between men and women.

Emily

The child support, not so much; most men, as long as the child is legitimately theirs (either genetically or through adoption) don’t have a problem with it, at least in LW comments. What they do have a problem with (outside of being required to pay for a child that was passed off as theirs but wasn't) is that they pay support for the kids but get almost no access to them. "Two weekends a month and two months in the summer, with alternating Christmases and Thanksgivings" isn't just a cliche in Loving Wives.

The vast majority of states don't have shared custody; they have "custody" and "visitation," and visitation, while court-ordered, is also expensive to enforce, and it can be used as a way to manipulate kids to be angry with the non-custodial spouse, i.e., "Oh, I wanted to take you to Disneyworld, but the only weekend I could get off is the one where you're supposed to be with your dad, and he doesn't want to give that weekend up. Oh, well." Then Dad chooses to give up that weekend with no legal guarantee that he'll get a replacement weekend to make up for it; or he gets a couple of surly kids mad at him that he wouldn't let Mom take them to Disneyworld. It's usually not that blatant, but similar stuff does happen on a smaller scale.

The alimony, though, definitely. Some guys got completely shafted in their divorces, and not in the MRA chest-thumping way. There's a historical reason for this. The last big wave of divorce reforms came at around the same time the ERA was up for a vote in the 70s, so women really were in a place where they needed that kind of support; after all, women couldn't get credit cards by themselves, sign rental contracts, etc. But society changed for the better, and what had been equitable became onerous.

I'll give you a f'rinstance. Texas is a community property state. While a 50/50 split of existing assets isn't always what happens, it's rarely very far off from that. It also has some wrinkles due to the stuff mentioned above, like women having difficulties buying property or renting on their own before the mid-70s. If a wife slept one night in her husband's house, for example, it became part of the marital property. Didn't matter if it had been in his family for generations, he owned it before they married, and they got divorced after a month; she got half. Period.

Even when I got married twenty years ago, that was still the law, long after a lot of the social and legal reasons ceased to exist. It wasn't until about ten years ago, in fact, that the laws in Texas got adjusted to account for the shifts in the social and legal landscape to make things closer to equitable again; even then, a lot of the guidance is still "the mother should be given custody if all other things are even close to equal."

I'll give you a real-life example: one of my co-workers in the early 2000s. He'd gotten divorced in the late 90s and showed me the judgment that had been handed down in his adultery-caused (she cheated) divorce settlement.

• They both worked, and she only earned slightly less, but he paid alimony until five years passed or she remarried. She moved the AP into her house not long after the divorce, but they didn't marry until after the last of the alimony came through.
• He gladly paid child support. Dude absolutely loved his kids. He also had the "2 and 2" visitation described above. She had violated the visitation agreement several times, but he didn't have the money to get it enforced because...
• She kept the house, but he had to keep paying half the mortgage. Again, due to that throwback "women couldn't own property" thing that hadn't been true for almost three decades, and because she got custody of the kids and it was deemed better for them to have a stable environment, he had to keep paying on it until the wife moved or the youngest kid turned 18, after which they'd sell the house and split the proceeds.

There was more, but those were the highlights. He, of course, had to pay for his own apartment, and if he wanted to keep even a chance at visitation, it had to be big enough for both kids (enough beds/bedrooms, so no roommates, etc.). He ended up paying for in the neighborhood of one-and-a-half to one-and-three-quarters households when you sat down and did the math. And due to another twist in the Texas laws at the time, the alimony was based on his weekly takehome pay, so doing things like working overtime or getting a second job only barely helped; she'd still get a chunk of that, too.

Like I've said before, a lot of those guys are capital-T traumatized by their divorces, and the "she gets rewarded for cheating" stuff comes honestly. There's a bunch of other crazy shit, too, that's still kicking around. One is called "condonation," which basically means that if A) your spouse promises they'll stop doing whatever motivated the beginning of the divorce proceedings and B) you sleep with them once they do, then they can get the divorce case thrown out and make you start all over again. A) is easy to prove and B) is easy to perjure yourself about without much chance of getting in legal trouble, so...

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't know, but they don't edit mine anymore.

That's bizarre. It really makes me wonder about their fine print. Is that even legal to change without consent?

This is what Lush says in their ToS:



How can they edit something they have zero ownership over, especially intentional characterizations? I didn't read anything in their ToS that gave them that right.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The child support, not so much; most men, as long as the child is legitimately theirs (either genetically or through adoption) don’t have a problem with it, at least in LW comments. What they do have a problem with (outside of being required to pay for a child that was passed off as theirs but wasn't) is that they pay support for the kids but get almost no access to them. "Two weekends a month and two months in the summer, with alternating Christmases and Thanksgivings" isn't just a cliche in Loving Wives.

The vast majority of states don't have shared custody; they have "custody" and "visitation," and visitation, while court-ordered, is also expensive to enforce, and it can be used as a way to manipulate kids to be angry with the non-custodial spouse, i.e., "Oh, I wanted to take you to Disneyworld, but the only weekend I could get off is the one where you're supposed to be with your dad, and he doesn't want to give that weekend up. Oh, well." Then Dad chooses to give up that weekend with no legal guarantee that he'll get a replacement weekend to make up for it; or he gets a couple of surly kids mad at him that he wouldn't let Mom take them to Disneyworld. It's usually not that blatant, but similar stuff does happen on a smaller scale.

The alimony, though, definitely. Some guys got completely shafted in their divorces, and not in the MRA chest-thumping way. There's a historical reason for this. The last big wave of divorce reforms came at around the same time the ERA was up for a vote in the 70s, so women really were in a place where they needed that kind of support; after all, women couldn't get credit cards by themselves, sign rental contracts, etc. But society changed for the better, and what had been equitable became onerous.

I'll give you a f'rinstance. Texas is a community property state. While a 50/50 split of existing assets isn't always what happens, it's rarely very far off from that. It also has some wrinkles due to the stuff mentioned above, like women having difficulties buying property or renting on their own before the mid-70s. If a wife slept one night in her husband's house, for example, it became part of the marital property. Didn't matter if it had been in his family for generations, he owned it before they married, and they got divorced after a month; she got half. Period.

Even when I got married twenty years ago, that was still the law, long after a lot of the social and legal reasons ceased to exist. It wasn't until about ten years ago, in fact, that the laws in Texas got adjusted to account for the shifts in the social and legal landscape to make things closer to equitable again; even then, a lot of the guidance is still "the mother should be given custody if all other things are even close to equal."

I'll give you a real-life example: one of my co-workers in the early 2000s. He'd gotten divorced in the late 90s and showed me the judgment that had been handed down in his adultery-caused (she cheated) divorce settlement.

• They both worked, and she only earned slightly less, but he paid alimony until five years passed or she remarried. She moved the AP into her house not long after the divorce, but they didn't marry until after the last of the alimony came through.
• He gladly paid child support. Dude absolutely loved his kids. He also had the "2 and 2" visitation described above. She had violated the visitation agreement several times, but he didn't have the money to get it enforced because...
• She kept the house, but he had to keep paying half the mortgage. Again, due to that throwback "women couldn't own property" thing that hadn't been true for almost three decades, and because she got custody of the kids and it was deemed better for them to have a stable environment, he had to keep paying on it until the wife moved or the youngest kid turned 18, after which they'd sell the house and split the proceeds.

There was more, but those were the highlights. He, of course, had to pay for his own apartment, and if he wanted to keep even a chance at visitation, it had to be big enough for both kids (enough beds/bedrooms, so no roommates, etc.). He ended up paying for in the neighborhood of one-and-a-half to one-and-three-quarters households when you sat down and did the math. And due to another twist in the Texas laws at the time, the alimony was based on his weekly takehome pay, so doing things like working overtime or getting a second job only barely helped; she'd still get a chunk of that, too.

Like I've said before, a lot of those guys are capital-T traumatized by their divorces, and the "she gets rewarded for cheating" stuff comes honestly. There's a bunch of other crazy shit, too, that's still kicking around. One is called "condonation," which basically means that if A) your spouse promises they'll stop doing whatever motivated the beginning of the divorce proceedings and B) you sleep with them once they do, then they can get the divorce case thrown out and make you start all over again. A) is easy to prove and B) is easy to perjure yourself about without much chance of getting in legal trouble, so...

I realize that there are things that are unfair. Joint custody seems to be consistent with both natural justice and the approximation of equality we are moving towards.

But don’t think every woman hater on LW is really the injured party. I’d bet that at least 5% of those who post hate filled comments were always like that and that this aspect of their personality is probably part of why they are divorced.

Women never had a choice before. They were economically dependent. There was not such thing as rape in marriage. The adjustment has been - as I understand it - lengthy and painful.

I’m sure some guys had and still have a hell of a time. But not all, so no blanket pass stating you can be an asshole to others because your ex-wife done you wrong.

Emily

 

[NoTalentHack]

But don’t think every woman hater on LW is really the injured party. I’d bet that at least 5% of those who post hate filled comments were always like that and that this aspect of their personality is probably part of why they are divorced.

I don't think every one of them is, either, nor do I condone the truly hateful comments. I've deleted more than a few that are misogynistic trash.

Women never had a choice before. They were economically dependent. There was not such thing as rape in marriage. The adjustment has been - as I understand it - lengthy and painful.

I’m sure some guys had and still have a hell of a time. But not all, so no blanket pass stating you can be an asshole to others because your ex-wife done you wrong.

If their response is to be misogynistic to all women? Agree. If their response to a story about divorce (or reconciliation) is a little heated? Eh. And "being an asshole" is one of those very nebulous statements. Death threats? Absolutely wrong. Trashing a person's story (or their skill as a writer, for that matter)? Dickish, but still in bounds, at least to me.

 

[StillStunned]

I’m sure some guys had and still have a hell of a time. But not all, so no blanket pass stating you can be an asshole to others because your ex-wife done you wrong.

"I had a bad experience" is never an excuse for being crappy to others.

 

[EmilyMiller]

"I had a bad experience" is never an excuse for being crappy to others.

Agree wholeheartedly. What these people seem to do is to project their angst onto both female authors and female protagonists.

Many people have had awful things happen to them, only a subset think it’s OK to take it out on others.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

"being an asshole" is one of those very nebulous statements.

As I’ve said before:

I speak my mind frankly and without fear
You are a bit abrupt at times
They are an utter asshole

Emily

 

[StillStunned]

As I’ve said before:

I speak my mind frankly and without fear
You are a bit abrupt at times
They are an utter asshole

Emily

That's one of those "irregular verbs" from "Yes Minister", isn't it?

"I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He's been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act." - Bernard Woolley

 

[NoTalentHack]

"I had a bad experience" is never an excuse for being crappy to others.

Ehhh, I don't know that I'd agree. It's a statement that edges way too close to "kindness costs nothing," a nice sentiment that's usually wielded by people with a lower emotional/mental stress level against someone with a higher one.

It's like the shopping cart theory: an individual's moral character can be determined by whether they choose to return a shopping cart to its designated spot after use, or whether they simply leave it wherever it suits them.

It's sort of true, but only in the abstract. There are plenty of reasons to not return the shopping cart that have nothing to do with them being an asshole. While I always return carts, would I still do it if I was in a wheelchair? What about the mom that gets to pick between leaving twin infants in a hot car, a car with the keys in the ignition, or leaving a cart off to the side?

Most people can be decent about most subjects, and they should. Expecting everyone to be angels all the time, including about things that have traumatized them is asking for... not perfection, but more than most people are capable of.