One Hint on Maintaining a Relationship...Others, Anyone?

[NippleMuncher]

I dare anyone to tell me I can't.

You can't!

*ducks and runs for cover*

 

[StrayKat]

No shit. Like so many of my grandmother's contemporaries (the so-called Greatest Generation), who put up with infidelity, physical abuse, substance abuse, and even sexual abuse of their children because the stigma of divorce was far greater in their eyes than dealing with their fucked-up relationships. And as a product of a similarly fucked-up relationship that should have ended at three months but has instead lasted for almost 42 years, I can and will judge the fuck out of those people, and I dare anyone to tell me I can't.

Unlike some silly males around here I tell you you can.

I can and do too.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

so anyway…

how 'bout them Padres?

 

[amofiga]

Want to maintain a relationship? Don't nag. Don't judge. Learn to accept and cherish each other's differences, try to key on the positive.

 

[jackdaw]

The whole submissive wife thing is VERY big in fundamental Christianity. She's being a good Christian wife by saying that she is submissive. Now rhe real question is, "what does that mean to her?"

A woman's submission to her husband in Christian belief isn't really a bedroom or bdsm thing . . .

 

[GiggLeGasm]

Did everyone but me know all the details about this couple? I don't watch TV, and if I did, I certainly would not watch "Dancing With the Stars." So that's why I was ignorant enough to look at the picture and the headline and think it might be fun to collect some input from other people.

Sigh.

I don't think you made any mistake by selecting this couple as an initiation for discussion. The reality is that nobody here knows the details of this couple. Do people truly believe that, because she has a faith-based blog, that she is being fully transparent about her relationship? I don't think she owes that to anyone other than her husband.

What I find ironic is how often people take a stand here about freedom to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, yet are so willing to bias an opinion of another based on a few details.

If she was truly guilty of trying to force her views down your throat, don't you think you would have known? If her cult was that huge, wouldn't they have knocked on your door by now? In my opinion, she makes her opinions available to those who seek them. What's so wrong with that?

Are we really getting to the point where it's appropriate to say, "Things were fine around her until those fundies moved in" - haven't we already been here with far too many other neighbors????

I'll just close with a quote from a great poet (that I'll admit to stealing)

"Everybody must get stoned" ~ Bob Dylan (quoting Leviticus)

 

[LWulf]

I don't think you made any mistake by selecting this couple as an initiation for discussion. The reality is that nobody here knows the details of this couple. Do people truly believe that, because she has a faith-based blog, that she is being fully transparent about her relationship? I don't think she owes that to anyone other than her husband.

What I find ironic is how often people take a stand here about freedom to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, yet are so willing to bias an opinion of another based on a few details.

If she was truly guilty of trying to force her views down your throat, don't you think you would have known? If her cult was that huge, wouldn't they have knocked on your door by now? In my opinion, she makes her opinions available to those who seek them. What's so wrong with that?

Are we really getting to the point where it's appropriate to say, "Things were fine around her until those fundies moved in" - haven't we already been here with far too many other neighbors????

I'll just close with a quote from a great poet (that I'll admit to stealing)

"Everybody must get stoned" ~ Bob Dylan (quoting Leviticus)

SO fucking this.

With exception to Bob Dylan and Leviticus. I never was a fan of Bob and I generally hate anything to do with religion. *shrug*

 

[Bramblethorn]

If she was truly guilty of trying to force her views down your throat, don't you think you would have known? If her cult was that huge, wouldn't they have knocked on your door by now? In my opinion, she makes her opinions available to those who seek them. What's so wrong with that?

Are we really getting to the point where it's appropriate to say, "Things were fine around her until those fundies moved in" - haven't we already been here with far too many other neighbors????

She doesn't tend to voice intolerant views loudly herself, presumably because of that whole "deferring to men" thing; the most obnoxious thing I can find in her own words is the idea that "behind each immodestly dressed woman, is a broken woman". But she's repeatedly given her support to others who are more vocal.

Her brother Kirk described homosexuality as "unnatural... detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization" in interview with Piers Morgan. She's made it pretty clear that she stands with Kirk on religious matters in general and on that one in particular.

She went on record to support Chik-Fil-A's homophobia at a time when they were being criticised for opposition to same-sex marriage and their support for groups like Exodus International, who were promoting incredibly harmful "ex-gay conversion therapy" and who encouraged Uganda's "Kill The Gays" legislation.

So, yeah, people like her give support to those who make the world a crueller and less tolerant place. I'm not going to give her a pass just because she lets the men do most of the talking.

 

[LWulf]

...If she was truly guilty of trying to force her views down your throat, don't you think you would have known? If her cult was that huge, wouldn't they have knocked on your door by now? In my opinion, she makes her opinions available to those who seek them. What's so wrong with that? ...

Second thought, shame on you for supporting someone who is against someone else's ideals. Just because she exemplifies some of the ideals that you believe in, means that you MUST be 100% in bed on ALL things she is into as well! So YOU are as guilty as she is!!

Riiiiight Bramblethorn?

After all, it's not like someone who supports President Obama (because he supports LGBT), so a shared social ideal is there. That means that EVERYTHING he does would be 100% backed by such a person. NEVER questioning anything he does. Right?

:headdesk: Why am I in this thread???

It's amazing to see people here using what approximates to religious doctrine while they debase others for that inherent same thing.
"The sins of the father are the sins of the children" (or some such) (fundamental orthodox Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs). In this case, what a brother is guilty of, a sister MUST be guilty of too, whether she displays that or not.
This reminds me of "the murderer's thumb." So called, because a person who has a distal phallanx that is shorter than average, to the point that the thumb nail starts at the proximal/distal joint. Word got around that people with a "murderer's thumb" was a murderer, if not in the past, then in their inevitable future.

Predestined choices based on physical attributes. Right up there with "original sin." All kin are allocated to the same faults as their ancestors. Nobody is capable of original thought and being different.

Here's another amazing thing. Late breaking announcement! Orthodox religions are against homosexuality! OMG! No! Really? When you say it like that, you'd think they are also against sex before marriage, masturbation, oral sex, BDSM... come to think of it, they would be against almost everything in literotica!!
Pfft! yeah right!

Another late breaking announcement folks, religion promotes humility (can you tell I ain't religious?). So, they would kinda believe if you are "immodest" (definition: lacking humility or decency) that you would therefore be "broken" (in their eyes). Who've thunk it? OMG That almost makes sense!

Now here's another dictionary definition:
Submission: someone who defers to another as a leader.

WHAT!?! but, but, but... there's no sex mentioned in that definition! How can that be???
A colonel defers to a general, does that mean he is sexually submissive to the general? That he doesn't speak his mind? That he has no opinion?

OMG, am I trying to use logic on you folks? I'm sooo sorry!

What's really funny is; the guy who started this thread, who believes in the same system of categorically deferring to a particular sex in a relationship because that is his historical belief system.
Now where are the people saying he is wrong for deferring to a woman?? That he is weak-minded, timid and sexually submissive?

Hmm. Strange, nobody. A-M-A-Z-I-N-G

Don't worry Jacktar, because you are a traditionalist and nature conservative, we know what political office YOU would run for!

 

[LadyVer]

I don't know, as a former fundie, it's like fingernails going across a chalkboard when I see fundies talk about sex and submission. Personally, I believe the worst thing anyone can do is bring their religion into the bedroom. Religion does not belong in the bedroom, especially religious submission.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

I don't know. Hearing, "Oh God! Oh God! Oh my FUCKING GOD!!!!!" in the bedroom isn't all that bad.

I personally think bringing clowns and ponies into the bedroom is crossing an invisible line.

 

[GiggLeGasm]

we were taught that sex is the one form of love that you can share with your spouse.. that you do not also share with everyone else. we were told that the marital bed should be the safest place to explore your desire, share yourself, and communicate your most intimate thoughts.

replace spouse with SO.. or old lady.. or babydaddy.. whatever

what matters is that the two people are on the same page.
and that kind of takes us back to the original intention of this thread.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Second thought, shame on you for supporting someone who is against someone else's ideals. Just because she exemplifies some of the ideals that you believe in, means that you MUST be 100% in bed on ALL things she is into as well! So YOU are as guilty as she is!!

Riiiiight Bramblethorn?

After all, it's not like someone who supports President Obama (because he supports LGBT), so a shared social ideal is there. That means that EVERYTHING he does would be 100% backed by such a person. NEVER questioning anything he does. Right?

:headdesk: Why am I in this thread???

Beats me, but it sure ain't for the sake of reading other people's comments and responding to what they actually said.

Had you done that, instead of replying to the imaginary straw Bramble who lives only in your head, you'd have noticed that I discussed her cheering on homophobes *in the context of their homophobia*. That's not "she supports them in X therefore she supports them in Y" like you're trying to make out; it's simply "she supports them in X therefore she supports X".

 

[LWulf]

Beats me, but it sure ain't for the sake of reading other people's comments and responding to what they actually said.

Had you done that, instead of replying to the imaginary straw Bramble who lives only in your head, you'd have noticed that I discussed her cheering on homophobes *in the context of their homophobia*. That's not "she supports them in X therefore she supports them in Y" like you're trying to make out; it's simply "she supports them in X therefore she supports X".

No clue what you are talking about X and Y. Maybe it's just late. I'll also overlook the snide "straw bramble" comments, which means I don't have much to say to you.

My comment was merely directed at what I saw you comment to gigglegasm.

I'll try to dummy down what I said.

• You said Candace supported a corporation that was against same sex marriages (which I later in the same post described is fundamentally part of judeo/christian/muslim orthodox religions).
• You added that the corporation was aligned with another country's homophobic and lethal laws.
• Spuriously, you made it out that therefore Candace was aligned and 100% supportive of those lethal laws and the country using them.

In equal illogic, using your methodology, I posed that gigglegasm would likewise be guilty of supporting Uganda's "kill the gays" by showing support of Candace.

Submission isn't necessarily sexual.
Submission doesn't mean timid and weak-minded.
Religions are not pro "immodesty" by and large.

In a word, you are leaping to conclusions here, like a lot of other people in this thread.

Let me dummy it down further.
To homosexuals, they are the enemy. To them, homosexuals are the enemy. Laws in another country can't be changed from this country. These things will never change, so quit whinging about it.

 

[LadyVer]

Well, the op asked for one hint on maintaining a relationship. I would go with knowing when to change the subject.

 

[NightL]

I'll also overlook the snide "straw bramble" comments,

Yet...

I'll try to dummy down what I said.

In equal illogic,

Let me dummy it down further.

and much from (and more from many other posts)

Second thought, shame on you...

just an observation and a hint about maintaining relationships. In what context do you believe your words should be taken?

There is a very different pace around the How To... compared to the General Board. Since you have started contributing more regularly here at the How To... I view that you have carried an instant defensiveness, which may be necessary in the GB, and then responded with sarcasm, over emphasised exasperation and an overall snappy aggressive approach.

There are many fine contributors here. My suggestion is that before you accuse someone of being snide and offering other put downs, take a moment to find out who these regulars are. Pause before responding and maybe read their posts twice before you do. If you look for arguments with people who may well have similar values to yourself you will eventually get the disdain that you fear.(?) You are creating arguments with people who are basically on your side.

Look up the term "straw man" and then ask yourself why someone may bring this term up with you.

 

[LWulf]

Pause before responding and maybe read their posts twice before you do.

Since my first encounter with bramblethorn, there has been an adversarial enmity that has existed.

Thanks for the suggestion. With anybody else, you are probably right. With regards to bramblethorn, no. However, as the noob that he took down cold, I feel slightly (only slightly) vindicated to respond with the same kindness he displayed to me.

However, I don't go looking to pony up, unless I feel he seems in the wrong.

 

[LadyVer]

Bram's one of the nicest people on Lit. That doesn't mean he'll put up with snark from anyone though.

 

[Porkwarrior]

Oral sex.
I am not reading an entire idiotic post just to state the obvious.

The barometer of a relationship is entirely based on the frequency of oral sex. Period. It can ebb & flow...but when it stops entirely, that is the day the relationship died.

PERIOD.

 

[LWulf]

Bram's one of the nicest people on Lit. That doesn't mean he'll put up with snark from anyone though.

maybe to the oldies.

it was my fucking thread. he started the snark. (I since had his post removed)

The next time, I asked a straight up question which he again delivered with snark.

Since then, I see bramble thorn, hostility index goes high and the mitts come off out of the gate..

 

[LadyVer]

maybe to the oldies.

it was my fucking thread. he started the snark. (I since had his post removed)

The next time, I asked a straight up question which he again delivered with snark.

Since then, I see bramble thorn, hostility index goes high and the mitts come off out of the gate..

You might put him on ig then. It would not only be more pleasant for you, but for others as well.

 

[Emerson40]

I guess I need to start paying more attention to people's wiggly bits.

Wiggly bit observance will probably serve you well more times than not. It certainly could not hurt.

On occasion, I find just reaching down and unexpectedly cupping the bits of the other - a wee bit awkward at the time, perhaps - can avoid a bunch of misunderstanding later.

 

[Porkwarrior]

maybe to the oldies.

it was my fucking thread. he started the snark. (I since had his post removed)

The next time, I asked a straight up question which he again delivered with snark.

Since then, I see bramble thorn, hostility index goes high and the mitts come off out of the gate..

Obviously the relationship problems in your life is all your fault.
Even your current AV is a stone carving from the middle of buttfuck nowhere.

Want a hint on maintaining a relationship? Don't enter into it like an asshole, and you won't end up being the asshole.

Dealing with people you fuck isn't that much harder than people you deal with everyday.

 

[LWulf]

Obviously the relationship problems in your life is all your fault.
Even your current AV is a stone carving from the middle of buttfuck nowhere.

Want a hint on maintaining a relationship? Don't enter into it like an asshole, and you won't end up being the asshole.

Dealing with people you fuck isn't that much harder than people you deal with everyday.

So... he starts the snark and that makes me the asshole? that's impeccable logic that is worthy of bramblethorn

Now I see why you support him.

 

[Emerson40]

Prasa??

Do not U B preachy rainy day parade. 2 wriggle de dik is sexy.

2 C de dik is most better to not C de dik
Makes times L8r less hurting

So hot to take the genitals of yur partner witout the knowlege
of de udder

They B thankfully U did l8r.