Feeling like he cheated on me

[She_n_Jaybee 15]

Chicup, I willingly admit I am wrong, when the facts prove my error.

 

Men compete, and I knew this would be the outcome of the debate as I put your back against the wall by calling you out in my first post. By nature you would never admit to being wrong, but I'm afraid you are outclassed in this debate. You are not Galileo Galilei, you have not through careful observation and study come up with a theory. You have an opinion, one which is not backed up by any evidence other than what you create in your own mind. Its not a bad theory, but it doesn't hold up for any hunter gatherer society. Yours is not a great idea being suppressed, its an unproven theory, which has been looked at before and rejected based on lack of any evidence.

Nothing like declaring yourself winner. But for a bit of clarification, my original post was in response to RaysWays saying monogamy wasn't natural, polygamy being the natural order of things. I replied that polygamy existed in primitive societies, which you agree with (15% I believe was your number). I tend to avoid superlatives. I don't now, and never did believe that 100% were polygamists. However, since I (an obvious moron) stated something without giving you credit for being the dispenser of all knowledge, suddenly I'm wrong. I have never made a claim of being Galileo Galilei or anyone other the person you've chosen to vilify. Unless I'm relaying information from my actual experiences, I try to avoid "proving" my expertise, especially in areas which are speculative in nature. I've also not claimed repression of my self or my ideas (even the ones laughably called "great"). As for observation of the mating habits of neolithic cultures, I claim as much experience as any man living today. Exactly zero. Problem is I have yet to see anything on the subject which fulfills my criteria as "evidence". Find me a hunting/gathering society which has had absolutely no contact, ever, with any group or individual with a higher technology, that has no contact with any group or individual that has had contact with a higher technology, we'll observe them together. Without direct observation, factual evidence is somewhat difficult to obtain. A few bones, a few primitive tools, and not much else. Or is there some wealth of actual physical evidence which we the untutored are not worthy to be informed of? I am ready to admit I'm wrong about the existence of polygamy which you assert existed in the aforementioned culture. Although, wouldn't that make us both wrong?

I was an atheist by age 8, I had my first degree in evolutionary biology by age 21, I've written papers on it since and taught it as late as 4 years ago, I know the type of people involved first hand. Most evolutionary biologists could care less about what the bible says. I don't think you KNOW any evolutionary biologists or you would realize just how absurd your statement is. People who care about what Adam and Eve did are not really friendly to the idea of early hominid to human evolution, period, they don't care if its monogamy or polygamy. Honestly you have no idea what you are talking about here, sorry, no other way I can state this. Polygamy is also contained in the bible, you are barking up the wrong tree

 

If you were an atheist by age 8 then you are either omniscient (leaving you renouncing your own existence) or "you have not through careful observation and study come up with a theory. You have an opinion, one which is not backed up by any evidence other than what you create in your own mind". Since the (evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods) it is difficult to prove or disprove by observation and/or study. Or I may just not understand the definition of atheism. I have classified gods as "unknown, insufficient data". I probably need to find someone to perform a pragmatectomy. As for the absurdity of my statements (there is a strong Christian influence to validate Christianity and denounce any alternatives) you really need to get out more. It was forced on my awareness when I agreed to go with an acquaintance to her church (She was tall, very well built and a redhead, I thought it would get me somewhere). This particular church broadcasts through that area and had at least 500 in attendance. I listened to a sermon "proving" science was all a hoax (the same science which came up with all the technology he was abusing). A sermon demanding something be done about the evil teachings of evolution which were contrary to the proven facts of the bible. I never did get laid. Natural, perky 39 year old D-Cups, don't make up for an open mind. Since that time I have seen countless efforts to thwart anything contrary to "Christian morality". One method is to curtail the thinking of our youth. Seal those young minds shut to new ideas. Another is to adopt and mutate an idea. I don't know that any research by evolutionary biologists has been (or will be) tainted, but I have seen enough research projects up close and personal to know that whomever writes the checks can influence the results. My own ears have beheld a rather senior budgetary dept. official for a very well-funded government laboratory tell a project lead "___ has a very big stake in ___(his project) and is anxious to know when you will be able to demonstrate..." It was clear that the gravy train only stopped for those who produced results. Of course if everyone engaged in research puts the absolute truth ahead of all else, including their continued employment, we'll never have to worry about any taint.

 

I admit to never having knowlingly met any evolutionary biologists. Marine biologists, molecular biologists certainly. I was once part of a group of about 45 that had 9 PhD's (5 people, 1 had 3 another had 2), 32 MS's, 17 BS's and 1 BA (and did he stick out like a sore thumb). I was just the poor slob that fixed their computer or the network whenever their degrees surpassed their ability to reason. Funny thing, we had 5 people take the CHP (Certified Health Physicist) exam, 4 for the first time, one for the second. The exam has something in the area of a 75% first time failure rate. Three had MS's in related fields from rather prestigious universities, one had his PhD from Lowell. They all failed. The only pass (his first time) had his BA in economics from a podunk school in the hills of Pennsylvania. People impress me, degrees don't.

 

After spending way too much time trying to figure how we got here from there, I think I've found the root of the problem. RaysWays post which started this mess was mostly absurd (my opinion), I replied with that in mind. Part of my reply about polygamy assumed women outnumbered men (a condition that currently exists, and seems to be fairly common). My thoughts are polygamy would be a natural result. That particular paragraph lacked clarity, as it was merely a brief comment having no impact on the discussion at hand. Suddenly, I'm under attack because "It is believed that neolithic men were in fact far more monogamous than polygamous". I never made a quantitative analysis, merely stated my opinion of it's existence and a possible reason for that existence.

 

I admit to many faults. Which one in particular cause you to respond with such vehemence? You read 80% of my words, then respond based upon the altered content, and unintended assumptions. Here's an ideal example:

Anytime you're ready to live under the conditions which created male-dominant polygamy, you'll have my blessing. Heck, I want to see you explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope

 

That time would be any civilization including our own, though currently its only a far cry from where it used to be.

 

The key word omitted from my phrase in your reply is "created". Something already in existence is generally not considered to be "created" at each new occurence. My belief is that male-dominant polygamy was only "created" the first time a living being we would classify as human (or close-enough) tried it and survived. Anything beyond that would be imitative, not creative.

 

Or how about:

Broad agreement should mean "we are just guessing" to any true scientist.

 

No, broad agreement means that the evidence is such that most people believe it to be true.

 

This time the culprit is "should". Science is a search for knowledge, answers to questions, the ultimate truths. A true seeker of knowledge should be questioning everything enroute to his "truth". Am I wrong in my belief that "broad agreement" means that assumptions have been made. Best guesses in lieu of actual proof? A scientist that accepts assumptions at face value is quite possibly making a grave error, unless experimental proof can validate the assumptions. Perhaps someone has created a neolithic microcosm. Wait until CNN finds out!

 

What we're dealing with here is Schrodinger's cat. Until someone finds a way to open that box (without the act influencing the results), uncertainty is the only reality of this "debate". Personally, I just think it's no way to treat a cat.

 

 

Here's one of my favorites:

 

One area I can definitely agree with you, agriculture does make polygamy a more favorable condition. Vegetables are notoriously docile.

Ummm I thought the reason you said polygamy was first was because of the dangers of hunting?

 

If you had quoted the actual relevant info we would have seen:

The problem with your assumptions is that hunter-gatherer people are not polygamous right now, so why can you assume they were in the past? It is not a western influence that creates this, but their own society based on their needs and lifestyle

 

This is the quote I omitted.

Yet hunting/gathering groups do exhibit polygamy. Forget humanity and consider baboons. The form large groups, with a complex social structure. The leader is "husband" to all the adult females. The lesser males remain on the periphery of the group, as sentries and homosexual behaviour is common amongst them. When a stronger, smarter, meaner baboon comes along, the group gets a new leader, the females get a new husband.

 

One area I can definitely agree with you, agriculture does make polygamy a more favorable condition. Vegetables are notoriously docile.

 

Which was a reference to:

It wasn't until the invention of agriculture did men finally not need his fellow man and had the ability to store surplus food which became wealth of a kind for barter or consumption. Once we get into primative farming societies polygamy becomes common and in fact the norm

 

So even when agreeing, things are twisted to show inconsistency which certainly was not intended, nor should be implied given what was written.

 

If you'll release your stranglehold on your assumption for a moment you might see how ridiculous this has become. The assumption that my mention of polygamy means my belief that everyone (or even a majority) practiced this is incorrect. Had I been less tired initially, and made this blatant, we might have saved a few gigabytes. I'm flabbergasted that of all the hunting/gathering civilizations still in existence not a single case of polygamy exists. See what happens when we assume the addition of words like "all", "always", "none" and "never" in others statements?

 

I really should have left the baboons out of it. I must have some strange fascination with their butts. Instead, it would have been much more relevant to refer to the journals kept by Capt. Clark during that rather famous expedition to find out what Pres. Jefferson had just bought. A resumably untainted view of Native American cultures (many thought to be meeting caucasians for the first time). Practices and beliefs varied greatly, with polygamy certainly in existence. Many tribes invited the men of the expedition to have a turn with their wives. The one member of the expedition in greatest demand for this was York, Capt. Lewis' slave/manservant. By description an outstanding physical specimen. I guess sometimes there are perks where you least expect them. Syphillis not being one of them.

 

Originally, there was a rather rude (even by my standards) paragraph here, but I really don't want to make this into a war. This has already been the most tersely contested agreement I've ever encountered. I concede that your position of the existence of polygamy in neolithic cultures is correct and that my position of the existence of polygamy in neolithic cultures is false.

 

Where do I send the trophy?

[RaysWays 31]

It would appear that starting a discussion was accomplished... Nina is probably in tears.

 

is anyone else reading this, I wonder?

 

For those unfortunates, I'm just going to clip and comment... most interesting posts from

 

Chicup, knowledgeable and intriguing. Sorry She_n-Jaybee, I'm sure you're a decent person

 

and a good lay, but with each paragraph, an inability to reason, think clearly and

 

understand what is actually written becomes more visible. Sorry. (Old modems... do you

 

remember 30 wpm grinding out of a raucous impact printer?)

 

>explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope

 

the challenge of explaining exceeds the combined challenges of providing and running down

 

>This means that women can have an equal say on how they live their lives, and who the

 

spend their time with.

 

Yes, though they are still disadvantaged in many ways in the traditionally 'male' world

 

of work. They are also tremendously advantaged - TREMENDOUSLY - in the female world of

 

sex and children, and have not had to give any of that privilege up, even in

 

circumstances of extremely ugly and immoral behavior - much of which even goes unnoticed

 

(see below...)

 

>If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability

Nowhere did I say 'require'. I said to feel good about her attractiveness. READ what is

 

there!

 

>You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's

 

desires and needs?

What I actually said was that sex can be a way of expressing love. The example was for

 

Nina, a female. READ what is there!

 

>When a man tells lies about himself and misleads a woman about his intentions just to

 

get her to have sex with him, then yes he is a creep. He's scum and worthless in my

 

opinion.

 

Behavior you admit to years of...

 

>If a man is upfront about himself and his intentions, he's just as likely to find women

 

to have sex with. The difference is the women will typically be more attractive and

 

emotionally more stable.

 

Women swingers may be like this, but you are so far wrong it's laughable. It's all those

 

men (notoriously unrelenting in their want of sex) who fail to be upfront - that explains

 

pornography ($12B in the US, $60B worldwide)? Where the consumers are overwhelmingly men?

 

The hundreds of thousands of titles with women on the covers, as opposed to some small

 

percentage with men or couples?

 

>They understand that sex is just that, nothing more.

Some do, some don't. Not really relevant to what I was saying - that women control sex

 

and use it for power.

 

>I think it boils down to many men being intimidated by a woman who can think for

 

herself.

So? My point is that women always have thought for themselves when it comes to using

 

female power (sex). Men have mended their ways.

 

>things that make lots of noise.

A 440 Olds with glass-packs and a sweet li'l Bernadelli .16 gauge over and under?

 

>Males still seek out healthy young females for breeding potential (why is young

 

beautiful) while women seek out status and power.

 

Bingo! Women as sex objects; men as success objects. Does anyone notice the difference in

 

motivation? Procreation versus lust for unearned status, wealth and power.

 

>If someone were a low status male, lying will be their only way to appear to have status

 

And to get sex. Wait... aren't women more tuned into feelings and more compassionate than

 

men? And this is female behavior done by free choice.

 

>this is why you will more often find poor attractive females marrying rich males, than

 

poor attractive males marrying rich women

 

Wait... seems like men are much more democratic in how they look at women. Women mostly

 

look for princes. But... don't women think men are slimy and ratty for sleeping with low

 

status women? Why is classist opportunism acceptable for women, but democratic sexing

 

contemptible in men? And we live in male dominated society???

 

>Women are not more complex in needs, they just have different needs for seeing their

 

seed is in the next generation. A man can have a few children a day if he is able

 

BINGO! Men are not monogamous by nature - the statement that draws the IRE of women. Or

 

look at the central fantasy of men - multiple women available sexually. Versus the

 

central fantasy of women - a man and family of their very own.

 

 

>Its also been shown that has high as 20% of all children in MODERN society are in fact

 

not their ‘fathers’ child. What works in males for polygamy works for females in

 

cuckoldry.

 

This is a stunning example of women's power - ugly, immoral, corrupt -- and acceptable.

 

Consider: a cheating male meets universal condemnation. The sex is over in an hour or

 

two. Now consider a woman having a child and passing it off as the spouse's, or having

a child the male doesn't want by lying about her period. The male is forced to spend

 

twenty years putting a huge amount of effort into a child he may not want and that may

 

not even be his. But this gets little notice or condemnation. Who has the power here? Who

 

is being ruthless and using other people? And consider the magnitude - an hour of

 

pleasure versus twenty years of work. Then - the man is accountable but the woman isn't.

 

Ramses - 100+ children. So they name a condom after him???

 

>The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research.

All your blather about science is complete nonsense. Your position as presented is that

 

because you once heard someone with funding to give wanting a particular outcome (without

 

saying what the outcome even was) -- all scientists are hopelessly corrupted byconficts

 

of interest, and therefore science cannot be believed. The dumbest follower of Pat

 

Robertson couldn't say it better.

 

>RaysWays saying monogamy wasn't natural, polygamy being the natural order of things

NOT what I said. I said men are not innately monogamous, no more.

 

>(evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods)

Utter vacuousness, somehow constructed into a statement. Each side of the equation has no

 

meaning (opinion, yes; evidence, no), and somehow they are the same - which would be a

 

miracle even if they had meaning. Then the anecdote about a health physics exam. Do you

 

actually not see that anecdotal stories about an incident that proves nothing themselves

 

prove nothing, and are even less reputable? And as far as Schrodinger's cat as the nexus

 

of anthropological proof, you are speaking far above your knowledge in either subject. Or

 

as the French would say "Il pete plus haut que son cul" - he farts higher than his ass.

 

Good night, Gracie...

 

 

(Nina - empower yourself, use it).

[She_n_Jaybee 15]

Many years ago when my fellow instructors often referred to "pulling teeth", when attempting to lead a student to an answer that was staring them in the face. More than 20 years have passed and suddenly I'm reliving those days.

 

RaysWays, you appear to be a poor student. As I mentioned before, there is a method to actually quote another to make your views much more presentable, if not more palatable. Here's the trick, use a set of tags. a tag is a command surrounded by brackets ([]) followed by a close tag ([/'command']) so to quote me, enclose "QUOTE=She_N_Jaybee" with brackets and paste my quote, then enclose "/QUOTE" with brackets. The result is"

RaysWays, you appear to be a poor student.

 

See? Let's see if you can do better on the next exam.

 

Which leads us to this:

most interesting posts from Chicup, knowledgeable and intriguing. Sorry She_n-Jaybee, I'm sure you're a decent person and a good lay, but with each paragraph, an inability to reason, think clearly and understand what is actually written becomes more visible. Sorry. (Old modems... do you remember 30 wpm grinding out of a raucous impact printer?)

I can certainly agree that Chicup's posts are more interesting and intriguing. However, I'm uncertain how you can determine my "inability to reason, think clearly and understand what is actually written" when the last of these traits have been repeatedly demonstrated by both Chicup and yourself. For specific examples see my previous post. Look at the compared quotes including my explanation on how the response was addressed misrepresenting the clear and obvious meaning of my original quote. For examples pertaining to you, stay tuned.

 

I remember spending hours feeding punch cards, then waiting hours for the system to finish crunching so the results could be pulled up on our thermal transfer printer. Our system at the time was not advanced enough to have any monitors. As for that, the first computer I owned was a used Apple ][e, 64k ram, a 5 1/4" floppy, green screen monochrome monitor. No hard drive, no modem. I saved about $800 buying a year old system versus a new one. I even remember the smell of a fried chip you got when you plugged your drive cable in and were off by one set of pins. Fortunately, it was a cheap fix.

 

As previously noted, taking a partial quote is a misrepresentation. Here's one of those examples:

 

[quote=RaysWays[>If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability

Nowhere did I say 'require'. I said to feel good about her attractiveness. READ what is there!

 

>You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?

What I actually said was that sex can be a way of expressing love. The example was for Nina, a female. READ what is there!

 

Here's the original exchange:

OR YOU COULD BE 'SEX-POSITIVE' AND SEE HIS SEXUAL ATTENTION AS A VALIDATION OF YOUR OWN DESIRABILITY. ALSO SEE IT AS A POWERFUL WAY OF SHOWING LOVE -THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT AND SATISFY HIS WANTS. JEEZ... DO YOU REALLY WANT A GUY WITH NO LUST AIMED AT YOU? BOOORING...

Sex Positive? Sexual Attention as a Validation or your own desirability?? A Powerful way of Showing Love??? I can see we're going to have to start slow here. Sex is a physical act, period. Love is an emotion, the emotional condition where the health, happiness and well-being of another is more important than your own. If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability, you have no self-esteem, i.e. you have no desirability. You are merely a subsitute for your partner's hand. You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?

Read what is there. Out of a possible ten, you scored 1. Nowhere did you say require. Contextually speaking, nowhere did I say or imply you said require. It is a partial response that accounted for the entire thrust and tone of your initial reply.

 

>The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research.

All your blather about science is complete nonsense. Your position as presented is that because you once heard someone with funding to give wanting a particular outcome (without saying what the outcome even was) -- all scientists are hopelessly corrupted byconficts of interest, and therefore science cannot be believed. The dumbest follower of Pat Robertson couldn't say it better

 

You really should try to read all the words. My position isn't because I heard someone with money to give... A "Senior budetary dept. official" is someone with the job of getting money to distribute in a way acceptable to the givers. This is what I consider an example of my personal experience. I try to avoid naming names, or specific projects for many reasons, one being classification. What I overheard was within the realm of my security clearance, but I certainly lacked the "need to know". I haven't found the time to verify the clearance and "need to know" of everyone who could potentially access this board, so felt inclined to omit specific references. I suppose no harm is done by pointing out this occurred when I worked at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. You may have heard of it at some point. I was there just before, during and just after the merger, when Lockheed (who administered the lab) became Lockheed Martin. Apparently they decided to leave Marietta in Georgia.

 

I shouldn't bother, but I find myself with some extra time this morning. For the purpose of this discussion we'll consider two types of projects, goal-oriented and abstract. Goal-oriented projects are aimed at a particular achievement. Apollo 11 is an example of the culmination of this type of project. A great deal of money was spent to reach space and land on our moon. If the project had veered off into a study of the electro-magnetic radiation on the migratory habits of the mallard duck, funding would have disappeared and been directed somewhere that could focus on and achieve the desired results. I suppose I'm out of touch, but I have trouble imagining all research monies being distributed with no accountability for their usage. A project is begun with a basic premise, frequently based upon previously unexplained phenomena. A possible method to prove the premise is determined, grants are applied for, potential sources of funding review the application, determine feasibility, applicability and suitability. With luck (and excellent presentation skills) a source is found and the study begins.

 

Notre Dame is unlikely to approve a project is seeking to prove frequent masturbation is beneficient. It's unsuitable material for them, try Berkeley.

 

Abstract projects aren't as prevalent, or as well funded. Have a goal which if achieved will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, if you can prove feasibility and your own ability, you'll not lack for research money. Presenting a case for abstract research is somewhat difficult. If the Nobel Foundation has seen fit to honor you with recognition, you're all set. If you have already amassed a remarkable number of achievements in your field, you should also be able to find a suitable source of support for your endeavours. Anyone else needs to hide their abstract pursuits into goal-oriented projects and pander to the powers that be. That means showing progress towards your professed goal. Have I said that "all scientists are hopelessly corrupted by conficts(sic) of interest"? No. Somebody bump the stereo, the records skipping. What I've said and continue to stand by, is that pure research isn't always "pure". Murad & Ignarro weren't ingesting a multitude of chemical compounds then checking to see the results. Their research was aimed at finding a compound to treat a specific condition. In 1998 they were honored for achieving their pre-determined goal and viagra changed the world (of course Pfizer really wasn't interested in the potential profit from their research, they just paid the bills because they were such neat guys). They found an answer, but not the only answer.

 

As long as researchers need to justify their budgets, there will be the potential for taint and corruption, and conflicts of interest as well. There will be those who constantly prostitute their science and those who remain true to their study. And the former will continue to get the biggest piece of the pie.

 

But I tire of quoting the numerous examples of traits I'm accused of displaying, traits that are blatantly displayed by my accusers. I'll take the time to attempt to clarify one point which seems to have eluded you.

 

Chicup says he was an athiest(sic) by age 8. The definition for atheism I've always used and found elsewhere yesterday is the belief in the non-existence of gods. Theism being the belief in the existence of god(s). Belief implies faith, faith requires a lack of proof. If you can touch a hot stove and burn yourself, faith in the power of the stove is ridiculous, it has become a painfully proven fact. The evidence of the existence of any god is circumstantial at best. The evidence of the non-existence of said deity is the same. Or to put it in terms you can relate to:

Having explained spin, it was natural for Dirac to try to explain electric charge, and in particular the mysterious fact that it is quantized: all charges found in nature are multiples of the charge on the electron. In classical electricity, there is no basis for this: charges can have any value.

...

Dirac wondered if there was any way that magnetic monopoles could be brought into quantum physics without spoiling everything that had grown out of assuming that they did not exist. He found that this could be done, but only if the strength of the monopole (the "magnetic charge") was linked to that of the electric charge, and if both were quantized. This solved the original problem: for consistency with quantum mechanics, the existence of even one monopole anywhere in the universe would suffice to ensure that electric charge must be quantized.

...

Alas, no magnetic monopole has ever been found. Perhaps they do not exist, or perhaps (and there are hints of this in the theory) positive and negative monopoles are so tightly bound together that they have not been separated.

Much later, Dirac referred to this theory as "just a disappointment".

 

Until found the existence is theory, as is the non-existence. Until god gets interviewed by Larry King, he, she or it can not be proven or disproven. Therefore, the equation "(evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods)" is an extremely simple and obvious display of basic algebra. If you have found a way to prove one or the other, or at least have enough proof to tip the scales, why has your achievement gone unnoticed? I am not talking about disproving the bible, or the god worshipped by a particular religious group. I'm talking about the existence of any being which could be classified as deity. Perhaps that constitutes "utter vacousness somehow constructed into a statement". To me, it is a simple mathematical representation of a clear and obvious truth. Religions continue to exist and prosper. Science continues to extend the boundaries of human knowledge. When the balance of proof shifts significantly one way or the other, then one will suffer while the other flourishes.

 

Slowly I am coming to see the light. I've been approaching this as a discussion of differing views. Discussion based upon the quality and clarity of what has been written, unbiased by the source. Instead it appears to be a contest based solely upon personal attacks. Instead of focusing my attention on what has been said, I should have been brandishing my formidable repertoire of barbs and insults.

 

One last note. When you proposed a new thread and a new discussion, I started one with the first two posts in which I replied to you, RaysWays. Julie decided that the new thread would be confusing and moved my posts back into this thread. This is why my posts made no mention of SimplyNina or her predicament.

[intuition897 2,179]

Holy cow, why is everybody so riled up? And I'm not sure I can bring myself to read through the entire thread to find out. I've gotten the gist of it, and it looks a bit like bickering over differences of opinion. "Men are evil!" "No, women are evil!"

Did I miss anything?

Like I said, I haven't read through the whole thread, so I think there was some stuff about theology/atheism in there, too.

 

Anyway...just wanted to say that upon skimming through, I found a few things I disagreed with myself. For example,

"Bingo! Women as sex objects; men as success objects. Does anyone notice the difference in motivation? Procreation versus lust for unearned status, wealth and power."

I don't understand the logic of thinking of one another as rivals or contestants. This isn't a boxing match where [Ding!] Man and Woman come out of their corners swinging. At least not with their fists they shouldn't.

 

I don't know, I just think if we start focusing on who did what to to whom (or what we THINK they did), no one is ever going to get anywhere. LIfe is unfair, so keeping score is useless. Everyone just needs to be a good sport.

 

I'll give you an example. Mr. intuition and I have a largely traditional family set-up. Short of bringing him slippers and a martini after a long hard day at the office, it looks a lot like a Wheaties commercial. I do work, but it's supplementary income only. Mr. intuition is the main breadwinner, and the kids and I are dependant upon that income to live. Am I a leech or a gold digger because of this? No. He doesn't begrudge me this. If I were the one who was better suited to making the kind of income that he does, then I would be the one out there making the dough. But I'm not. I just don't have the same drive and confidence that he does. I have skills, but not the kind that people pay good money for...not like his. I'm good at taking care of sick kids, and know how to make a mean batch of brownies. I haul kids to the dentist and make our appointments. I'm the social convenor for the family unit. Unearned status? Whatever. I have no interest in gaining status. I just want a good life. For all of us. I have my role, and I don't resent it. Perhaps someday I'll do something else when I have the time. Back to University or something. But until then, I have no problem being "relegated" to the role I'm in. And Mr. intuition doesn't feel bitter about being shouldered with the responsibility of having 3 people depend on him to keep the money coming in. It's just what makes sense. If something else made better sense, then that's what we'd do.

 

My point is, Mr. intuition and I could decide to be bitter about who gets more than whom, but it really doesn't make any sense to do that.

 

"Can't we all just...get along?"

[Chicup 41]

Holy cow, why is everybody so riled up? And I'm not sure I can bring myself to read through the entire thread to find out. I've gotten the gist of it, and it looks a bit like bickering over differences of opinion. "Men are evil!" "No, women are evil!"

 

Close its more like the opinion of a great many biologists vrs a guy who thinks the church is somehow manipulating the research and his untested theories are correct.

 

Its like a 9/11 thread only with sex

 

I'm not trying to be an ass on this (though I'm doing well there) but its my field, and something that would really benifit people if they understood their basic natures a bit more.

[She_n_Jaybee 15]

This really should go into the archives as an example of what can happen with miscommunication. It would appear 3 of us have been guilty of failing to understand the viewpoint of the other 2. This caused the subject to drift erratically. At some point we each made unfair judgements of the others and attempted to undermine their views. Then (as always seems to happen when boys fight) it disintegrated into name calling.

 

I'll admit my guilt in all but the last. I'll also accept the blame as being the cause of this dissension. My written expressions often give the impression that I am a "know-it-all". While that is not my intent, it seems to be the result as seen by others. This unintentional impression rightfully angers those who have through years of hardwork and expensive education achieved their position in society. I need a personal disclaimer stating my opinions and theories are my own and should not be taken seriously.

 

Disclaimer: Everything following this disclaimer is about me. While it may appear a case of self-promotion that is not it's intent. The personal information included below is not intended to prove any intellectual superiority nor to validate the points of view previously expressed. If you feel the need to question the material below or to insult me for expression of said material, I am willing to meet with you in person (financial limitations apply) to present my case and allow you to develop an actual informed opinion. The smart choice at this point is to ignore everything following, it's most likely a complete waste of your time.

 

 

On the homefront the turmoil is centered around the same point, my (self-proclaimed, often questioned and frequently insulted) intelligence. She worked hard through high school, to learn, and after school on the family farm. Math was a difficult area, and she never ventured into physics or chemistry. She was prepped to become a farmer's wife. I coasted through school. By then end of 3rd grade I'd read everything available in our grade school and had to resort to my aunt's huge collection of books. Throughout high school I excelled in math, biology, chemistry and physics, without study or any real effort. I was prepped for college and probably graduate school.

 

What happened? She has spent much of the past 26 years working and earning degrees (7 so far), and raising children (2), being a housewife (and even a farmer's wife. I joined the military and with the exception of a brief period, avoided the type of education which would result in a highly paid career. Instead, I've worked and played and studied what, when and where I pleased. No specific goal in mind, merely a continued attempt to slake my thirst for knowledge. She is often disgusted that I've made such little practical use of my intelligence. She is right. My learning accomplishments indicate a certain proficiency in that area. When an injury forced me into a vocational retraining situation, I was sent to a psychologist for aptitude testing. What I took from the testing was a belief in the basic instability of psychologists and a little blue piece of paper recommending my immediate placement in the 4 year degree program of my choosing, plus a little number saying her tests agreed with my personal assessment, I am smarter than your average bear and have wasted a lot of years not exploiting my talents.

 

The state of California hesitates to consider 4 years of college as vocational retraining, so I ended up with 2 semesters (23 hrs/semester) to take me to a new career. A career I stayed with for less than 4 years, before stepping backwards to what can really only be considered a "job", not a career. Mainly a case of placing my own happiness in front of other's definition of success. Finally (if luck stays with us), with She's help and support, I am planning on achieving that success and keeping my happiness. My first semester begins in January. In the meantime work keeps my safely away from the computer most of the week. And I have wasted too much of too many weekends (and of too many people's time) with attempts to understand others and help others understand the problems that frequently arise within this lifestyle. I'll attempt to gracefully retire from the fray.

 

For those I've offended, my apologies. I'm a clumsy man with large feet, I tend to step on a few toes. For those I've insulted (intentionally, relatively few, unintentionally, most of the rest) I was in error. If I intended insult, then my behaviour was beneath me. If the insult was unintentional, I should have found a way to express myself better, or refrained from expression.

 

For those who believe they have insulted me, don't fret. If you intended insult, you can be certain that I am cringing in the corner licking my wounds. The the possible insult may have been an accident of expression, fear not, I take nothing personally and am as thick skinned as I am thick headed.

 

If you've come to dread my posts for whatever reason, I promise to make a sincere attempt to avoid anything in the future requiring more than a basic response.

 

And lastly, for those who will miss my insightful posts, my wit and wisdom, my anecdotes and stories, seek professional help.

 

I bid you adieu!

[RaysWays 31]

I don't know, I just think if we start focusing on who did what to to whom (or what we THINK they did), no one is ever going to get anywhere. LIfe is unfair, so keeping score is useless. Everyone just needs to be a good sport.

 

Hmm... my old roomie used to say "There are no cease-fires in the war between the sexes".

 

And Mr. intuition doesn't feel bitter about being shouldered with the responsibility of having 3 people depend on him to keep the money coming in. It's just what makes sense. If something else made better sense, then that's what we'd do.

 

Whatever works for you, great, more power to ya. What I was saying to Nina was to look at the situation and her own part in it, since that is the only thing she can change by herself. Also that seeing things from his point of view may be useful or empowering, but that it may also be a bit foreign (like seeing that men are monogamous by choice but not by nature).

 

What I have personally observed is a pretty common (not applying this to Nina) phenomenon with cheating men. Their wives use sex for power, so sex becomes difficult. If he allows himself to be manipulated, he is pussy-whipped; if he forgoes sex he can stop her abuse of power. For a male in this situation, he can find another partner for sex, secretly masturbate or leave (cheat, beat or the street). Leaving is horrible - demolished finances and standard of living, pain inflicted on children with unknown and potentially serious long term effects. So, the man cheats. My point is that to see the situation clearly, one has to recognize the female's abusive actions and to accept the validity of the male's sexuality. Usually a cheating male is bitterly condemned (along with the male pursuit of sex) and the woman's behavior is overlooked. But realistically, it is her abuse that causes the situation. If one accepts that his sexuality is valid (and the source of his vulnerability), given his choices it is not a mystery. Unless he believes the woman will change, he may feel cheating is the best option. Then, of course, he will find that it isn't a lot easier on the outside, as he will get the same condemnation, which debases his sexuality and ignores the woman's malfeasances.

 

So in this situation, the woman, by seeing the male point of view, is empowered - IF she wants to save the marriage, it is within her power to change her own behavior.

 

A final point - why is porn a huge industry that caters heavily to males? Is it because it is a way for males to experience their sexuality without having to deal with female withholding and manipulation - exploiting him where he is vulnerable?

 

Can we all get along... well, maybe. A prerequisite for peace is that none of the involved parties are victims, meaning none can be abusers either. In the above, ignoring the abuser and condemning the man isn't going to meet that standard.

[intuition897 2,179]

I don't know, I just think if we start focusing on who did what to to whom (or what we THINK they did), no one is ever going to get anywhere. LIfe is unfair, so keeping score is useless. Everyone just needs to be a good sport.

 

Hmm... my old roomie used to say "There are no cease-fires in the war between the sexes".

And I'm sure your roomie enjoys a wonderfully fulfilling relationship with women. I'd like to say be careful whose advice you take to heart, but it sounds like perhaps you agree with his statement. If he really believes there are no cease-fires in the war of the sexes...if he actually believes there IS a war between the sexes...then life will always be that way for him. I don't see a war. I see basic differences that just need to be acknowledged and taken into account. The fact is, I get along better with men than I do with women.

 

And Mr. intuition doesn't feel bitter about being shouldered with the responsibility of having 3 people depend on him to keep the money coming in. It's just what makes sense. If something else made better sense, then that's what we'd do.

 

Whatever works for you, great, more power to ya. What I was saying to Nina was to look at the situation and her own part in it, since that is the only thing she can change by herself. Also that seeing things from his point of view may be useful or empowering, but that it may also be a bit foreign (like seeing that men are monogamous by choice but not by nature).

Now this I completely agree with...at least the part about only being able to control one's self and not others. A person must make decisions about what is best for themselves and the good of others, but it would always be my advice to NEVER do anything that degrades one as a person.

 

By the way, what makes you think that monogamy is any more natural for a woman?? Man, I just can't swallow this super-genderized view of humanity. Sure there are differences between genders, but taking a stance of "Women always..." and "Men never..." or even substituting the word "always" for "usually" is pretty dangerous territory. I am not my gender. Being female is part of who I am, but it does not define me.

 

What I have personally observed is a pretty common (not applying this to Nina) phenomenon with cheating men. Their wives use sex for power, so sex becomes difficult. If he allows himself to be manipulated, he is pussy-whipped; if he forgoes sex he can stop her abuse of power. For a male in this situation, he can find another partner for sex, secretly masturbate or leave (cheat, beat or the street). Leaving is horrible - demolished finances and standard of living, pain inflicted on children with unknown and potentially serious long term effects. So, the man cheats. My point is that to see the situation clearly, one has to recognize the female's abusive actions and to accept the validity of the male's sexuality. Usually a cheating male is bitterly condemned (along with the male pursuit of sex) and the woman's behavior is overlooked. But realistically, it is her abuse that causes the situation. If one accepts that his sexuality is valid (and the source of his vulnerability), given his choices it is not a mystery. Unless he believes the woman will change, he may feel cheating is the best option. Then, of course, he will find that it isn't a lot easier on the outside, as he will get the same condemnation, which debases his sexuality and ignores the woman's malfeasances.

Cheating is degrading, so I just don't buy the "I had no other choice" story. Yes you did have a choice, you just didn't like the alternative. Because it was hard. But if someone is truly forcing you to resort to deception and destructive behaviours, then it's time to reevaluate the relationship. No one EVER makes you cheat. That's a decision you make all on your own. When you decide to take your pants off for someone else, you are making a conscious decision. No mistake about that. And if your ego can't handle the thought that by keeping your pants on, your wife "wins" some silly little head game then...uh...well maybe the problem lies with you. [by "you", I am inferring a collective "you". Plural. ]

 

Women are not the enemy here, pal. Some women will buy that same old story that they are hard done by, and that they need to unite and take a stand against Men, who are hell-bent on putting the "little woman" back into the kitchen where they belong so they can get on with their business of chasing every skirt they see. Now do you actually buy any of that?? Any woman who believes this gets exactly what she deserves. What you're telling me is essentially the male's side of this same old story. "Women just want to tie men down. We men need to fly free!" Gimme a break.

 

A final point - why is porn a huge industry that caters heavily to males? Is it because it is a way for males to experience their sexuality without having to deal with female withholding and manipulation - exploiting him where he is vulnerable?

:rollseyes Do I smell a victim here?

Can we all get along... well, maybe. A prerequisite for peace is that none of the involved parties are victims, meaning none can be abusers either. In the above, ignoring the abuser and condemning the man isn't going to meet that standard.

The only true victims are the ones who can't defend themselves. Beyond this, people choose to allow others to victimize them. If we can all stop hurting and allowing others to hurt us, then, yeah, we can all get along.

[lovinher 505]

Fact is your both stating theories and by definition are not, or cannot be proven.

Great discussion though. I've always been interested in evolutionary human history but I'll stay out of this one!

Thanks for quote tip She and Jaybee

[lovinher 505]

For Intuition....Who says a woman can't be president?

Too bad you're not in the States, we could use you.

[intuition897 2,179]

For Intuition....Who says a woman can't be president?

Too bad you're not in the States, we could use you.

 

I don't like to consider myself a feminist... just a "people-ist'. But thanks for the kind words.

[RaysWays 31]

The fact is, I get along better with men than I do with women.

 

I know about four women who say the same thing - and to a person, they are level headed, independent, realistic, easy to get along with, think with their heads and feel with their hearts, and men trust them instinctively. Perhaps because similar attitudes prevail about sex - the women don't use sex to control men and don't like women who do. I have a word for these women -- 'sane', though maybe 'adults' would be fairer. Unfortunately there aren't very many of them. Kudos to you if you are in their company.

 

 

By the way, what makes you think that monogamy is any more natural for a woman?? Man, I just can't swallow this super-genderized view of humanity. Sure there are differences between genders, but taking a stance of "Women always..." and "Men never..." or even substituting the word "always" for "usually" is pretty dangerous territory. I am not my gender. Being female is part of who I am, but it does not define me.

 

Sorry if it sounded absolute. Group differences exist, but there is always a big spread in individual attitudes. I would never assume group traits about an individual. But I'm sticking to my guns, though women on this board are much less likely to be conventional -- generally, males' dominant social desire is sexual access to females, and females' is children, home and family. It isn't B&W, it isn't everyone, it isn't even very definite -- just a skewing in outlook that exists along the gender divide.

 

 

Cheating is degrading, so I just don't buy the "I had no other choice" story. Yes you did have a choice, you just didn't like the alternative. Because it was hard.

 

I said cheat, beat or the street - aren't those CHOICES fgs? They all suck. So the issue is - which one sucks the least? For most men it is likely cheating. Women aren't generally too keen on this, but I think it's still true for most men. You may see dishonor as the worst behavior - to me the worst is making children the victims of adult conflicts, especially given the enormity of some possible long term consequences.

When I was younger I believed in that doing morally 'bad' things was always wrong. But years have taught me that morals are compasses, not maps, and there are times immoral things are the realistic choice. A less cloudy example than this one: You are a young female applying for a scarce job you badly need. The interviewer or the application asks "Are you planning to have children and take maternity leave in the next five years?" That question is flat illegal in most states (dunno abt Canada...). YOu are pretty sure you won't get the job if you tell the truth - "yes". So the realistic thing to do is (sigh) lie.

 

But if someone is truly forcing you to resort to deception and destructive behaviours, then it's time to reevaluate the relationship.

 

Yes -- and male's evaluation leads to -- cheat, beat, or the street. Some wise person wrote

A person must make decisions about what is best for themselves and the good of others

Joint re-evaluation involves the cooperation of the woman, which he doesn't control and may or may not be possible, and may or may not resolve the situation. Do 'others' include the children? As to degrading oneself by cheating -- any of the four (staying = #4) options are degrading.

 

No one EVER makes you cheat. That's a decision you make all on your own. When you decide to take your pants off for someone else, you are making a conscious decision.

 

Nothing I wrote says or implies otherwise. And he should be taking responsibility for the actions and consequences. But so should she...

 

No mistake about that. And if your ego can't handle the thought that by keeping your pants on, your wife "wins" some silly little head game then...uh...well maybe the problem lies with you. [by "you", I am inferring a collective "you". Plural. ]

 

In one brief sentence you have managed to trivialize and sidestep my two premises, plus use insulting male stereotyping (ego) to obscure them. Note that you did not respond to them.

 

First, male sexuality is valid - a male's deepest innate programming is to implant the seed. So - 'keeping your pants on' is a horrible option which the male is forced into by the woman degrading the marriage agreement. It is akin to keeping a child on the edge of starvation to enforce good behavior - is that a silly head game? Of course not -- because the child's needs are seen as valid. That hunger and vulnerability (child cannot provide food him/herself) are not treated with the contempt that females often have for male sexual hunger and vulnerability. But it is still acceptable for women to act this way (incidentally none of the 'sane' women I know would ever do this...). OR... are you old enough to recall the uproar by the early feminists ('70's) when the pill was not readily available and it was suggested that abstention prevents pregnancy?

 

Second, women hold real power - female power - in their control of sex. Using real power abusively is not a 'silly head game'. It is just as ugly as male power - men intimidating women physically or dominating nonworking wives by means of financial control. And whose behavior is condemned??

 

Women are not the enemy here, pal.

Looking at the above scenario, in even plainer terms, women not only have power, they (some of them) are capable of real evil in how they use it. And often that evil is neither seen nor condemned, so there is little accountability. I do think one has to step outside the social attitudes - almost universal - that male sexuality is trash and that women have limited power compared to men (antithesis of the two premises) to get what I'm blathering about. But ya know... you have done that once already.

 

Some women will buy that same old story that they are hard done by, and that they need to unite and take a stand against Men, who are hell-bent on putting the "little woman" back into the kitchen where they belong so they can get on with their business of chasing every skirt they see. Now do you actually buy any of that??

 

Actually what I said and believe is pretty much the opposite.

 

Any woman who believes this gets exactly what she deserves. What you're telling me is essentially the male's side of this same old story. "Women just want to tie men down. We men need to fly free!" Gimme a break.

 

ARRGH! That is not at all what I said or think. I'm not talking about a rollback of feminist accomplishments - I'm talking about extending the equivalent to males. Read my 9/15 post (unless it interferes with sex, in which case you are excused ;~D ). If a man uses male power (physical intimidation) he is an animal. But if she uses female power (manipulating sex), this is acceptable (primate females do this, speaking of animal behavior). Better example - she refuses a condom ("But honey, I don't like them, and it makes me feel like you don't trust me") and conceives against his wishes. Even better, does so with a neighbor and secretly commits the male to raising a child that isn't his. It is virtue on her part - to see that the child is cared for...

 

Not extending rights by ok'ing cheating - but by recognizing the existence of real female power, male vulnerability, and the abuse of the latter by the former. And power not only corrupts, it blinds -- can you really not see the ugliness and size of the woman's power when she uses sex as a weapon in the marriage???? Can you really not see that she is the one whose immoral use of power is wrecking the marriage?

Or... is his sexuality just trash that he should contain? And is he a typical idiot male if he can't or if he wants better?

 

:rollseyes Do I smell a victim here?

Insulting the male to obscure the issues - aka blowing smoke.

 

And if this were a true story, why is your reaction one of contempt for a male in a horrible situation, even a life crisis? Why the degradation of the man? Do you see how power-corrupt and abusive such thinking is? How about seeing the woman's wrongs?

 

The only true victims are the ones who can't defend themselves. Beyond this, people choose to allow others to victimize them.

 

The child can't stop the hunger; the man can't deny his sexuality. Neither should be victimized. The child can't fend for h/h self; the man - well cheat, beat and the street - those are his choices and they all suck. At least until women's power and abuse is exposed and reduced by moral disapproval.

 

If we can all stop hurting and allowing others to hurt us, then, yeah, we can all get along.

So apply this to women as well as men - maybe by looking at the two premises without the prejudice of power.

[intuition897 2,179]

I had a really LOOOOONG post here, but this is just stupid. And no one wants to read it. So, RaysWays, I'll PM you.

[badboyooplik 15]

IMHO, its all ready gone too far. Its obviouse to me from reading your post that he's been lying to you. You know the truth. Your in a loving relationship and you swing, which is supposed to be based on honesty, but he is starting another relationship here. Knowing that, you now have two choices: either put your foot down and fix this rift(one way or the other) or you can choose to turn a blind eye and live with the consequenses of do so.

[Tybee Swing 286]

I DESERVE to be #1 and so do my kids. And if he thought more about how a woman he's only known a few weeks, felt than he did I... I don't want to be with someone like that. I had been through too much with him. He actually made the comment that "it's okay to have another woman in bed when we're together, but he can't do it alone? What kind of crap is that?"

 

This is a perfect example to prove that swinging is definitely not for everybody. Apparently some people can't separate a cheating mentality from a swinging (open, honest, together) mentality. Some people don't get it, and never will.

 

intoit_0308, I'm sorry for all you went through, and glad for you that you got out.

[Tybee Swing 286]

But they can’t change their brains. Women are in part homemakers because thats what they are wired for, men break things because thats what we are wired for.

 

Oh, please. Women today don't want to be married to a "boy" they have to clean up after. Women want equality in their partnerships. We work just as many long hours outside of the home as our male partners do (most of us, that is). When studies are done to learn what women really want in their relationships, it usually comes down to #1 - equality in household chores. We don't want to have to "assign" chores to a husband (as if he's our 10-year-old son), we want him to pitch in. Step up to the plate and take responsibility. We're sick of picking up after men, in more ways than one.

 

We want men to be MEN, to be adult equals, not spoiled brats with double standards (for sex, division of labor, everyhing).

 

Welcome to the 21st century.

[ShellyM 0]

What I have personally observed is a pretty common (not applying this to Nina) phenomenon with cheating men. Their wives use sex for power, so sex becomes difficult. If he allows himself to be manipulated, he is pussy-whipped; if he forgoes sex he can stop her abuse of power. For a male in this situation, he can find another partner for sex, secretly masturbate or leave (cheat, beat or the street). Leaving is horrible - demolished finances and standard of living, pain inflicted on children with unknown and potentially serious long term effects. So, the man cheats. My point is that to see the situation clearly, one has to recognize the female's abusive actions and to accept the validity of the male's sexuality. Usually a cheating male is bitterly condemned (along with the male pursuit of sex) and the woman's behavior is overlooked. But realistically, it is her abuse that causes the situation. If one accepts that his sexuality is valid (and the source of his vulnerability), given his choices it is not a mystery. Unless he believes the woman will change, he may feel cheating is the best option. Then, of course, he will find that it isn't a lot easier on the outside, as he will get the same condemnation, which debases his sexuality and ignores the woman's malfeasances.

 

Okay. I have a few opinions on this. Vs. giving the pc opinion I'll give you my honest opinion although I doubt some of it will be popular with my sisters. Now, in regards to cheating. There is NEVER an excuse to do this. Ever. I have been the child at home with the Mother waiting for Daddy to come home, with Mama knowing he is out banging another woman behind her back. Trust me. The kids may not know specifically that Daddy is out humping other chicks, but the negative energy, the tension and the stress they see their Mother under makes it a very unhappy place to live. And the wife usually is aware that something is going on. Women were given highly fine tuned senses in this area and its rare that affairs catch us by surprise, usually by the time he has confessed (or is caught) she knows who she is, where she works, etc. etc. etc.

 

So no, there is no excuse for cheating. Thats like saying that murdering someone is okay because the other person pissed you off. Nope, don't think so. Divorce is not good, but if you have tried communication, marital counseling and have made an honest attempt at happiness than you need to call a lawyer in my opinion vs. cheating behind someone's back. It sounds like people who do this are justifying wrong doing within their own minds.

 

Okay, in regards to the part of this post where it says that women withhold sex. My friends and I call this the "de-freak" factor. We have seen this many, many times. My number one complaint from men is "when we married she was really sexual, she was freaky, we couldn't get enough of each other. Once the kids were born that was it. Now if we have sex twice a month I'm lucky. I don't know what to do, when I mention it to her she just kisses me and we go to sleep."

Okay, this is not okay either. Within my own marriage I would personally be unable to live this way. If my husband were to all of a sudden cut sex off I'll be honest, I'd have major issues. And Jay is the same way. It seems that once people get married and the new factor wears off and they settle into life things begin to change....which of course is normal to a degree. But I have seen many times how we change. All of a sudden it goes from taking care of your body to wearing nothing but jogging suits, hair in a pony tail and no make up. Am I saying that this ever gives anyone the right or justification to cheat? NO, not at all. However, this is a major complaint. It would be interesting for someone to do a study on cheating spouses to see what the reasons behind it are.

Anyways, this is all just my personal opinion.

Shelly

[Tybee Swing 286]

It seems that once people get married and the new factor wears off and they settle into life things begin to change....which of course is normal to a degree. But I have seen many times how we change. All of a sudden it goes from taking care of your body to wearing nothing but jogging suits, hair in a pony tail and no make up. Am I saying that this ever gives anyone the right or justification to cheat? NO, not at all. However, this is a major complaint.

 

Shelly, I agree with you on this, and it goes both ways. Men also gain weight, get sloppy around the house, wear the grungy sweats. I agree with you that it's important to care about ourselves and keep on doing the best we can with what we've got - and be appealing to our mates.

 

About women not being as sexual....in a lot of cases, men can help with this by doing some very simple things. Men stop "courting" their wives because they've already got her, but they don't understand...it's not for pursuit, only. Many men will stop (or cut back a lot) on doing the things that she wants on a daily basis in a relationship. When they're in pursuit of a woman, they give her a lot of verbal appreciation, take her nice places, do special things for her (the little things, too), wanting to please her. In a lot of ways, that's why women stop wanting sex so much - he seems to have gotten lazy and doesn't apppear to care. It's a two-way street. He needs to keep showing her in all the loving, romantic ways that he wants her, in order for her to feel loved/wanted and in turn, turned on. Many men really don't get how important this is to most women.

 

It's so very simple. If men are having this problem of getting less sex, I'd advise them to think back to the times in their relationship when the sex was hot. Now, remember what he was specifically doing for their relationship during this time. Was he a more interesting conversationalist? Did they go out more? Did he dress better, look better, smell better? Behave better? Did he take more time with sex & foreplay and was a more attentive lover? If so, she certainly has noticed the differences, and may be secretly very dissappointed that the man she thought she married somehow vanished, and left this less sexy version in his place!

 

If anyone (male or female) wants to go back to a better time in their relationship, they need to look at how they've changed, for starters.

[Tybee Swing 286]

he gets mad at me if i even bring her up.

 

i know i should get a divorce before i start meeting other people. but, i am a little afraid of my husband and i don't know how to tell him.

 

It sounds like your husband manipulates you with his anger. I would not stay in a marriage like that. If you are afraid of your husband, you have a reason, listen to your woman's intuition. Be very careful, Nina. Please watch out for yourself. Some men turn very violent when they catch on that their wife is leaving/wants to leave.

 

i am so seriously thinking of divorce. i don't even know why i was even trying to make it work.

 

It sounds like you have already made up your mind about leaving, and I happen to agree with you. Do you have a way out? If not, lay down the tracks and start building a life of your own so that you can find your way out. I hope that everything works out for you!

[ShellyM 0]

Shelly, I agree with you on this, and it goes both ways. Men also gain weight, get sloppy around the house, wear the grungy sweats. I agree with you that it's important to care about ourselves and keep on doing the best we can with what we've got - and be appealing to our mates.

 

About women not being as sexual....in a lot of cases, men can help with this by doing some very simple things. Men stop "courting" their wives because they've already got her, but they don't understand...it's not for pursuit, only. Many men will stop (or cut back a lot) on doing the things that she wants on a daily basis in a relationship. When they're in pursuit of a woman, they give her a lot of verbal appreciation, take her nice places, do special things for her (the little things, too), wanting to please her. In a lot of ways, that's why women stop wanting sex so much - he seems to have gotten lazy and doesn't apppear to care. It's a two-way street. He needs to keep showing her in all the loving, romantic ways that he wants her, in order for her to feel loved/wanted and in turn, turned on. Many men really don't get how important this is to most women.

 

It's so very simple. If men are having this problem of getting less sex, I'd advise them to think back to the times in their relationship when the sex was hot. Now, remember what he was specifically doing for their relationship during this time. Was he a more interesting conversationalist? Did they go out more? Did he dress better, look better, smell better? Behave better? Did he take more time with sex & foreplay and was a more attentive lover? If so, she certainly has noticed the differences, and may be secretly very dissappointed that the man she thought she married somehow vanished, and left this less sexy version in his place!

 

If anyone (male or female) wants to go back to a better time in their relationship, they need to look at how they've changed, for starters.

 

 

Absolutely, you are absolutely right and I should have made this more clear. It goes both ways, you are 100% dead on correct.

[2chase3 25]

Sometimes we want to believe those we love.But know this luv, What you have just expressed is straight up lieing decietfulness along with playing with your emotions and useing swinging as a crutch to further his own personal pleasures..alone.

Dont know how you feel about it but to me thats just plain cheating.

How to find the truth for yourself? simple play the game and ask for her number so you can discuss a threesome further. I would love to see how he would crawfish out of that one,

sorry darling i feel there is more to the story than your aware of.

Btw. just out of curiosity was the masterbation picks taken in the Big Rig lol? I dont know why i find that mental image so funny.

[cubnamy1995 124]

Whew!

 

Back to the OP, I wanted to be another married male to comment.

 

I cheated once, and even it was due to miscommunication. I had expressed sexual interest in another woman, my wife told me to go for it on the condition she was a participant, and when the time came I acted WITHOUT her being present. She was devasated, and we came close to divorce over the whole thing. We did get through it, but I vowed never again to say or do anything that would even give the appearance of wrongdoing. I would live my life transparently so that she would never again call my actions into question. That was 7 years ago, and we are happier now than we have ever been, swinging and all.

 

My point is, if it were a swinging thing, then he would be more concerned with your feelings, and not put himself in the situation. But it isn't a swinging thing. It's an affair. Whether or not they have had sex is immaterial to the point. He has a relationship with a woman other than you that he has been dishonest about. I'm always sad to hear about a divorce, but sweetheart, that may be for the best. Please take the high road. Even if his actions started the whole thing, your actions of starting an affair can and will be used against you in a court of law.

 

Without getting a whole other topic started, I have noticed a tendency amongst us men to fight with the gloves off, and stoop to some pretty low tactics to win in a divorce proceeding. Resolve this relationship first, then move on and don't look back.

[ShellyM 0]

cubnamy,

I am very happy that you and your wife were able to work things out and have found a happy place!!