Category: Dating and Relationships
Here's the hypothetical situation. It doesnt' affect me personally but I came across an instance of it, and I'm curious to find out what each of you fine contributors has to say.
A guy is dating a girl for several months. He's become very close to her--he's even moved across a state line to be closer to her. His parents and the rest of his family know about the girl--they've known for a while. So has his best friend. But this guy has many female friends--many of which he has either slept with or has viewed as a potential hookup at some point or another. None of those girls, however, even know that he's dating someone casually let alone seriously. Around them, the dude acts as if he's single--he's manipulating the whole idea with evasiveness. They don't ask, he doesn't tell. And whatever happens happens.
Now he's the jealous type, so he's long known that monogamy is for him--he can't handle the two-way street of potential other partners that come into play in an open relationship. So he and this girl are clearly exclusive--clearly exclusive meaning they both agree to be monogamous.
Fast forward to the awkward scenario I am curious about your take on: This gentleman and his girl are just leaving a restaurant, and they run into an online friend of his. Mind you, he's never met his online friend in person, but they recognize each other from pictures. The friend happens to run into the girlfriend and casually asks for directions to the gas station around the block. that's when she spots and recognizes the guy. but though the guy is there as well and he greets the online friend, he never introduces his girlfriend, never even really acknowledges that he's with her at the restaurant. He instead stands a bit at a distance and his online friend is none the wiser.
After this meeting, the girlfriend feels very awkward and humiliated. Is she wrong for feeling slighted, or are his tactics unreasonable.
Should he have made it more obvious that he was in an exclusive relationship--or at least that he was with his girlfriend when he met his friend, or is it uncalled for to broadcast that you're in a relationship if the other person doesnt' ask?
There's a teenie bit more to the story: After seeing him, the online friend thought he was cute. She found his number from when he gave it to her months ago when they were first acquainted. She calls him up, and because he doesnt' answer, she leaves a voice mail suggesting that he and she go out for drinks sometime soon. This guy and the online friend had entertained hooking up previously--when they were first acquainted online, so they both knew that"going out for drinks" implied they'd hook up.
The girlfriend is not the eavesdropping type, but she overheard the message when he checked his voicemail before going to bed. She got pissed. She asked why this girl was trying to hookup with him--doesn't she know he has a girlfriend? He says she doesn't really know, but that it's no problem, he just wont' call her back. The girlfriend is not satisfied--she wants the guy to come clean to the online friend, she wants him to tell her why the hookup wouldn't happen instead of just avoiding the girl. The guy thinks thats' unreasonable and unnecessary--he thinks it's enough that he's avoiding the hookup--in his eyes, he's done only good, nothing wrong. He's not disrespecting the relationship because he hasnt' cheated. The girl still feels disrespected, though, she feels he's being dishonest and she feels like he's pretending to be single when it's convenient for him to do so. He says it's nothing to do with her, he just needs that ego boost which he gets when he knows that other people find him desireable. He says he feels awkward telling girls he's unavailable because he, uh, doesn't want to disappoint them. lol
and though she doesnt' bring it up anymore with him, she still talks about it to her friends and she still feels slighted.
Is she overreacting,
or has he been a bit of a prick?
Ladies?
Gentlemen?
Oppinions please? lol
Sounds to me like he's the typical player, leaving all options open. How does anyone but him know if he's actually cheating or not. don't ask, don't tell. What they won't know won't hurt them.
This reminds me of a conversation I had recently, "Well I think I'd do things and not tell the girl about it, why would I, i it would not hurt her if she didn't know about it."" ahahahahahaha what? Lol! Player, player PLAYER!!! Check, doesn't want to disappoint the single ladies, check, doesn't introduce his girl to people, check, he's the jealous type, sorry but again, player. Oh, he should be worried about not only disappointing, but losing his girl if he was really that into her. Clearly he's not, because he doesn't express his relationship with his partner because he's not happy in it. And if I may add, opportunistic prick because he claims to be exclusive and he's really not. If they were in an open relation it would all be good, but he's playing around with her. He'll dump her. He may say he won't call her, but she doesn't really know. It feels like crap to be seen as an option, just saying. Especially when players think they're tricking you with their words. So I don't think she's over reacting. I don't know, but I'd get out of it if I were this girl. I mean it's clear how his game is played.
And players cry the loudest when they get played in return. Ever noticed that? this guy will get his, one say.
If a man is happy in a relationship, he will declare it openly. I am a bit confused by all the
online connections, but, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
If you want a poignant picture of this guy, look up the Paula Abdule song "Coldhearted
Snake." It was popular at the end of the 1980s.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thank you all!! Exactly what I was thinking. All great posts. Very wise, Leo. You guys are all great--thanks. lol.
I'll obviously be the odd one out, here, but I see no need to advertise being in a relationship with the girl in question, unless it comes up in conversation, somehow.
if the guy doesn't want people to know he's with her, that's his business. if the girl is bothered by it that much, then, maybe she should decide whether she wants to be with him for the person he is, or cause of how it'd make her feel, if her guy were to announce their status to the world.
I agree with Dolce Eleganza and others.
I predict this guy is about to step in the middle of a big cow patty, just, pretty soon.
I have a confession to make. Early in my marriage I had a short, intense affair with an attractive high school girl friend. I knew I was married, but we were both hippies and all that.
Well, one day I come to see my high school friend, and my wife and my high school friend were both sitting in the living room wanting to know what was going on. It was really a bit difficult to explain, especially with all that egg on my face.
This is the same thing I think your friend is going to hit pretty quick.
Bob
Agree with the others here. Sounds like your classic player, and I'd say she has every reason to feel humiliated and slighted. Yes, everyone is different. But from what I've seen, generally when a person is really happy with someone, they want to share that. Or at least, that's been my experience. Often when a person is happy, they're proud of who they're with, and eager to introduce them as their girlfriend or boyfriend. I'd say she'd best keep her eyes out, because these are early warning signs.
But don't you see what kind of complications not making it obvious that you're in a relationship can cause? Besides, if the guy was eager to tell his family about dating the girl and he didn't shout it from the rooftop--just casually mannaged to fit it into a conversation here and there, he obviously didnt' mind his family knowing, and he could work something like that into a conversation if he wants to. I get if it's a casual partner--if you agree that your just dating for the sake of dating, then who really needs to know, but if you're with someone for a few months and your closest family and friends on both sides understand that you're an item, naturally, if you're happy in the relationship and you want to be in it for the right reasons, you make it known. Subtly, but you still do. One way or another, people get the picture. Its not such a secret that a potential hookup who has no idea finds out by being avoided. lol.
To me, if he's not able to come straight out and let someone know that he's in a relationship so please respect that, he's either: a, ashamed of the relationship. b, not completely happy with it. c. trying to sneak around for his own thrill. or d. he's not that interested in the girl he's with.
But if any of the above reasons are true, you, chelsea, who advocates complete honesty, should know that he should probably: a, not be in an exclusive relationship, b. be honest with the girl about his reasons as to why he has a problem telling people he's involved. or c, be able to tell the prospective hookup why he wont' be hooking up with her.
Like I said, nobody's going to broadcast that they're in a relationship--that would be embarrassing to most and pathetic at the very least.
But if you're having a natural conversation with someone, unless you're making an obvious effort to not tell people that you have a girlfriend, you'll probably make statements such as , oh, that restaurant, yeah my girlfriend and I went there once--we really liked it. That sort of statement, if you're honestly in an exclusive relationship and you have no qualms about it, will just naturally come up. Now no one's saying here that by making it obvious that you have a significant other, you're glued to them for life. People have boyfriends and girlfriends and then they dont' have them. then new ones come along. But my point is, while you're in the relationship, why not just be up front about it unless you can't really decide if you want to be single or in the relationship--in which case, you shouldn't be in the relationhship after all.
Here's another example: I'm a mom of a little boy. No, he wasn't planned, and yes, sometimes I need a break from being a mom. But I don't hide the fact that i am a mother, nor do I go out of my way to avoid letting someone know that I am a mother. Yes, maybe me being a mom makes me less cool to some peopel my age, maybe it might cost me some interest from friends who prefer to befriend someone single and childless. but I'm in touch with who I am and I'm comfortable with it. I don't walk around with an "I'm a mommy" billboard stuck to my back, but when someone talks to me long enough, I mention my kid, because he's an important part of my every day life.
Just as I casually end up mentioning my partner because he's a major part of my life everyday.
Leo doesnt' make any extreme or pathetic statements of the fairytale of love and the happily ever after, but we all know he's a father and he's got a partner he's been with for around two decades. that's without us prying into his life, without him saying "oh by the way, I have a wife" to anyone he meets. It just comes naturally. And it probably avoids many misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and complications.
Yes, I know, I know. you'll say complications create themselves, things dont' have to be complicated. Well, you'd be right, things don't have to be complicated if you're ok with being who you are and the choices you make and you're honest about it all. IF I were in that girlfriend's place, I'd feel that my boyfriend was ashamed of me. that he was ashamed of being in a relationship with me. Especially if I was just standing there right next to him and he carried on with the friend as if I was invisible or not there at all--or worse, as if I was a stranger. People get hurt by that sort of thing, and that's understandable. Someone wants to be valued by the one their with, not made to feel as if they don't exist unless the couple is in the privacy of their own home and it's time to, say, have sex. lol.
Ok chelsea, let's look at this from a bit of a different angle. You stated on more than one occasion that you have no interest in sleeping with a man who's in a relationship. If you meet someone, you like him, you befriend him, you talk about a multitude of things with him, and you eventually decided he'd make a good friend with benefits, and he seems cool with that. Wouldn't you think he was kind of a prick if later, when you were intending to hook up with him, you find out by accident that he has a girlfriend? Say you visit him at his house and he forgets to tell you his girlfriend will be there. Don't you think you'd be a bit confused an feel just a teeny bit awkward if you visited him and found out then and there that he had a girlfriend, that maybe the girlfriend was living with him already, that maybe, oh, i dont' know... maybe she had a couple kids with him? Just to take it to the farthest extreme.
I know you dont' have any regrets and you get rid of people who have a negative effect on your life, but wouldnt' you feel that he's sort of a shitty person for not being honest both with you and his girlfriend?
That's the sort of complications I'm talking about.
And by the way, not everyone's going to ask : so hey, are you single? do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend? are you married?
Because many people figure that so and so's would mention the significant other if that were the case, so if they've spent some time together and there appears to be no significant other in the picture, the person's fair game.
Sometimes people dont' ask about significant others because they dont' want to be too obvious that they're interested in hooking up or being in a relationship. at least not right when they get to know the person.
If you have nothing to hide, you don't get in trouble. period. lol. And if you feel you have to hide something, maybe you should not be in that situation in the first place.
To me, it seems like the guy would be perfectly fine with a double standard situation. He's the jealous type, so he couldnt' be in an open relationship for fear his girlfriend would get involved, sexually or otherwise with someone else. so for this reason, he seeks out monogamy. But he himself has trouble with the idea of monogamy as it pertains to him because he would like to keep his options open. So is it fair of him to seek out a monogamous partner if he has trouble with exclusivity?
It seems to me like this player can't swallow his own medicine. If you dish it out, you should be prepared to take it as well. And for that reason, he's sort of a prick. No?
I agree with the rest, but might see where Chelsea’s coming from. If I’m wrong Chelsea correct me.
Now, looking at the situation as a whole, I’d say the girl should tell the gentleman to move back across the state line, and enjoy his freedom, because it bothers her, and she is correct.
If we are one on one, he must confess it, or we are not as I see it.
In an open relationship, if you meet another friend you are intimate with or wanting to be intimate with, you introduce your girl-friend as such.
If you are in a one on one relationship, you introduce your girlfriend to your past friends as such, stating this is my girlfriend Jane. Jane, this is Jodie, a lady I use to date, or chat online with.
It is rude not to introduce anyone that is with you under any terms, and especially in this case.
He is not done, and will have that drink if he gets the chance, and the girl he is with will accept that fact and get her own drinking friends, or she will demand he introduce her to anyone they come across as his lover/girlfriend, making a point to make it known she is his girl. If she doesn’t want that sort of relationship, she should move along.
Now, here is what I think Chelsea means. He does not have to call, email, write, or whatever everyone he has ever been with or wanted to be with to make the announcement, but in a public setting, he has to.
yes, Wayne, you actually get where I'm coming from. that was along the lines of what I meant, when I said a big deal doesn't have to be made of this guy's relationship.
I'm not at all saying that he should be dishonest with anyone, but simply that there's no reason for him to make it a point to tell people he's with someone, unless, as was said, a girl who wants to hook up with him thinks he's available.
Bernadetta, to answer your question about how I'd feel if I found out someone I was with was married, no, I wouldn't feel slighted, in the least.
sometimes, things happen that we just can't foresee, and although the majority of you would disagree with me, that's one of them.
the reality is, married or not, you can't help who you have a strong connection with.
Thank you wayne. My point exactly. And if he's one on one with someone and he feels that someone else is trying to hook up with him or there is that potential down the road, he should be up front about being with someone exclusively. no?
Sorry. you can't have your cake and eat it too. I think that's what most would agree on. though I really hate that saying, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. But you catch my drift. He can't be asking exclusivity from someone and trying to bypass it himself in return, even if he's not actually sleeping with someone else and isn't messing around romantically, he's going there. And that's no basis for a trusting relationship.
And if this girl stays with him, she'll go between being pissed at him for the incident, then feeling bad because maybe she overreacted, etc. She'll stick around, but every time either of them travels on business, or spends time apart, she'll be wondering who he's not telling about his commitment now. If anyone. That'll always be in the air. Now, he can't change for her. He cant' change for anyone but himself. But if he wants monogamy, he should be able to live it too, just as he's expecting his partner to live it.
If this girl tells him to move back across the stateline, as wayne suggests she does, he'll just find another "understanding" female that'll maybe feel hurt by his actions but keep it to herself or stay, because she hopes he'll change. Either way, it's in this dudes best interest to change his outlook, either on being in an open relationship or in behaving twoard his monogamous partner the way he expects her to behave twoard him.
Honesty is key, and this dudes biggest crime is being dishonest. Being evasive, by the way, is a form of lying too, and I think we all know that.
Whether you have a strong connection with someone chelsea, you are still entitled to uphold your promise or keep your end of the bargain. If you don't intend to, you make it known and you leave the deal. If the attraction is so strong that you need to break your promise to fulfill it, you need to have a moment of truth with the person you're married to and you need to say you can't keep your part of the deal. Maybe you wouldn't feel slighted, but you wouldnt' be the person he lied to, not really. He wouldn't have been making any promises to you, but to the person he claimed to be exclusive with.
If you say that attractions just cant' be helped and people should just act on them regardless of their availability, you're contradicting your earlier statement that says you wouldn't sleep with a guy who was already in an exclusive relationship.
I don't know about you, but regardless of whether I'm extremely attracted to someone, if I find out their unavailable, I am automatically at least a little turned off from them. not for me, I don't want it, period. It's simple as that if you think with your brain and your heart rather than your reproductive system. lol.
Now the reason I'd be a bit pissed at the married guy who wanted to hook up with me is because: first of all, I'd feel compassion twoard his wife or partner. If someone screws someone else over and I'm part of the reason, that makes me feel like shit because I never would have chosen to be. I don't live in a dog eat dog world where it's everyone for himself. Just because I'm not on the recieving end of the distrust, doesn't mean I won't feel bad for the person who is.
I like to be told the truth so that I can decide what to do with it. If I'm not being told the whole truth, I'm being made a fool because I'm acting on the information I have. If I knew the whole truth, I'd be able to act accordingly.
I couldnt' excuse that with a strong attraction. I would be ok to excuse a married man's strong connection with me if he were to say: hey, look, I can sense we have a very strong connection. You see though, I'm married. I'm unavailable. I have a partner. Despite being married, I'm attracted to you. What do we do?"
I'd understand that and I'd be able to sympathize with that. But I wouldn't hop into bed with him; I'd instead talk him through his feelings like a real friend. I'd be able to distance myself from this man sexually or romantically because he just told me he's not available and I've long ago decided I dont' want any piece of that drama.Thast' my choice to make. It's my choice, based on the whole truth.
Now, would he eventually find someone else to destroy his marriage with? probably. But I'd know that person wasn't going to be me.
If i'm not given the whole picture, you see, I can't make my choices based on the truth. That's called being duped. lol. And if we're supposed to expect honesty from friends, then that should mean that I shouldn't be duped by a friend. No matter how special and attractive this friend is and how much he likes me.
I don't think anyone wants to be duped into making uninformed decisions, chelsea, or I may be wrong lol.
Ok, let's see if this posts this time. I have tried several times today unsuccessfully lol.
There are a lot of good points I didn't think of above, probably because to be honest I can't ever see myself in an exclusive open relationship. Call me soft or whatever. I'll take it as a compliment. I can't take a chance of upsetting a woman by messing around with others if I am committed to her. I might sound contradictory here, but I'd rather mess around without being in any relationship with say a friend with benefits than have one main woman plus some others for when she isn't available. I think that is why these sorts of relationships are confusing and hard to understand because a lot of us can't see ourselves in them.
what's an exclusive open relationship. you're either in an exclusive relationship, or an open one. If you cant' figure out which you want, you stay single for teh time being. If that's what you're saying ryan, then you're right. Or rather, I agree with you. But I still dont' know what an exclusive open relationship is. lol. this was supposed to be an exclusive relationship; neither party agreed to an open one in this situation. So that's why I stated what I stated.
Yeh I think she has every right to feel hurt; I would in that situation. It would make me wonder if he was ashamed of me and as Anthony said, I would wonder if he's trying to keep his options open.
Bernadetta, if you've eaten your cake, you no longer have it. It's not whole and pretty anymore. You can sit there and admire the beauty and perfection of the whole decorated cake, but once you've started eating it, you can no longer have that perfect whole cake anymore.
Yeah yeah, it's off topic, but I just wanted to explain.
Oh!!! Thank you Anthony. You're awesomely fantabulous for explaining. I never actually though tof it that way and that confused me for ions. lol. I feel so stupid but at the same time, I love the logic of it. I do. thank yooou. lol.
what's an exclusive open relationship? Oh wait, I think he meant that he asks
for exclusivity and he;s opened about his options. Correct me ryan, though And
Bernadetta is right on, I don't care if other views are agreed or disagreed with,
they're your views in the end. I don't want to be a home decker or a husband
steeler or anything of that sort, so I'd feel like shit if he wasn't honest in the
beginning with me. In my opinion life isn't just about me and my sexual
attractions and who gives a fuck if others are hurt by it. I think I we have
choices in the end. To each their own I meant recker
What he needs to do to fix himself is not the issue here, but what the current woman feels.
He may just find someone understanding, and that woman won’t necessarily be foolish, she might just not care if he has other lovers, but doesn’t see it as right for herself.
I tend to think he needs to admit he is not ready for monogamy, and needs to stop being selfish, in that he can do it, but she can’t, but that is only my opinion.
When he gets online and pretends to be single in any shape, he is not monogamous, he is getting his need met, even if he isn’t actually sleeping with the girls, but not allowing his current girlfriend to do this, and that is where the selfish comes in.
I wonder if she did the same to him how he’d react?
Of course she won’t, because she, if she had ties, has cut them completely, but he has not.
If this is important to her, she needs to tell him to go home, and start being single again herself. She can even continue to see him, but not on a one on one bases.
I don’t even believe it take a business trip, just opportunity.
One hour of free time, and a willing partner will work just fine, even at the same place he now lives with his monogamy partner. Smile.
Open is open. Exclusive is exclusive. These are not the same.
I never said they were they same or that it made sense, it really doesn't which
is why I explained how it's contradictory.
I didn't think you did Dolce. I just tossed that on there.
Bernadetta is right about being evasive. That's dishonest. Also, it's rude to not introduce
the person you're with. I would for a coworker or neighbor, so it's already fishy from
there.
You can't help who you're attracted to, but you can help what you do about it.
firstly, why is the guy the only one being held responsible, here?
yes, he's being dishonest, but that doesn't change the fact that the girl is just as responsible for how she handles the situation.
as I've said, it seems like they both need to reevaluate things, as he isn't being honest, but neither is she, in settling for something less than what she apparently wants.
as for being able to "control what you do," if a man or woman is married, what you guys fail to see, is that, even that kinda circumstance isn't black and white.
most people just don't look at it that way, cause they couldn't ever see themselves in such a situation.
however, someone deciding to get involved with a married man doesn't mean they're a home wrecker, or that they even have any ulterior motives. quite the contrary, actually. as I've said, it might just mean, believe it or not, that the two have a strong connection.
Again, strong connection or not, you still have responsibilities to be honest and to be forthcoming. You aren't a slave to your sexual desires. You actually have a brain and you have a heart and you know who you are as a person--or at least you should. No one wants to look at themselves as a homewrecker, as someone with an ulterior motive, etc. But as you said, the person decides to be involved with the married man or woman. Decides is the key word. If you decide something, you make it ok to do in your mind. And if you're ok to some degree with what you're doing in your mind, you're ok with the consequences. And if the consequences result in the person's marriage falling apart, you try to tell yourself: well, I'm not a homewrecker, I just slept with the guy. They would have fallen apart anyway... etc. etc. etc.
Let's face it: Even if I don't want to look at myself as someone who steals, if I steal something from a store because I really want it but I dont' have the money for it, it was there, just staring me in the face, I really needed it, all availble to me and shit... So I took it. Doesn't mean I'm someone who steals... not in my mind, but to anyone else, that's just what I did, so it's what I am.
One can make endless justifications in their mind for what they do. After all, if they couldnt' find a way to justify it, they wouldnt' do it. Excuses don't make something ok if that something means you're being dishonest with someone you claim to care about. lol.
I agree with Wayne that this guy should reevaluate what kind of relationship he needs, and either learn how to deal with what he dishes out, meaning learn how ot be perfectly fine with an open relationship, or learn how to be fullly monogamous.
On the girls part, maybe she's confused as to his behavior. As I said, this is someone I actually have come across, someone in my circle of friends, so I know that she's sure she doesn't want to deal with being played but she's not quite sure if what he's doing constitutes playing. I said to her: if it makes you feel miserable than against your standards, it's not right. She's probably going to come around to seeing things as they are and realizing that they aren't compatible as a couple because of this because she seems half-way there. But the guy's not making it much easier for her by trying to convince her that he wants her to stay and, truly, he wants their relationship to work. Do I believe him? No. Do we all know that's probably oen of his tactics, yes. I'm sure we do. Its' probably a mix of his feelings for her and another item in his bag of tricks. But it's not like this happened ages ago--the incident with the online friend took place only a couple of weeks ago or so, so I'm not sure how the girl is at fault, when she's actually tring to sort out her feelings as she should be doing. lol.
home wrecker?Wow, I haven't seen that term since the 80s.
Her's my perspective.
I'm married, I've been attracted to other women since I've been married. Not gonna lie: religion and romanticism aside, we are creatures of attraction to things and people.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
However, I haven't been with anyone else since I have been with Her.
In the day that I do, I'm the home wrecker. Not the other woman. She doesn't have the home to wreck, and as Bernadetta said, made no promises. I did, though.
The longer the relationship lasts, the more investment you have in one another. It would be astoundingly selfish of me if I went and did that after 20+ years with Her.
Chelsea, you're right about not all marriages being equal. Eleanore Roosavelt was a lesbian and so had no attraction to Franklin Rosavelt. I respect what she did, however, by letting him seek fulfillment elsewhere, rather than just keeping a caged man she would never satisfy.
I have read about this from some asexuals, people who have figured this out for themselves, and also don't keep the other bound.
But that isn't what this one sounds like. It sounds like a typical heterosexual relationship where both parties have some agreements.
And like it or not, the blame generally falls squarely on the shoulders of the one being dishonest. Up until that pint, there might be concerns or issues or things they can work through, agreements that can be changed.
But as I've said elsewhere, this becomes an act of treachery more than an act of sexual gratification.
Especially most Capitalist Christian-raised heterosexual women, this has devastating consequences on.
You might make the argument this is not universally true. You'd be right, and anyone with the most elementary education in anthropology knows this. But it is true in the West and the Middle East, all cultures who are heavily influenced by one of the popular monotheistic religions.
And something that is universally true among humans and other primates is the idea of breaking faith with someone. Whether it's a land territorial dispute, a food resources dispute, or a territorial / resources dispute we call relationship infidelity. Aside form not wanting to commit domestic treachery myself, I wouldn't want to be a part of, or anywhere near, someone else's.
Territorial and resource disputes are exceptionally violent in all primates except maybe bonobonos, who evolved in an extremely resource-rich environment and so didn't develop these tendencies.
Thank you leo. I love your scientifically-sound and well-thought-out post.
Just for the record, I don't think being attracted to someone else every now and then is a crime. Not at all. It's only natural. it's what you do with the attraction that counts; And it's what you agree on with another person, and how each party feels about the agreement and what they do to honor it. If in an open relationship, you dont cheat when you fulfill an attraction you have to someone else. But you cant' say you're in a monogamous relationship and act as if it's an open one. I love the excuse: I wasn't thinking. If you agree to such terms with an exclusive partner, it's your job to think, to put forethought into your actions. And you can't make the excuse that things just had to progress... You're not in a trance when you're near to sexual gratification with someone. It's not like you gravitate to them without a single thought in mind. That's the excuse that people often use, but why not just fess up to being and acting in a selfish manner when something like that happens instead of giving half-assed excuses.
And yes, affairs happen, sure they do. But when you screw up, you take responsibility instead of just putting it off on chemistry and its natural pull. You take responsibility because as leo said, you're breaking an agreement, and so it's not merely an issue of sexual gratification.
Whether one should be making agreements with someone else that involve having sex with only them during the time of the relationship is a personal and individual matter. Only you can decide if you're better off monogamous or not. But once you make that agreement and you break it dishonorably, you can't say you didnt' screw up. lol
And leo, while I agree with you that the person who is contemplating stepping out on a partnership so to speak, is responsible for keeping his partnership in tact, it's not like the other person is not at fault. If the other person is fully aware of the situation and is contributing to the chemistry and is egging the unavailable person on to do something about it, they're as much at fault as the unavailable person.
Personally, I think it a total lack of morals if you attempt to get with someone though you know they're involved in an exclusive relationship, because it takes a certain kind of selfishness not to give a shit about the trouble you might be causing by messing with something that's not for you to mess with. lol. As I said before, it's a totally different story if the third-party potential hookup doesnt' have a clue about the cheating partner's relationship status, but if you know about the relationship in question, your, um, special in your own way, so to speak if you act on your need to be with that person rather than staying uninvolved, till at least that person's had a chance to break his prior agreement in an honest and honorable manner.
Affairs happen all the time. That's true. but just because they're common doesnt' make them ok. lol. It's one thing if you know yourself well enough to not want to be monogamous, but if you decide that's what you want, even if you think that's what you want and it doesn't turn out to be so, it's you're job to see it through to the end, and to end it honestly instead of being someone less than trustworthy.
Leo, you're right. I think you can't help who you are attracted to, but I'm glad
that you as a married man is here to give your real life experience on how you
wouldn't do something like that to your wife after 20 years of marriage. So the
"strong connection", again, doesn't matter. As bernadetta pointed out, you can
decide what you do with yourself when it comes to string feelings of attraction
for another person whilst being married. I meant strong. I don't think the guy
is the only one being held responsible here. It's so easy "well she should do
this, or "she should do that", or "she should handle it like this or like that." I'm
not excusing her. But if everyone know exactly how they should handle a
situation there would be no reason for seeking help, talking to friends etc etc.
Sorry for being an idiot and not reading the topic correctly. I thought you said they were in an open relationship and the girl was jealous. That was why I was wondering why everyone was jumping on the guy. But now that it's cleared up I get where you are coming from. If the guy wanted to be in an open relationship he should have discussed it with her instead of being a player as we call it. And to answer your question about the exclusive open relationship, I don't know if I'd call it such a thing because I can't see myself ever trying out an open relationship. But I'm guessing those who do it may see it as such. It doesn't make sense to me either but nor do a lot of things to us. Maybe some explaining from someone who has been in one or is in one could help?
but ryan. we're saying--those of us in exclusive relationships as well as those who have experienced open relationships--that it's either one r the other. lol. I think you're just lost as to this topic. because the point was that the guy didnt' want to be in an open relationship, according to him, because he said he couldn't handle his own jealousy. Yet he tries acting as if he's in an open relationship, and the mutual agreement he made iwth his girlfriend applies more to her than to himself. lol.
That's what we're talking about.
Not excusing the guy here not at all.
But another aspect to evolutionary psychology I have read is that the alpha male typically is both jealous and also a player. At least this is what often happens. And that they are constantly having to keep this in check. There are a host of reasons why potential hookups often are attracted to these alpha guys -- the old adage of 'nice guys finish last', although morally distasteful to some, are actually more often the case than not.
Again, not excusing.
But I am not an alpha. And so while I have had the occasional temptation when on business, I can't say I ever have, or ever will have, women falling all over themselves to get my attentions.
I know both monotheistic and feminist dogmas fight this, or claim it doesn't exist. But I know it does: I've been on business with alphas enough to watch it. And I usually skate through without any kind of attention drawn to me. They get it all.
So, if anyone is going to help reform an alpha male, it would have to be another alpha male. Because those of us lower on the totem pole, simply cannot appreciate the experience.
I say 'male' in this instance, because alpha females, more often than not, behave differently.
I know all the women's studies people will hate this, this isn't sexist, it is typical of biology.
And this is exactly the sort of thing I tell women who wish I would talk to their partner, who is acting this way. All he'll hear is the word of what he knows to be a non-alpha male, and not somebody who experiences life the way he does. I am exceptionally cynical in my views of reforming these. Not because of trite statements like 'once a cheater, alwas a cheater', but because you would have to have a culture of alpha males who decided against that behavior. And we do not have that. Possibly we wouldn't be here as a species if we did.
Pre-birth-control, guys like him would be copulating and populating all over the place, while guys like me, if we did survive at all, would have our plot or small share and a few offspring.
Of course the other alternative is for that kind of an alpha to be sexually selected against. And no matter what women's studies groups tell you, this simply is not happening en masse. The quality alphas know how to imitate us more sensitive types, because that gets them dates. But because they really aren't like that, they still act the way they do and possess that mystique only an alpha male has. We boring, predictable, working non-alphas do not have this. And even all your movies and television paint the average working man as a slob, while the alpha who gets all the ladies is the success. And she who is at home with working man always is portrayed to resent it.
Truth be told, at least up until now, both types have probably been genetically necessary.
So all I can say is, give your favorts to a non-alpha if this is how you want to see society change. Evolutionary changes are totally immune to your outrage.
Oh and the secret behind male jealousy, is the idea he doesn't want to be paying for someone else's offspring, something that actually does happen a lot nowadays via family court. It's primitive, sure. Biological. But no matter how a female friend might plead with me to talk to a player partner, I refuse: not being an alpha myself I have nothing to offer them, nothing they are in the least bit interested in anyway.
To stop this, women en masse would have to sexually select against the alphas who are players. That will probably mean a few other genetic characteristics go by the way side as well. You always get tradeoffs with evolutionary changes.
Like I said, the alpha female is a different scenario.
And, I realize this is all heteronormative. But until very recently, homosexual couples have not been able to reliably reproduce. Now that that can happen, probably a whole host of new factors will be selected for and against. But that population is genetically small.
None of this is social, it's purely rational, objective and from an evolutionary bent. And I still think I'm right: there's no point at all in a non-alpha, living the life experience of a non-alpha, to even remotely try to 'reform' or 'talk to' an alpha. In the words of one alpha sales guy years ago: "But Leo, you don't exactly have women throwing themselves at you all the time." He's right, I'm no basement-dwelling geek, but no don juan either. It's apples and oranges, the difference between the life of an alpha and the life the rest of us males lead. When your feminist apologists talk male privilege, they usually actually mean *alpha* male privilege.
He is what he is, and if she were a friend of mine, I'd advise (if asked), that she propel him through the uprights with the left foot, and move on. And yes, he will move on to someone else, because alpha tendencies are sexually selected for. And you don't get to selectively turn traits on and off at will. These things come in groups.
Now, I'm sure we'll hear from all the exceptions to the rule, because, guess what: exceptions make the news.
But show me an alpha who is getting women throwing themselves at him all the time, but refuses all of them but one and remains monogamous. Even if she is having a moment that lasts a few years where she can't stand him, but can definitely stand his paycheck and the things he does around the house.
Show me that alpha male, and I will consider changing my mind. Until then, I would say, the alpha males are not eligible modern marriage material. A thousand years ago, the guy in your story would have put up a few dowries and had a harem of several females. Arranged, certainly for many of them. But they would take the security of protection and finances over the insecurity. The old songs about a woman marrying a rich guy but loving a poor guy are all true. We've all seen this in real life to a greater or lesser extent. The man is the one who gets sized up, and it's said whether she is marrying up or down. I've seen would-be progressives do it as well as anyone else.
Am I saying it this woman's responsibility? No. She isn't responsible. But why keep a pet tiger around the house when she could maybe have a domestic dog instead?
The day she gets pregnant, this guy will be gone. And if he's smart, most alphas are, he'll play the sensitive card and work with the state to get the child support stuck to some other non-alpha guy she hooked up with afterwards. I'm not playing their game anymore and I see no reason why women should either, unless they want to have fun with the alphas. He's not gonna change because she gets pregnant, or because she wants him to. Alphas have too much to lose to do that.
It's inconceivable to the rest of us. Most of us understand and appreciate the one we have, consider her or him to be a rare find, a treasure. But to alphas, they have the pick of everything all the time. And have the intelligence to play as though they don't.
Here's a beautiful illustration of this. I know a guy who used to 'chase tail' in offices where we worked, to appalling proportions. Proportions, in fact, that your most ardent feminist apologist could not have dreamed up. I still have a jaw, it's not dislocated and lost from having dropped to the floor so many times.
Now, this guy was the biggest crusader against sexual harassment. And now, he, who has millions in trust funds and comes from more money most of us could imagine put together, writes for women's magazines about male privilege. This guy. And he's an alpha: he's smart enough to stick it to poor-raised working stiff lower / middle class folks like many of us. I would pay money to steer clear of him.He'd be likely to commit and exploit and have her convinced it was me and cry crocodile tears about male privilege, pointing at me. Now if I, a non-alpha male, would go to great lengths to stay away from one such as this, I'd be remiss to not suggest any woman do the same, unless she wanted some short-term fun.
Sad truth is, otherwise intelligent hardworking women are completely blinded by his charms.
In another era, he would be a hydraulic despot popping his seed all over the place and the rest of us would be slaves running his properties.
And no, he'll never 'reform.' Why? What could one such as he possibly gain? He would have a lot to lose, however.
If an alpha who chases women around and has millions in trust funds, can turn heads with moving speeches on male privilege, what could such an alpha do to you? Chances are, make you feel like you caused it. That's what they do to their working-class underlings. I have neiyther sympathy nor any human feeling at all for such as these. I only hope they are sexually selected against in upcoming generations, but also understand evolution takes a very very long time.
These alpha types are often said to be pathological. Could you outsource a ton of your town's jobs and send them to appalling labor conditions in another country? Just ruin some other lives to get ahead? This is beyond the capacity for most humans or we would have destroyed ourselves already. But these can, and do, and sleep afterwards, with or without their secretary. And after that go make speeches decrying injustice and male privilege, all while sticking it to the working man. They know they're doing it, I have seen them revel and brag about it, and claim we wouldn't understand. I don't understand: I'm not a forensic pathologist.
Your friend doesn't need any of that.
Interesting facts about the Roosevelt’s. I didn’t know that.
When did they let that cat out of the bag?
I believe this is also the case with Hilary and Bill Clinton. A grown woman that host all female pajama parties? Smile.
I think it is wonderful they could come to terms like that, and it was successful.
There are us that can keep one mate for life, my parents and most of my brothers and sisters are these type people.
I could have providing I had the right mate, but when trouble came, and was not fixable, I got out.
I have always been a person, however, that was not jealous, and could handle, and have handled open relationships with pleasure, even while married, so I’m the odd one out.
I accept most aren’t of the same mind, so whenever I start a relationship I state my status, and the lady can decide, so I guess I don’t screw up?
I agree, it is not the person that accepts the married person, but the married person that wrecks their own home.
Very interesting Leo, about the alfa male. Now, let's discuss what constitutes the alfa male. Is it looks, is it status, or is it a state of mine and a mind set. Because, here's something interesting. This guy doesn't have money, he's not very good looking as he is portly and sort of plain--and he doesnt' really attract many chicks' attention unless they get to know him online or via phone. He's very introverted, yet in his mentality, he seems to have the outlook that many so-called alfa males have.
What then?
Also, many players are low on the totem pole. Go to any ghetto, go to any poor neighborhood and you have women crying that their men are sleeping with the entire neighborhood and what're they going to do about it, etc. lol. Hardly alfa material if someone's a thug. Yet, the mind set is very much there. So what does it take to be an alfa male, and why dont' you consider yourself one. You know, plenty of these businessmen who have affairs on business trips arent' lookers and they aren't rich. yet females are attracted to them, but not outright. If an alfa male who is not good looking watns to attract the female's interest, he needs to strike up the conversation, I'd imagine. He needs to do the chase. What then, if the man with the alfa male mind set is an introvert. How does he get himself into trouble. lol. I'm just interested as to your theory.
You're pretty right on when you say it is mental makeup. But if you don't got it you can't fake it.
Now, it's more than I can explain, but alpha is the top of whatever circle you're talking about. So among thugs there are alphas, who, if they were educated, would outsource your job to India. Instead they just sell drugs and send other 12-year-old boys to die for them, and maybe break a few kneecaps.
It's the male who can manipulate other resources, get people to do things for him. Usually that involves some kind of quid pro quo.
And no, the sales guy doesn't start up a conversation the way you're thinking about. He can just turn on the charm or be a little mysterious, and maybe buy one or two drinks for one of them.
I'm really out of my element because I am not one.
How do I know? Nothing I get in life do I get by manipulating other people to do things. I'm also not that persuasive.
Alphas are amazingly persuasive. Remember we spend more of our waking energy figuring out how we are going to communicate with other people. More than anything else. The myth that we only use 1% of our brains? Totally wrong: We use most of our brains in figuring out how to get along with others. The alpha males, at least, seem to be master manipulators.
They don't always have the big gold chains, the Mercedes, the CEO job. But wherever they are, they are often the top dog of their own little universe.
I'd say this online business is a perfect new breeding ground for a new kind of alpha: someone who can't make it verbally, perhaps, but can do so from behind a keyboard.
Of course, my maind disadvantage in describing all this is that I am not one, I have been their sidekick but that is all.
Also you said they are not lookers. That is true. The subkect of who is a looker and who isn't comes up when you're talking non-alphas like the rest of us. Because what the alphas have in their manipulative abilities impresses a large segment of the masses.
You're right many are not actually rich, but they know how to make it appear that they have a lot of whatever it is she needs at the time. Money, sympathy, being able to say all the right words that every woman wants to hear. You know those long lists of the fifty things women wish men knew? The alphas know the entire set plus the ones you haven't thought up yet.
I know I'm not one, because I fail many of their fifty. Remember, money isn't the only resource, though of course a fake black card or a few big bills in a bar situation never hurts. Emotions are resources too. I've seen some of these player types be so tearful with women they were very moved by his responses. Because sensitivity is a premium item now.
And you can tell, whether you're interested in someone sexually or not. You can tell if other people are doing things for someone, or if he is getting up to get his own drink or what have you.
Here's a great example: Two men walk into a hotel on business.
One signs in, gets his room key, gets directions to his room and heads up, only to appear later at the bar where he slips in, maybe has some friendly conversation with the people around him.
The other one comes in, the people at the desk just can't wait to help him. They've even got someone carrying his bags for him. Same room type, same price. Contrary to what I used to believe, he's not always the sharpest dresser. Lol I used to call those guys 'suits' until someone pulled me aside once to tell me they're often not in suits.
Now when Man number 2 comes into the bar later, he's not looking at a laptop or just being part of the crowd. He's scanning the room, taking it all in. He ends up talking to quite a few different people, everything is sized up, and again, he is getting all kinds of attention and service others aren't. The rest kind of move out of his way without even thinking about it.
Why do I think I'm man number 1 and not number 2?
Because I always find myself in Man Number 1's position. I don't even know how man Number 2 does it. You've got books, videos and all sorts of things out there trying to tell you how to influence people.
But alphas are not reading those books, they simply do it. Correction: they simply *be* it.
The best way you'll know, is wherever he is, he's got people doing things for him without him ever asking for it. Things most people wouldn't even dream of asking for.
And yes, there are alphas among the poor also, I grew up with quite a few. You can beat one physically in a fight that he started, only to have them create a better story and get you in trouble.
Anyway these are just my thoughts. I can't pretend to fully get it, because I simply don't think like that.
And you, while you may have had relationship troubles in the past, you strike me as an alpha female, and that is not what the alphas typically want.
The 'chase' is more myth than reality. Think low-hanging fruit instead.
The 'chase' wher you see a guy going after a girl who is playing hard to get, or just isn't interested? That is one of those "I wish I were alpha" types, sort of like the "I wish I were rich" types you see in the mall racking up their credit cards.
And Ted Bundy was a picture perfect alpha.
Ok, so then, my question is: can an introvert be an alfa? If he's shy and people don't really notice him, yet in his mind he thinks he's a leader, is that a true alfa or an alfa wannaBe. lol.
I can't see any of the alpha male business in this situation.
He just happens to be at the right place when the other girl came buy. So he has two maybe interested, and the others we don't know about actually.
What is interesting to one woman isn't interesting to another.
The thing I find most interesting is when a guy is with a woman he becomes more interesting to other women, but if he's looking he's got to work harder to find.
It is said a single man should take his sister, or friend girl out with him and he'll have better luck.
But okay, I'm interested, so continue Leo.
My take on this whole thing is that perhaps he's not really interested in meeting others, but that he likes the online fling stuff. I know many people like that. If this girl knew he was in a relationship, that would close a door, and if he's not physically with her, he's not cheating. With something online, there's not really all that much maintanence. he's horny, so he looks up one of his online girls, they play for a bit and he cums, and that's the end of it, until he's horny again. Easy wank material.
He actually met this one and she called him to set up a sex date. This one moved off internet in to his world.
And he may call her back, or not. We don't know. He certainly won't tell either way.
A lot of good questions. Bernadetta, I'd say if he can manipulate others in his circle to doing what he wants, who cares if he's fat, an introvert, poor, or what not. It's not so much what he thinks of himself, it's what he is capable of convincing others of.
So he has you, and his girlfriend, convinced there are other women around. Others that are interested.
Does that make him a wannabe? Perhaps. I would take a certain delight in someone like you or his girlfriend blowing his cover, and we find out these are all fakes and there is nothing to any of it.
Wayne is right that an attached male is more attractive. I've heard several theories on that: We are the chosen and they the choosers, so if one is standing alone, she might subconsciously think there must be a reason he has not been chosen, since of course all the eligible ones are taken. The other theory I've heard on that is a woman's extreme fear and loathing of a man appearing in any sort of desperate straits. They have done several undercover camera studies and demonstrated women are more likely to run away from a man in danger than men will. While they will help another woman in danger. It's said to be a primitive subconscious thing.
Look at how many women are positively outraged and upset by the dancing monkeys on here who try to contact them and ask them personal questions. These are basically harmless fools who will never contact them, they only need select ignore and that avatar is gone forever.
But if we performed a controlled experiment, where a woman tried to ask men all sorts of socially inappropriate questions, or act desperate towards men, you would not see this pre-hominid reflexive reaction. Laughter, perhaps. Maybe a little disgust by some. Tacit ignoring by many others. These who are acting desperate online are too stupid to realize they are sealing their own death warrant in terms of getting any attentions. An alpha, on the other hand, would come off as having a lot of contacts, being connected with lots of women, and maybe less than available.
If this one is smart, he may know this and exploit it. I don't know.
I think the secret to alphas is not, as popularly thought, what they think of themselves. it's what they get you and I to think of them.
Here's a perfect nonsexual example: Your typical feminist writers have long said Wall Street is a male institution. Like so many things of theirs, they are half right. It is specifically an *alpha* male institution. most of us non-alphas would fail miserably in that environment. The stock market as we know it has everything to do with what they can convince you is going on.
Look at the Freddy Mac / Fanny May fiasco. We know now that there were serious bungled financial dealings going on. If it were a relationship we would say they were being dishonest. And yet, the Alphas have successfully convinced smart people, maybe even you, that it was all the fault of the poor. They even convinced fools like me in 2008 that bailing *them* out was a necessary idea to prevent society-wide collapse. I bought it, I'm ashamed to say. And the smart ones knew that people like me would buy it, and they also knew that they could convince the reactionaries among us that all this housing fiasco was the fault of the people who have the least power and influence in our society. I'm not saying they made any sense. They simply have the power to persuade.
Your friend's boyfriend makes little sense either. If his father were sitting across the table from him, hearing his story, and asked the question all kids hate: "Does that make any sense to you at all?" He'd squirm like the little boy he actually is. But they don't persuade by making sense. They're apologists through and through: they make it *look* like it makes sense, hoping you won't look beneath the surface. Which most people don't, and you have.
You've already got his cover half-blown as we speak.
Does the online life allow for an introvert to better manipulate? Perhaps. In former times, only the rich could afford to be recluses like that, and still influence people around them to get what they want. I know, when we think of alphas, we typically think the Newt Gingriches at their wife's hospital bed delivering divorce papers, the Rush Limbaughs imagining themselves to be such men of honor they stand tall enough to pick on a college age girl, and apologize to advertisers later on. Or we imagine the likes of Tom Leykis who can amasse a cult following, or maybe even the drug dealer's higher up who lives in the nice neighborhood and goes to the biggest fundamentalist church in town.
And that is one kind. But I think you found another kind. If he is a wannabe, that makes little difference if he is able to convince people around him that he is a Greek God.
Best way to defeat such as these is to remain unconvinced of their stories and always look below the surface. Don't ask me how they pull it off: I rarely get things by power of persuasion in life. But I have seen them do it, and they can convince peple to totally change their minds about something.
Any of you remember people in the early 90s with those pagers? Typically, they would have a cell phone and a pager. When you went out with them, even to a business dinner, they would conveniently get buzzed on their pager, then call with their cell phone and listen to themselves. Yep, it was often all set up to make themselves look important. Pretty convincing it was, too. This guy may have a fat little black book of girls, but I'm guessing between front and back are a lot of empty pages. And he can convince many that he is not an average, or an unwanted, but a high-market item. With the Made in China sticker on the back, maybe, just to make it global, trendy and popular.
we'll have to agree to disagree that getting involved with a married man or woman is always treacherous. cause, as I've said, not every situation is black and white.
for example, not every marriage involves just two people. some are open marriages, just as some relationships are open.
Fair enough, Chelsea, that even married people are more sexually open than has been the case in the past...
but while I was single I knew married men who were interested in me, but I knew they didn't have open marriages.
I think a lot depends on the third party (i.e. the other spouse), and the likelihood is that if someone's gonna see someone else, they aren't necessarily always going to tell the truth about the "open status" of their relationship/marriage.
Kate
True. But as kate said, maybe one person in the marriage is being dishonest,
and it might look like an open relationship. Now, that's called cheating. Yes
there are open marriages and open relationships. But if one person is secretly
sexually opened then it's not really an open marriage/relationship. I like Leo's
last post. I think that it doesn't matter how they look, but how they want you to
view them. Who cares how he looks. Though I thought the same as Bernadetta.
i understand now
No, nothing is always black and white. Not even the closed marages. Lots of reasons a man or woman might need someone outside, so it really depends.
They all aren't necessarily bad, and even some are good situations.
I guess terdition says they are bad, so it is what we assume.
Also, if you feel they are bad, and you can't see any good in them, than they will be bad.
Who's saying anything is bad That's subjective. Dishonest fits, though. That's
all.
Still waiting to hear back from Bernadetta on how it went blowing his cover. Those stories fascinate me more than anything because I'm just sick like that. Somebody good enough to pop that little lid off a manipulator's image. And I'm often part of the enthusiastic crowd who dropped by to see the show.
Yes, dishonesty is bad, but not necessarily dating a married person.
right on, Wayne.
my point in saying that situations aren't black and white, is exactly along the lines of what Wayne's last few posts articulate.
like anything else, dating a married person should be looked at openly, just as I'd hope you all would do, when deciding whether to date a certain person or not.
Like anything else ,taking something out of a store with you when you leave should be looked at openly, regardless of whether you have the money to buy it or not. lol
See how silly that sounds?
Chelsea.
We already established what an open relationship is. There are open marriages. Open marriages are open relationships. Thus what applies to an open marriage also applies to an open relationship, but does not apply to an exclusive marriage. Just as there's a difference between unmarried partners who are exclusive and unmarried partners in an open relationship. An open marriage would mean that both partners agree that one or both of them would be seeing other people. Open. In an exclusive marriage, there is no such agreement, unless an exclusive marriage becomes an open one--and that happens only if both partners agree to it. You cant' say, well, ok. I'm in an open marriage now because my new coworker shawn is looking really hot and I need a bit oh one on one time with him. Never mind what my husband thinks. He doesnt' have to know we're in an open marriage now.
lol
I think what leo and I and others were talking about applies to exclusive situations not open ones; I thought that went without mentioning. lol.
If you have an agreement with someone and that agreement, is, exclusive, and this, exclusive, agreement entails you refraining from dating/sleeping with someone new while in this, exclusive, marriage/relationship/partnership/etc, you're breaking your, exclusive, agreement if you do what you agreed not to without being, open with your partner about it or without ending the partnership. Was my point. If you do break that agreement behind your partner's back, you're being dishonest. Dishonesty disgusts me, so I see no good in dating a married man--unless I knew for sure that his wife aproved, but that would be an exception; beyond that, I see no good in it. No matter how drop-dead handsome this someone else's husband may be.
Let's just say I dont' like to tread on someone else's turf or get involved in someone else's drama. Now. who disagrees. lol.
Lol Thank you, thank you, thank you Bernadetta, for saying what I myself
couldn't articulate! This is exactly what i mean. Big difference between the two.
I love it! that's all
My oopinion is that at some point it would have been best to make it clear he was in a relationship. Ideally, that point would have been when the online friend saw them both together. After the calls started he had an opportunity to make clear he was in a relationship and that opportunity should have been taken.
chelslicious
I pose a question for you to ponder. So what if you met a guy who was not honest about his marige, you hook up with him and later on his wife finds out. Then set situation turns vilent against you? So with out spilling to much here about my past situation insidents happen such as the one I described. Yes if it ever happens again and set person is cot, she is gone and her partner's butt will be kicked before ever leaving my home. I hope he leaves in a lot of pain. So directing back to this topic, she should give this player a left, right hook and then a good kicked to the balls while "rereplaceable" is playing in the back ground. To me your either in a relation ship one on one or stay singal. Same goes for marige, you both promised to be exclusive to one another and never to step out on your partner. If you can not do that, then its best set guy is honest with himself and his partner. I take a stain on what I wrote because I have been in a situation where set partner .... then I was left to pick the peaces up after the basterd destroyed her from the inside out.
I think you meant this post for the other board.
I think starfly's question was meant to be posted elsewhere, too. however, I'll answer it, anyway.
no, it wouldn't change how I view things, if a situation I was in, turned violent towards me.
the way the question was asked, seems to suggest that I should feel guilty for what I had done, just cause someone else felt that way. however, that wouldn't be the case.
believe it or not, starfly, not everyone shares your view that you should only be with one person at a time. I sure don't, as I've expressed, countless times before.
So to be honest with one self, chelslicious you would say your more for friends with binifits. My question and my point were actually for this Oh, yes it was the more I think about it. I am not sorry but the arigional poster I give her a pat on the back for at least trying to let set person GF know this dude is a slime ball and a player.
Honestly you can tell if I'm happy in a relationship quite easily. If I don't hesitate about mentioning, oh yes my boyfriend said or did this and that, I'm perfectly happy. But if I hesitate or don't mention when I am with someone, its because I'm still looking for a backup plan and I really don't think this is going to work. Though if I'm dating someone exclusively and we're at the point we're going out in public, I will of course let or rather introduce whomever I'm with to whomever I meet. I just feel its disrespectful and quite shady to not do so. To just say, "No one really needs to know." To me is like saying, "please, no one really needs to know we're dating, especially because I'm sleeping around behind yur back or looking for better."
I don't like it, and I'm sure as hell someone else wouldn't.
thank you, last poster. my sentiments exactly.
I also agree with Jack Off Jill.
Just as an aside, I can't type her user-name without bustin out in a guilty grin. Just my guilt-ridden upbringing.
Bob
I grin at that username tooo. Hell, I giggle. but my giggles are guilt-free. I was raised in a guilt-ridden way too, but I didnt' take any of it with me into adulthood. I'm bad like that. Shameless. lol.
I love your last post Jodeci, thank you, thank you! :)
Its not original, I wish I could say it is, its a name of a band, but off topic there lol.
I just don't see a point of being with more than one person, if your with more than one person, I don't call that a relationship, I call that friends with benefits and at that point they don't mean anything to me. To be quite honest More than two partners is a bit over the top in my opinion, but that's when I'm considering myself, I don't judge others, but I'm just saying that's for myself. But like I was saying, if your with more than one person its not a relationship to me. A relationship is two people, and that person has a right to be known.
I'm an atheist but, amen all the same. lol.
All relationships, even friends with benefits need to be introduced.
I didn't add the friend part in my first post, but if you are out with a girl, or I should say I am, even if I bump in to another intimate friend, I introduce her as my date.
If she's my sister, I say that too.
It is rude not to introduce someone you are enjoying an evening with, and if that relationship is one on one, you say so, or it isn't.
It doesn't normally happen you bump in to intimates, but it has and can.
This case was totally one on one, so there was no excuse for not saying so to the girl that invited him for that drink.
That's very true too, wayne.
Def think this guy is a player. No, he doesn't have to broadcast to everyone he meets that he is taken but the fact that he sort of put distance between him and his girl, no way.
Thank you, wayne! you're right on