Category: Dating and Relationships
So this has been an ongoing discussion between me, my fiance, my friends, etc. Do yall think it is possible to have a really close friend who is the same gender as your spouse? On the one hand, one might argue that it is not really feasible because the two supposed friends have the potential to develop feelings for each other, or it isn't appropriate for them to be so close. Others might argue that gender roles don't really mean anything, or that as long as the spouses have a trusting relationship, it shouldn't matter.
It really comes down to trust. Hopefully you end up in a relationship with a person who is considerate about you and vice versa. There isn't anything wrong with having friends outside of a relationship that are guys or girls. In fact I would say it is important. It is not healthy to spend extended periods of time with that same person being with them constantly, because you might end up tired of each other. Likewise, it is not healthy to spend time with a friend that is the same gender as the spouse and expect your spouse to feel comfortable with that. There is a limit or balance in both instances.
I agree with the last poster, to some degree at least. Trust is key here. Unless you give them reason to suspect otherwise, chances are most spouses or long-term partners in general would have no problem with you spending time with close friends of their gender. If your spouse is limiting who you can be friends with, it's a warning sign, unless said friends are abusive or in some other way threatening your well-being.
I think it depends on what the friends are doing. I have two sets of friends, and the husband of one couple and the wife of the other are interested in running. Their partners just sit around and have coffee while the other two are off training for marathons. I think where things get thorny is when one spouse (possibly due to insecurity, possibly due to valid concerns) says they feel uncomfortable with the amount of time these friends are spending together... it is very telling to see the spouse's reaction. Honestly, the more offended the spouse, the more likely they are hiding something.
Agree with what a lot of people have said here.
However, here is where theory meets with reality: In fact, you can remain friends with someone of your spouse's gender provided the following. And I'm speaking from a heteronormative stance and also a man with a little experience:
First, your spouse has to know that she is first. If there is ever any doubt you will be in trouble. Don't buy your friend a more expensive or better or thought-through gift than you do your spouse. Don't bring her up in conversation especially if there is some kind of conflict at home.
You will probably get into some sort of a situation where your spouse will say you are mentioning her "too often," which you may not have noticed but if she is having an emotional time, or stressed out, or something has maybe eroded her personal security in her environment, the thresholds will have changed.
It's all nice and well and good when in college to have these theories about this stuff. I sure did, and in those days thought one could always have any number of friends regardless of gender. But at least in a heterosexual possibly heteronormative Western culture relationship, you as the guy have to watch these variables which can change. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm not saying whether it's even right or wrong or indifferent.
The path I've chosen personally has been in favor of the long-term relationship I'm in. It doesn't mean I don't have female frieneds. Or even friends she knows about. But I try to be judicious as to what part they play in our relationship. I can tell you from experience, even your lesbian female friends will be subject to these terms, as odd as that sounds, since you're as unlikely to violate the relationship with them as you are with a guy.
The problem happens when you go into this with all the nice neat college theories as expressed earlier, and everyone starts out all fine, but things start to bother your spouse. Not things you can put your finger on, or that you've done, it's perception types of things and all the variables I mentioned earlier.
Honestly, over time, I've had fewer friends of the opposite gender. Not really a choice or a good or a bad thing, but it's sort of dropped over the years.
Here's a scenario you're likely to encounter, as decades go by in your relationship: Let's say your friend, let's even say your Lesbian friend, happens to continue to look really good even into her 40s. And let's say you still think your spouse looks good, your mind hasn't changed towards her except for the better. Even so, in a heteronormative relationship, all nice neat college theories about who should be what just went up in flames like the straw man they really are. And you actually had nothing to do with this directly. I'm not even saying stop being friends with her. You may be thousands of miles away, and you being blind would not even directly be finding out how she looked even in person. But your spouse sees her on your Facebook timeline and may feel threatened, based on how she might be feeling at the time.
All I can say is try to get good at gauging these types of responses as best you can, and in truth evaluate your friendship in the context of the friendship that is your life partner.
You may not have some of the same problems I illustrated: you're young during the Facebook era, something we weren't, and so reconnecting with people from college on there caused many a man I know to have to answer for why that attractive woman is on his Facebook. This has desensitized some over the years since people are now more used to social networks, and maybe heteronormative women won't feel so threatened by this stuff anymore.
I'm not saying any of this makes sense, it certainly doesn't fit into your college religion / theories about how everything should be. I'm just being the realist / pragmatist out here saying how it often works. And that despite both parties having originally subscribed to the nice theories presented by other posters, which are the hallmark of what is popular thinking in a modern civilized society.
Why it ultimately works out the way it does? Who knows. Just be mindful of things, is all I'm saying. And remember, in this area there is definitely a double standard to keep in mind. If you were to make the same overtures about her male friends this would be considered controlling and other things, in modern society anyway. But she will frequently do it, especially if she is having difficulties or going through a rough patch. And at this point in life I'm uncertain as to whether or not this blindsides even her.
in my mind, it's really a silly question to be asking whether you should have close friends that are the same gender as your spouse. the real question, here, is why couldn't, or shouldn't you?
while I understand what leo is saying, to an extent, I'm a firm believer that if you trust each other 1000 percent, truly feeling that no one or nothing can come between you, that's all that matters.
if your partner is uneasy about the fact you're close to your friends that are the same gender as him or her, he's the one with issues, not you or them.
Ah I hadn't checked the profile.
So dissonance is a woman ok so Chelslicious is right. Your spouse will by default understand you having friends of his gender.
Leo's points are valid, and both genders have issues with the spouse having a friend close or not of the other gender.
I happen to think it is okay, but I also am a realist, and believe most people can't do it.
When a friend becomes really close, and you are different genders, you really have to have a strong relationship at home, because if you don't 9 times out of 10, that close friend will become someone you confide in. When that starts to happen, the close friend becomes the person you go to when you need company, and when that happens, the close friend becomes to close.
I guess it is how we are built.
I personally don't have a problem with it, but I also don't have the need to own another person, spouse, or not. I feel a person is with me because they want to be, and when that want stops, they should really move on, and I shouldn't try to hold them with old ties like "well, you married me" or such things.
I think for the good of a relationship, if one person has a major issue with it, these friends should be dropped, or joined to the group.
I also don't happen to believe, as many people do that friends of the same gender are not a threat either. Smile.
That is why I say, this issue comes down to how strong a relationship is, not the gender of a friend.
Wayne, do you think the poly people may ultimately solve this issue? I mean, I know right now they are as scandalized as the gays were 25 years ago, but just by reading about them, it sure seems like it could solve a lot of insecurity issues if all concerned are, well, in the fold, as it were.
And for those who don't know, I'm not talking polygamous, which is backed by religion, but more the polyamorous relationships as written and discussed by The Sexual Futurist.
I'm not sure there is or can be a hard or fast rule to this. If you want to maintain a friendship that your spouse or partner questions, then ultimately it will be your decision as to whether your spouse/partner's doubts are reasonable ones and whether or not you should continue with the friendship.
As many have already said, much of it boils down to trust. However, how you know the friend is also likely to have a bearing on how your spouse views it, such as any previous relationship that may have existed between you and your friend.
I have a couple of guy friends who are close-ish... one of them Ed knows about and has met (he attended our wedding) and one he has not.
However, as close as they may be in my life, they're close in a more of a "brother" or "cousin" sense than a platonic male friend sense... i.e. Wedding Guest Guy I've known all of my life (we are the same age and our Dads went to college together back in the 1960's) so I basically grew up with him (thus the "brother" classification)... Hawai'i Dude (the other one whom Ed hasn't met.. I met him in Hawai'i after befriending him online) is more of a cousin than a potential romantic interest, seeing as he's also Nikkei (i.e. someone of Japanese ancestry) and if we dug far enough it might actually turn out that we really are cousins or related in some way... anyway, because of our common ethnic heritage, Hawai'i Dude and I talk about family and life stuff I couldn't talk to Ed or Wedding Guest Guy about without having to explain unspoken references/expressions and experiences and how they pertain to our conversations.
I've met most of Ed's close female friends and, for the most part, like them... I'm secure enough in my marriage not to feel threatened by any of them.
So, do you guys think it's ok for a partner to demand that you stop seeing friends of the opposite sex because they feel that it's not right? Of course, it's one thing if you're flirting with them or sleeping with them, but that signals a problem within your relationship, not necessarily with your friends. Some people, like myself, just happen to get along better with members of the opposite sex. I don't know why, it's just always been that way, and I can usually draw the line between a platonic friendship and when I begin to have deeper feelings. So, whenever I enter into a relationship, should I be expected to drop my friends, just because it's not, for lack of a better word, normal to entertain the notion that platonic friendships can exist between males and females? Even writing it sounds ridiculous--but I have to be sure we're all on the same page here, as from the tone of some of these messages, it seems like people are saying it's perfectly reasonable for a partner to scrutinize your circle of friends and say, "well, this person has to go, they're not the right gender."
If you're asking about you? You're a woman and so it generally isn't right for a man to question your friendships of the opposite gender, at least this is how most do things in modern society.
The reason the opposite seems to be okay - women needing their men to forego said relationships - has to do with her emotional needs / security and all of hat which is described in more words than I have words for. This is not to say all women do this, I would venture many do and many do not. However, the perception is that if your male partner were to tell you to forego these types of relationships many would tie it to maybe an abusive situation.
Asking about your situation I would say no, you can expect people to support you keeping your friendships. In fact, had I checked the profile of the original poster I would have not written what I did, for some reason I thought Dissonance was a man.
This is one of those things where there's a double standard, or the same rules don't necessarily apply.
This will especially be true if you get a rather easygoing partner and one who doesn't read into things very much. Ok the not read into things, well that's a lot of us hetero guys to begin with: there's a warm place to come home to where we're wanted, we're usually good, and don't get too picky beyond that.
I am curious though how gays work this stuff out: is there trouble with same or opposite gendered friendships there, or is this a heteronormative problem only?
GT, I think you're totally misinterpreting what people are saying. I don't think anyone here has said controlling behavior, in any form, is okay.
Leo, I see what you're saying, but I really think it's a bit of an unfair generalization. Believe me, I've met some men who were just as difficult about the friends issue as women, and even if they weren't really controlling about it, they still didn't like it much and their partners knew about it. It's as others have said: it comes down to how you know the friend and how you interact with them. But Leo, I can't help thinking that your posts portray women as emotionally fragile, almost disturbed beings with no concept of trust--almost as though if a guy wants to keep a girl around he had better not do anything to upset her, and that includes being friends with girls, especially if they're prettier than she is. Not all of us are so shallow, nor so fragile. And if you end up with a woman who thinks that serious mistrust born of jealousy is okay, then you'd best show her the door. So, okay, I'm a woman, and I'm as prone to insecurity as the next gal. But my partner has given me absolutely no reason for me to distrust him, with his female friends or otherwise, and until I have cause for reasonable doubt, that trust remains. It's the only way to go about a relationship, in my view.
P.S. My views have nothing to do with college or anywhere else. They're born of experience. And, yes, even if I am just a "kid", as you so often call us, I still know a little of what I'm talking about. lol Let me repeat, though: I do see where you're coming from and I don't entirely disagree that there is a double standard. It's more that I don't think the double standard is everywhere, with nearly every woman you'll encounter; what's more, I think the double standard is unfair where it does exist.
No Leo, I don't think this will go away. It is rooted in jealousy, and has nothing to do with trust at all.
Meglet, I'll bet gay couples have the same issues as well.
GreenTurtle, yes, I think if you want a relationship to succeed you will drop your friends, or not be so close with them.
When you marry someone or decide to have a live in relationship you become a team, not a separate, and yyou must think in that way.
If you feel this is something you can't do, it is best you connect with a like minded person, because if you try to convince someone that thinks that your male friends are out, you'll not change his or her mind, for that matter with the trust me bit.
They might agree, but you'll probably always have tenchen because of it.
I don't care if it college, or the nursing home, this is a human issue, or condition.
If you can't bring your friends in to the group, you have to put some distance between you and them.
Yes, Wayne, that's what I'm getting at; it's not a woman thing, it's a humanity thing.
Personally, I'm not sure if there's an unfair generalization being made about women here. Many women in my experience do, in all honesty, tend to be more bugged than men about this issue. There are lots of exceptions, to the point that it's not really even a strong conclusion I'll cling to, it's just something I've tended to observe.
Personally, as far as the topic at hand goes, I think that in a perfect world it should only matter if the relationship with your partner or spouse is honest to god being threatened, in a real sense, by what either you or this friend happen to be doing. Threatened does not mean that your partner is making up evidence or getting insecure, either. I completely understand insecurrty. Everyone's got some, and I think you owe it to a partner to try and cope with it when it comes up. That doesn't mean a double standard of sorts isn't at work, however, because in many cases that self-same partner may go and do things they wouldn't really want you doing. Guys do it, girls do it, but it tends to become messier when it's a guy being slapped with the guilt.
I think some of the "you'll learn how it is, and your ideology is unformed" stuff going on is a touch on the high-handed side. I'm twenty-nine, old enough to have saen at least a good bit in my life, and while I can agree with some of what's been said, I don't really see eye to eye with most of it.
I think Wayne and Meglet are right. this isn't a gender specific issue, but a humanity one. sure, it has been argued that women are more sensitive, jealous, and what have you, but I can assure those with that outlook that there are guys with those same attitudes.
All good points.
I didn't mean all, and maybe not even most women have those tendencencies, but where they do exist with women it is generally acceptable behavior, and we look on those who don't as extraordinary. But when men do act this way and be all insecure about these things, which some men will do, it is not as socially accepted and it is even acceptable to deem him maybe a potential abuser.
Now as to the perception that women who exhibit these characteristics are shallow?
This I don't know: I just took it as the way things have maybe been at least in heteronormative situations. I haven't cast a judgment on the situation, more tried to navigate things.
And I take your points about me coming off as high-handed, all I can do is say sorry about that and I'll watch that in the future. In this case, in my own experience and that of many I've known, we started out with all the rosy ideals of how these types of friendships could work, and it was backed by popular culture / college in the early 90s at least, sort of an in club if you will. Most people I've known both men and women found out the hard way. Meaning, the women that ultimately had trouble with it felt some needless guilt over having trouble with it, since they were "supposed to" be able to be okay with it. That is all I meant by theory meeting reality.
On the double standard, it doesn't mean all of one group does things one way. Back before any of us were alive, there was a double standard about childcare and who should do what, as foreign and odd as that seems to us now. But I have met men who, in the 50s and 60s, participated in childcare the way I have, or you have, or you would, as men.
Double standard only applies to what is socially accepted, not what one individual chooses to do. The only way I see a double standard factoring into an individual is when someone who would otherwise have license, foregoes it in the spirit of fairness and equity. Like the guys I've met from the 60s who were every bit as present a father as any of us today. Or like women now who are every bit as secure in relationships as most men.
Hope that clarifies some of what I was saying.
But I still think that people who choose not to take advantage of license provided by a double standard, are to be commended.
My advice to men was only given for those situations that meet close to the average. I'm guessing men who are with women who have chosen not to take that route have no concerns in that area, except they're probably grateful.
I do see your point Leo, and I know how you arrived at it, and I'd agree.
Many women feel they can have these friends, and it's okay, because, well, their allowed, and would never cheat on you.
Now, excuse the wording, but this is how I've heard it expressed by several women, and groups of women. "she has a vagina right, so she's a threat."
That statement says it all, men can't keep it in their pants, and if the opportunity comes will get it.
Many women even will not allow the husband to meet or talk with the female friends unless in a group, and they hang close to him the intire time.
Yes, yes, I've seen men do this too, but they are called controlling.
I once was at a BBQ and my friend brought his new girlfriend buy. He told her he was taking her to a family event, but didn't think about it more.
When they arrived, the women started to hug him, kiss him on the cheek, make sure he had what he needed to eat, and the things they'd normally do for a loved one.
The girl friend gave them such looks, took plates, sodas, and such from their hands, and sat on his lap. hahahaha.
The ages of the women varied, and one was even his brothers wife, but that didn't matter at all, they all had vaginas.
Of course, they knew him for years before he met the lady, and he'd not had any of them, but still.
Nobody should behave that way. It's incredibly unfair, socially acceptable or otherwise, for women to have male friends and expect their partners to handle it gracefully, while men can't do the same. It's one thing if you have the feelings but try to deal with them as best you can; you can't really help being insecure. I'd know, I struggle with it quite a bit. But it's how you handle it that matters. If you're very vocal and controlling about it, that's when it becomes wrong, in my opinion at least. And if this situation is average, let's hope that the situation improves in the future; men have every right to be insecure, just as women do, and both genders have a responsibility to handle their insecurities as best they can.
I apologize for the misunderstandings, Leo; I now understand what you were getting at. Thanks for clearing that up some. :)
So, it is the human condition, and I honestly don't believe it will ever go away.
I suppose it would come down to how much you love and want your relationship to work, or how much you love, and want your friendships to work.
In a situation were you must choose, I'd say, you should choose your spouse.
You see, you know this fact before you marry him or her, because it has to come up during the time you are dating
Yes, I agree with Wayne. I'll believe it can change for women when someone comes out with all the same tools and talking about it that has come out for men in the last 40 years about how to let go. I met an older man once, he's now in his 70s or better, who even wanted to know who she was talking to. I don't mean the way that you do, that kind of curious, "Oh, who was that?"
But he honestly wasn't a dick, you could tell she and he got along just fine.
Now so much has been written for men in the past 50 years or more on this, that you have whole generations of us that can't even imagine being like that. I mean, if I in the early 40s can't even relate to that, I bet younger men have zippo idea how, and that isn't being high-handed that is just saying how foreign that stuff is to us guys now.
But if you talk to really older guys, you'll find that people at some point in time started having the conversation about it. Granted it was sadly done far too often in a threatening manner. I don't say this should be that way for women, but if Meglet is right, and women really were to get a chance at being different this way, if they in fact want to, I think it would start from a conversation. My impression has often been that those who are that way are currently in a position where they basically cannot seem to help it, maybe like guys were back in the fifties or something. Maybe it is that perception, be it accurate or otherwise, that has guys like me being rather tolerant of that situation, and, at least what it looks like to us, them dealing with it the best they can, even though it can be difficult.
Also, and again I am probably generalizing, I think it's easier for a guy to sort of drop things in favor of the long-term relationship. At least we are not met with the stigma of being walked on for doing it, or other things women struggle with whether they should or shouldn't give something up. You can see guys doing it wrong when they give up spending time with their kids, because the woman doesn't like the kids or doesn't like his ex. We're kind of wired to do what she wants, whether that is modern societal conditioning or nature who knows. Some of us, at least, are quite happy in that situation. But we are also not labeled with the stigma that women would get if they were doing things in a similar way. Again, not to say women don't, but I have seen them pay the price for giving things up for a relationship, having to justify to their friends and family that no, she's not losing her identity, and all of that. Makes it pretty hard for them if that is what they want to do of their own free will. For us, we have not had that challenge. We're actually often seen in a better light for doing it.
Anyway how that would relate to friends is people understanding if a man gives up a friendship for the spouse, or gives up some of his personal time, that sort of thing.
And I'd definitely say that before some can call those women shallow who have troubles with their man's friendships, well, maybe if they can help it, they simply don't know how.
I'm sure this question was posed more out of curiosity for the op. But if this ever became a serious question in your mind, I would question your relationship itself, especially with one that has progressed for a while at that time. It is understandable with someone who you began to date and are dating casually. Hopefully the both of you are a bit leanient at that point and trust each other, and are on the same boat. However if you are at a more serious point that might involve engagement or marriage, there's no question the spouse comes first. I mean this in two ways. One, if the person wants to spend time with you and you alone. The other being, if you or the person wants some time either alone or with a friend, same sex or not, consideration and understanding is important.
am a Christian and def think it matters. feelings can happen over night and if you watch tyler perrys the marriage counselor haha, you will see that the best intensions don't really matter in the end. Trust is key but in my opinion you don't get tired of your spouse by spending to much time with them because that allows your marriage to grow.
So what you are saying is that couples can't take breaks from each other every once in a while? That every married couple or potential married couple has to spend all their time together? If so I'd have to disagree. Couples have arguments and tough times, and everyone needs a break sometimes. If you have siblings you would understand this. You love your brothers and sisters, but sometimes they can get annoying and it's best to get away from them otherwise you might end up saying or doing something nasty that you didn't mean to. Every couple should be able to discuss problems, but sometimes you need time to yourself to collect these ideas. And sometimes, you want to spend time with friends and do things that maybe your spouse isn't interested in doing. Spending some time apart isn't a bad thing, nor is spending time with other people.
Jessica, that's ridiculous. everyone needs time apart, be they family members, friends, spouses, or people who are in a committed relationship with one another.
I agree. Sometimes you just want to read a book, and not talk, or something. It isn't personal.
besides, that time apart is what helps marriages and such grow, not spending all your time together, as some seem to think.
You have to give your partner time to miss you, after all. While spending time together is important, spending -all of your time together is, if I may be so bold, a huge red flag.
The whole idea that one's partner is supposed to be all things and serve all needs might seem all poetic and everything, but that's where it stops, it's what I call romantic idealism, which has nothing to do with reality or how real living people are. People need their space and they also need hobbies, outside interests, and friends, and that may include friends of the same gender as your partner if that's your thing. If your partner thinks you're screwing around just because you're talking to other people or going for a coffee or etc when your intent is completely harmless and innocent, that person has problems.
Don't tell any of my future girlfriends this, but when I say I'm going out running that's not actually what I'm doing. Lol.
I agree with post 2. Trust is key.
Well Brooke My love, you know my situation. I am in a comitted relationship and have a male best friend!! I agree on this issue, that trust is key. I know I'd never do anything to hurt the one I'm with, and neither would my male best friend. We both love our partners and we're very happy.
How would you do if your partner acquired a female close friend? That is a closer examination of what often can go wrong.
Though, as often happens, the new generation may be more enlightened than previous ones, and younger women may simply have more tools to manage it. I don't think women my age are shallow or overly fragile as was understandably inferred earlier. I just don't think they have the same tools for dealing with it that at least we men at the time had. Just as men in the 40s didn't have the same tools for dealing with the women they were with having outside relationships.
I'm not putting you people up on a pedestal but it's generally true that newer generations become more enlightened as they reject the mistakes, perceived and otherwise, of their parents' generation. I rejected many ideas from my father's generation. Some I still reject in whole, other I have taken a modified version of it, and still other I have grown to realize was accurate.
I hope as part of this new enlightenment will come tools for younger women to deal with the situation when it happens. The reason I say this is I've known many who are in my age group who honestly sounded an awful lot like most of you in their early 20s. I mean, we're human: we all want each other to have friends and all. But once the rough patches and midlife type insecurities start coming, hell not even midlife insecurities, just stronger ones than they had dealt with before, they got hit. They responded in ways mentioned earlier, and also some even feel bad about it, like somehow they shouldn't. But it's like indoctrination or religion or something: they just feel bad about it without any real understanding of why or how to do different. And any tip from how we guys have been raised to handle it doesn't really seem to give them any help. So they're left with what amounts to useless guilt, like being guilty for having two feet, instead of having some sort of personal recourse for themselves.
One can hope the new generation has better answers for women in that situation. Again, I know it's a broad brush, and so for the simple we will have to state again we're being general here, but *generally* speaking, younger generations as part of their thought process / accepting and rejecting what former ones did, often come out with some new methods or means that turn intellectual enlightenment into reality. I'm not saying people sit around and say they're going to, I think more often than not it just happens.
I hope it just happens this way for younger women and friendships because should-be-able-tos just doesn't get human beings of any persuasion very far.
Looking back at the relationships I've been in, I don't think I've been in one that was so committed that if the girl was to cheat on me I would be hurt badly. Don't get me wrong, I'd be upset but I think more so shocked, and I would be able to let go rather easily. I think this is safe to say about most guys. Not alll, but generally speaking it is easier for a guy to get over something like being cheated on. There may be a few girls out there who have this same reaction to it, but I'd say generally speaking it's harder for a girl to take when she finds out her man was using her because they tend to be more emotional than guys.
What I find interesting though is guys do get a bit uneasy when they are dating a girl who hangs out with guys more than girls. When I was younger this was the case. I dated a girl who would go out with some friends on a trip or something and usually she hung out with another guy on these trips. When this happened and I was too busy to go I always had those what if thoughts. I guess I've worried less and less as I've gotten older, because I've found that it's not worth committing myself to someone completely in the beginning. That is, I'd rather keep things casual and spend time trying to get to know them first instead of moving suddenly in to a relationship like I did when I was younger.
I don't know. Both benders get upset when they are cheated on extremely, so I guess it depends on the person.
I have removed cheating from my life. It is not possible to cheat on me, because I don't expect a person to belong to me.
If I'm dating a girl and she wants to be sexual, or other with someone else, all I ask is that she let me know.
Because I don't feel like a person belongs to me, and that they might find someone else interesting, I don't worry about cheating, nor can it happen.
I sincerely believe a person will be with you, because they want to be with you, not because you demand it.
I personally find this way of thinking relaxing, and I really enjoy the women better.
The only other thing I ask, is that when it is my time, it is my time. Tell Jimbo you are busy, and his problems, phone calls, text messages, and whatever have to wait, friend or not. That goes for Susie as well, or your mother. It is my time, give it to me.
Hmm again, Wayne, you sound like a poly / open relationships guy, and I am often left to wonder if that is the ultimate solution someday down the road for human beings. It does seem people in those relationships have fewer hangups, less in the way of insecurity-based demands and the like.
Those hangups and demands probably served an evolutionary purpose at some point but are now maybe vestigial or becoming vestigial and just like an appendix can get inflamed and out of control.
I'm with Wayne, here. what he describes, is exactly the way I feel.
leo, I don't think Wayne is saying that he'd agree to date multiple people, necessarily, but that if the woman he's with wants to be sexual with others, she should be honest with him about it. I agree with him.
I think if we talk about the situation, decide to date multiple people, or not we are aware of the situation.
I thinkpeople change, or desire different experiences from time to time. If that is the case, I just want to be aware.
I think because people are not objects, and think, feel, have desires, they need to be free to live.
Sure, I'm talking from a date point of view, but I also don't believe marrying a person puts an automatic lock on their minds.
What I believe we can do to keep a relationship alive, fresh, and fun, is strive to do this.
If you are having a good time, and not coming home, flopping down in front of the TV until bed time, and basicly ignoring your spouse, except to talk to them about your day, or ask what is for dinner, but really reacting and treating them as special as you felt they were when you were trying to marry them, you have done all you can. If this life experience is not enough, and they have desires, let them live.
You have not failed, they have changed is all.
I guess if their was a limited amount of women to go around or men for that matter, people might not desire others, because the choices are limited, and they've seen them all. That is maybe.
Still, in that situation, if you, for example, have 3 women, and 6 men, maybe sharing would take the stress off ownering someone.
Right now, that isn't the case. Plenty humans.
I guess, for me it is better to know your mate is enjoying time with someone else, then run around suspecting, feeling cheated on, and trying to make them stick with anger, threats, and such things.
You can keep a table, but a women is a living thing, that thinks, and has a powerful ability to do so. Let her be as she will be, and you are happier, because you know when she is with you she is with you. You don't even have to think about it, nor worry about it.
For me that is easy.
I do understand this concept is odd, or so I've been told, but for many years, maybe sense I was in my 20's I just was better off letting all the jealous, and ownership feelings go.
Remember, all I just posted is my way. The things I posted before that is more in the fram of what I believe 90% of people to be or believe.
Again, if your spouse has an issue with your friend, you should drop your friend if that friend is getting in the way.
If you aren't willing to drop your friend, you need to get single, because all you'll have is stress.
When you marry a person, you know the level of willingness to allow these close friends. If you marry someone that doesn't like it you signed on for that.
If you insist on changing their minds, do it before you sign up! You can't get mad when you sign up, and they won't change. They never promised you they would.
well said, Wayne. couldn't agree more.
I was cheated on in one of my first relationships and I guess that's another reason why I was more uneasy when I was younger. I've come to realize unfortunately if a person really wants to have an affair with someone, even though they might get caught, they don't care. I haven't been in a serious enough relationship where it would hurt me a lot if someone did. Hopefully I didn't just jinx myself and it doesn't happen but I believe I will end up with a person who wouldn't.
I will post about the friends and spouses thing on a different day, seeing as I am on a time limit, but I do have to say something regarding the recent posts. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that someone would equate cheating with ownership. I personally hate it because, to me, cheating or not cheating is a sign of respect. I would never dream of owning anyone. I don't want to be owned by anyone either. In fact, when an ex of mine told me that he wants to own me I wanted to slap him...And I broke up with him soon thereafter because he freaked me out. I do, however, want to be respected by the one I'm with. I agree that no one should be held back, and that everyone has a right to choose who to be with and when and where. but I don't want to be disrespected. And that's what cheating means to me. I'm a longterm relationship type of girl, as you've all heard before. So if someone's with me, he and I both know that we're agreeing to be together, not just for one date, or one night, or one week, simply because I am not interested in such flings. That being said, my partner has the choice to leave and sleep with whoever, but he has to live with the choice that he's gone from my bed at that point. I think there's nothing resembling ownership there...It's a mutual agreement still. He's still free to leave...Just not free to come back.
If we're using extremeties here, wayne and Chelsea, while you say you dont' want to own anyone or be owned by anyone, I dont' want to be used. And to me, coming and going as you please is a form of using each other. I dont' feel comfortable with that, because if I'm investing my emotions into a relationship with someone, I want to build something worthwhile...Not for it to collapse like a house of cards on a whim.
And Chelsea, I have a genuine question for you...Just out of curiosity. You say you're totally supportive of what wayne is saying about cheating, people having sex with other people outside their relationships, etc. But once or a few times, I heard you state in a post that you wouldnt' want to get involved in someone else's relationship by sleeping with them, because you wouldnt' want to be an accessory to cheating. How do you reconcile the two in your mind. Aren't they two contradictory viewpoints? I'm genuinely curious.
So leo, to answer your questions, I dont' think a polyamorous point of view will ever really become the standard, because emotional situations are complicated for most humans. We're wired that way...And again, that's not mental. It's not, because if it were, I'd be able to convince myself that one night stands would be totally my thing, and Chelsea, for instance would be able to convince herself that she would not have trouble abstaining for two years. She needs sex, and that's perfectly and completely healthy. I need one partner, and that's also perfectly healthy. And that's a biological thing, I believe. not a mental thing. Because if one of you, right now, tried to convince me that a polyamorous lifestyle would benefit me, I could mentally convince myself to try and live that sort of lifestyle, but I wouldn't like it, nor would I be comfortable. So my point is, leo, when you say that a polyamorous outlook would benefit society because it's a more freeing and liberating outlook, I dont' think it would do so, really, because how freeing is it really, if people are just wired to WANT monagomy? You can't benefit from something that makes you feel outright uneasy on many different levels.
Wayne, I wonder...This is just out of curiosity...Do you think that your stance against cheating is a defense mechanism? I'm wondering that, because the way you defend your viewpoint is by basically saying you want to avoid hurting or any kind of negative raw emotion at all costs. Which is fine, but doesnt' that make your stance a defense mechanism?
Ok. that's all from me for now.
Writer, no, I'm not in defense. It just works better for me.
You have a wider view, and your view is mostly like others see it, except they don't even allow for the freedom.
Most people say if you cheat they are going to come fight, and get you back, lock you up.
I don't happen to see your view unhealthy, it is a strong and good place to be, and I can and have been in a relationship with these frames.
My thing is agreement. If I agreed I would be totally faithful, you could take that to the bank, but if I don't agree, you know exactly what you've got. You don't have to think about it at all.
My view doesn't work for most people, just for me.
I also don't demand it from anyone. I just demand honesty.
I couldn't practice it with someone wife, for example, unless I had assurance her husband agreed. It is best done with singles, and even then it is not the majorities stand.
I just don't have a need of a promise. A person gives me what they give me. I accept it, and when they stop giving to me, I have enjoyed what I experienced.
to answer your question, Bernadetta, you asked me in another topic if I'd sleep with married men. I said no. not unless that man is married to me.
seriously, though, in saying that my partner would be free to sleep with others if he or she wanted to, I never said that I'd do the same.
I may want to, though, so it would be a two sided thing.
I wouldn't be hurt if the person I was with wanted to be with others, cause I don't want them to feel they have to be with me, in the first place. if they are, it should be cause they wanna be.
what Wayne and I are trying to get across, is that when we're in a relationship with someone, that person, as well as us, needs to feel free to get their needs met in whatever way suits them.
that's why, if the person I'm with wants to have sex with others, honesty is key. not denying that fact, or sneaking around, but being honest with me about wherever he or she stands.
Wayne is right. what this boils down to, is agreement, or lack thereof.
you can bet that, if I agree to be faithful with someone, I have no problem carrying that out. it's just that, I also feel there shouldn't have to be this unspoken rule, if you will, that the person should be with me, and only me.
as Wayne said, our outlook isn't seen by the majority, but it works for us.
it takes a lot of the pressure off that would otherwise be on relationships, and as he also said, it's much more liberating to be this way.
Yes Chelsea.
I’d like to add, I didn’t start this out of defense, but it does serve in that capacity in some respects.
Not for protecting my heart, but for protecting me and others from stress and struggle.
I realize people sometimes will get attracted to others no matter how good or strong the relationship is thought to be.
I relied people won’t tell you they are not happy, not because of anything you are doing, but because they want to experience someone else, maybe for a while, maybe forever.
I relied, because people aren’t totally honest when they get in to relationships they need to hide things, and I didn’t want that.
An example of this is the bisexual person that wants a regular family life, kids, the home, but they can’t figure out how to get these things in our set value system, so they hide it, or try to push it under the rug. Women seem to get away with this easier, because men refuse to admit his girl would ever need anything better. They refuse to see that that girl’s night out is the night his girl is out with her girl.
I knew a group of married women that were bi and they’d get together to meet other married women, for hooking up. The husbands were not aware, they were told it was just a girl’s night out.
Women seem to be more aware of cheating, but they always assume it is another woman.
People get sick, have heartache and such things, and I just didn’t want cheating to be a part of my life, or something I had to deal with, so I simply dropped it.
This discussion wouldn’t be valid at all if Bob, or Susie was not a threat. In my mind, of my girl says she’s going to be with me, stays with me even though she’s interested in Susie now and then, I’m not threatened at all. Our relationship and hers with Susie are different.
If she should decide Susie is better as her main, I want her to have what she believes she needs for her life. That is what I mean by letting her live.
That to me is total respecting me. It is disrespect when I don’t know.
Several interesting points on this.
First I only posed the poly relationship situation as more of a question since I know so little about them. Most my life all I've known is either strict monogamy which has its roots in Western religion (mainly the Big Three), and the polygamists who misuse women and underage girls.
Only in the past year have I even heard of polyamory.
I'm with Wayne regarding agreements though. Treachery is something all humans from all demographics have a strong revulsion to. Even thieves are angered by being stolen from. High-end drug dealers are angered when someone else sells drugs to their kids.
At the heart of cheating is treachery, which is first and foremost why I never would. I've basically long ago cast aside any other Christian / femitheist dogma about her being used in that situation simply because avoiding being a traitor in the relationship is more than sufficient deterrent. And most people, if they're honest about it, probably hold similar views. In reality, most people actually do not cheat. Cheaters make the news and get the attention because they're the gross exception not the norm.
I used to ask both Christian women and femitheists alike: If all men are cheaters, why are people still talking about it? A squirrel crossing the road does not make the news.
As to wiring for polyamory or monogamy, I've been told by biologists that the science is simply very unclear on this. Bonobos are pretty polyamorous and don't have some of the major control issues that the chimpanzees do. Whether those two factors even relate to each other I don't know. But bonobos are more closely related to us genetically than are chimpanzees.
That doesn't negate Bernadetta's personal experience. But simply the argument we are wired for monogamy is mainly a Western monotheistic / capitalist view. Not saying that is right or wrong but that has more to do with property, control, and maintaining sufficient resource scarcity so as to keep a substantial labor force.
The Being used factor is hard to separate from Christian / femitheist dogma also, because its underlying assumptions are based on certain sexual mores, namely where the heterosexual male is presumed the user and the female is always the used / seduced, the whole snake in the garden / phallic principle. In Wayne's prior post he outlines what can only be described as an agreed-upon understanding just as my long-term marriage is an agreed-upon understanding. Neither Wayne nor his partner nor I nor my partner can claim to "be used" except in a dogmatic circle perhaps. Because the agreement was not violated.
All I can say is I lack what it would take to be polyamorous, and frankly have neither the desire nor the inclination to go through with it. Speaking as a heterosexual male here, I can't conceive of being responsible for the emotional well-being of more than one single woman in a relationship. Boys, if you ever live in a all-female household including teenage daughters who are basically young women you will know what I'm talking about: She had a hard day, and so did she, and their emotional interests actually conflict with each other's because of an interaction and you are responsible in that situation as parent to one and lover to the other to meet them where they're at emotionally, albeit it would be different with two lovers of course no parental considerations.
And the hardest part? You would love them both equally. Of course the household / parental analogy does break down. But where you as a man would run into situations where both or all three love interests have conflicting emotional needs and you were truly in love with all three? That makes me think of the alien from the Martian Chronicles who ultimately melted down because it could not manage the conflicting emotions coming from all other participants.
This, at least in my imagination, is what polyamorous life could look like to a heterosexual male, and so is quite unattractive.
The only possible exceptions to this are the situations I've seen on the Sexual futurist Youtube channel where they show the women gaining emotional solace from each other in the relationship as well. That could potentially even things out, the operative word being could.
Also some who write about the disposability of the human male quite accurately state that in former repressive societies men held women tightly in relationships so they could assure the only children they are paying for are his. Now, as evidenced by modern family courts and other institutions, it's obvious many women will still hold tightly to the male resource in the relationship, since in this instance she doesn't want his resources being divided between her and her children and somebody else / somebody elses. Since in human beings resources are not just material but emotional, it makes sense to me that women, especially those with a strong monotheistic or femitheist dogma would be more assertive regarding outside friendships of her gender. After all, if we look at emotional resources as finite and capital we can see how she would feel stolen from, in some way like if he took her fur coat and gave it to some other chick. People use the word investment when talking about emotions and that is no accident. Emotional availability could be easily said to be a capital resource.
It is perhaps this underlying reason I have basically had no issue with foregoing some of these in my own personal marriage, since I would never take her things and give them to someone else, if the emotional availability and time are basically her property if you will, that would be theft. I think the monotheists / femitheists prefer to say the person (usually female) is being used, because you really have a stronger emotional argument when talking about a "user" than you do a thief.
I think the most rational, objective, least prone to dogma argument I can think of, for many Western women raised in a monotheistic / femitheistic environment where emotional support is her property, if I have a close female friend that might be a theft of resources. At least from the partner's perspective. I'm assuming if women were traditionally the procurer of resources and men the traditional controllers of their outflow, then the situation would be in reverse and you'd see a majority of men acting this way and a few freaky controlling women who act like the few freaky controlling men do now.
It's probably little more than resource semantics when you boil it all down and strip away any veneer.
When you talk to people in the advertising industry they will tell you that women control how over 80% of finances in the developed world get used, and so it follows their obvious demographic of appeal is going to be women. There are a few isolated incidents of male-only spaces for advertising but if it's called family or general I know advertising professionals, not just women - plenty of men, they say that basically means appeal to her because ultimately she decides. Some will get angry and say that's a broad brush, but that's just economics, there's no conspiracy. So I guess if you see emotional resources as no more than capital, I can't see women as "shallow" or insecure for controlling that capital as well as the rest of it.
And yes, yes, yes, there are exceptions, and occasionally a man bites a dog. But generally speaking, this is how it works. Even though we males are basically disposable / human appliances, I'm not saying every woman in every situation treats us that way, it's a societal thing from Selective Service to expectations of protection and provision even now. I don't know if it started when we split from the evolutionary tree, or if it came with the agricultural revolution or what. But such seems to be how things usually work, with a few notable exceptions.
Yes, I can see your views Leo. In the Western society the rules are not set up to have a 2 female house.
Or 2 man house.
In societies were these relationships are the norm, the man that has 2 women or more must provide each a home, or private section of a large house.
He visiits each house, so much of the problems you see, and I agree with, are not there.
Some society's allow a man up to 4 wives, but the situation I'm talking about it not exactly like that. I think you know what I meant, so I don't need to say.
I actually have a great deal of respect for the views expressed here by Wayne and Chelsea. While it's not for me (mostly because, like Bernadetta, it's just not something I could be happy doing, even if it's rational) I can see how it would be very liberating. I prefer monagomy, which means that, if a man is in a relationship with me, he understands that I expect him to be faithful. This is not because faithfulness to one partner is inherently better, it's only because that's what we've agreed. And, no, it has little to do with property or ownership, it's just what works best for me. Sleeping with someone else while in a relationship isn't inherently bad; it's only bad if it's a breech of the agreement you and your partner have made together. My partner and I have an understanding that we'll be faithful to each other, but that does not mean that other couples should be like that.
Leo, I like your point about treachery. It's very true that the part of cheating that hurts so damn much is the idea that your partner did something behind your back, while knowing that you would be hurt by it. It's less about the act itself and more about what it represents, I think.
Ramble over. :)
you're exactly right, Meglet.
also, as Wayne and I've both said, it's not that we can't or won't be faithful to someone. it's just that it needs to be agreed upon, first. not assumed, simply cause most people think that way, but specifically talked about honestly, and mutually agreed upon whatever decision is right for those involved.
I have enjoyed reading these, a lot of interesting ideas have been posed here. I definitely agree that communication is absolute key. If two people never talk about what is expected when they get into a relationship, whether it be fidelity, the nature of friendships, sex, etc., then it shouldn't be assumed that two people are on the same page about it. I also think it is really important to make sure that double standards are avoided. When I have been asked whether I would be upset if my male fiancé had a close female friend, I could honestly say no, it wouldn't bother me, because I don't believe in prescribed gender roles and I also trust my fiancé to communicate and maintain the fidelity we agreed upon.
So if my fiancé were to get annoyed at me for having a male best friend, I would potentially suspect that it had more to do with trust than with the fact that he's male.
Sounds like you and your fiance, plus Shepherwolf and Meglet, and a few others on here have the right ideas. At least starting out.
All I can advise of any man is if you'e off on a business trip or gonna see a female friend, just let your better half know the details before anything happens, since we turds tend to forget detail and she may ask later why something happened which you then have completely forgotten. I make this a regular practice because I know myself well enough to know that if something was to raise a question in her mind, chances are I would have forgotten all about it and certainly couldn't ask that ever-present question 'why' for why something got said or done, or where we went on a particular situation. Unless you're a guy who can track all this detail in the long-term memory definitely do what I do and always be way up-front with that stuff. This isn't to say I always get asked or that you would always get asked, just to say that in the event you get asked you probably won't remember and that always raises suspicion. It's far more romantic and interesting for humans of any persuasion to believe suspicion than it is to realize the other person just didn't think or know it would be important and so didn't remember.
Just a way for us guys to protect ourselves, and no I'm not saying 'all women' anything just most have questions, and yes it's a broad brush but many of us guys simply don't keep track of the level of social detail required to remember what got said in what conversation or even who they sat by at a particular function on a business trip. If there's any damage by what I've said it's me painting guys like myself as oftentimes a pack of forgetful clods when it comes to socially complicated things.
And you ladies, do the same. Be up front and everything will be easier.
And if you ask it, you must give it!
right on to the last few posts. especially meglet's and Wayne's.
if everyone is upfront, there won't be near as many issues as people have, now. that's a guarantee.
I can tell you beeing in a relationship, while the other sleeps with someone is not for me, I speak from a purspective of a person who has had it done to them. Its one thing to have friends be it it healthy nothing goes on, its another when crap goes down your partner wants to work things out but keep the pric around she cheeted on you with at the time. That is all I can say on this topic with out airing out my durty londry out here for everyone to see.
We wanna see your dirty laundry. Keep it interesting.