Would you ever actually do what Susan did?

[iapr]

I realise that last nights show was somewhat metophoric for representing the women's movement in showing Susan going to the fund raiser against Bruces wishes. I also realise the message is that Susan was standing up for her own opinions and thoughts on political/social topics and was not just a puppet for her husbands politcal/social beliefs.

But, would any of you actually go to any kind of lifestyle event or lifestyle-related gathering if your partner sincerly requested you not to go? I would never go to an event if my partner did not want me to go or would feel the least bit threatened or uncomfortable.

And while I am definately NOT a male chauvanist, if my wife went to a party behind my back after I clearly and sincerly explained that I did not want her to go I would be livid and very hurt. It would also cause me to question how much she really respected me and how concerned she really is about my feelings and comfort. I think what they were potraying there is a very dangerous fine line between polical and free thinking autonomy and just plain selfishness and self-centeredness with disregard to others feelings.

Again I know the show was trying to show a bigger picture of women being able to form their own opinions and standing up for what they believe in but I really don't think that standing up for your own opinions gives one license to hurt the feelings of your spouse and to recklessly cause needless pain and distress.

I think there is a bit of a double standard taking place there also. When Susan got home Lorrie was there patting her on the back and showing female solidarity for her standing up to Bruce. If the roles had been reversed and Bruce had gone to the party against Susan's wishes would everyone be patting him on the back?

What are your thoughts on all of that?

[DecaturAreaCpl]

First of all, it was not called a "lifestyle" (ugh to that term--but a topic for another time) event. It was a fund raiser. It happened to be a fund raiser hosted by a couple who swings. Does this mean that if a couple who swings decides to host a party for a teenage child it is a "lifestyle" event? How dumb is that? So if it is not swing party, why should she have to have permission? It turns into a fuckfest, she doesn't play. Easy enough. Did her husband have permission to wear that hideously stupid shirt out to a bowling alley where he could crush beer cans on his head? She's supposed to plan her life around that? And while we're at it--take a look at that shirt and tell me this is the guy you want handling your investments!

[Frognlisa]

I saw the party as discussion party like a book club, but was not promoted as a "lifestyle/swing" party. I expect my wife to have opinions and friends that I may not click connect with, such as she being an educator and me a thug, there are evens she attends let's face it i would be bored as hell at, while i a gamer and she would be bored at some our events.

If it was a swing party, I asked her not go she wouldn't just as I wouldn't . So I guess him just assuming was a swing party was just that assumption and I for one think she would play without discussing with him.

[Menage_a_Trois]

It wasn't a lifestyle function it was clearly a fundraiser which did take a lifestyle twist but that wasn't the basis for the get together.......as for would I ever do it - YES in a minute if my husband or SO was behaving like Bruce and 1) being coming upset for me developing my own thoughts and opinions and 2) (and most importantly) he continues to talk AT me and not with me about the issue.................

[Pepper & Drew]

Originally Posted by iapr

But, would any of you actually go to any kind of lifestyle event or lifestyle-related gathering if your partner sincerly requested you not to go? I would never go to an event if my partner did not want me to go or would feel the least bit threatened or uncomfortable.

And while I am definately NOT a male chauvanist, if my wife went to a party behind my back after I clearly and sincerly explained that I did not want her to go I would be livid and very hurt. It would also cause me to question how much she really respected me and how concerned she really is about my feelings and comfort. I think what they were potraying there is a very dangerous fine line between polical and free thinking autonomy and just plain selfishness and self-centeredness with disregard to others feelings.

I think there is a bit of a double standard taking place there also. When Susan got home Lorrie was there patting her on the back and showing female solidarity for her standing up to Bruce. If the roles had been reversed and Bruce had gone to the party against Susan's wishes would everyone be patting him on the back?

The whole idea was that Bruce didn't feel like he had to ask PERMISSION to go see "Deep Throat", yet Susan did. And, as others have said, it was not a lifestyle event.

To me, if Bruce didn't want Susan to go to the event, instead of forbidding it without discussion, he should have asked her why she wanted to go, told why he didn't want her to go, and they should have had a discussion about her going. But, to tell her she wasn't going, a la 'because I said so' like she was some teenager, didn't fly on TV and it wouldn't have flown at our house either.

Pepper

[ownerspet]

Originally Posted by Pepper & Drew

he should have asked her why she wanted to go, told why he didn't want her to go, and they should have had a discussion about her going.
Pepper

Pepper has a good point here, and I'm sure if the tables were turned and it was Bruce wanting to go somewhere based on his opinion and Susan disagreeing, I would have to say the same thing here from the other side.

If it was just a swingers party, my wife or I wouldn't leave the other out, but this goes much further than this. No Susan doesn't need his permission, but as the spouse that has been chosen as your lifetime committed partner I would think anyone would hold enough value in their significant other's thoughts and inputs that he or she would seek them out on things (especially if it is something that the couple disagrees on).

I agree that Bruce didn't even try to really discuss the issue, so the couple ended up with a loose-loose situation. Unfortunately with any situation (vanilla or neopolitan) with a couple, if either of the couple refuses to try to communicate with disagreements that you feel strongly about they usually end up with the same result. Even if one of the couple gives to the others way, it leave the door open for negative feelings such as resentment to raise it's ugly head. As a couple, I beleive the most important thing is US.

Don't get me wrong, as couples there are some issues that you just have to respectfully agree to disagree, we're human not robots. Although you should respect the view point of your spouse, and even if you disagree, maybe you should go to the party or the event with your spouse to find out why they feel so strongly about a topic. I know my wife would do that for me, why shouldn't I do the same for her.

That's my 2 cents.

[JustAskJulie]

Have to agree with my Pet & Pepper.
1. It wasn't a lifestyle party and if it were, NO, I'd never go without my partner being ok with it.

Given the situation and the event that it was and the fact that Susan was not even given the chance to discuss why she wanted to go just told "NO. We'll talk about it when I get home". As it you sit home and wait for me to get home and we'll talk about it when it's then too late for you to go. And it would have been too late for either of them to go had Bruce not realized she was there without him... how long would he have stayed out drinking with Roger?

I found it most interesting that Roger was totally ok with Janet going to support her friend, but yet Bruce was not ok. I do think that Bruce has a tendancy to make the assumption that everything related to Trina & Tom is lifestyle related. I don't think he has really learned to seperate the two or understand that Trina & Tom are just normal people who swing (just like he wants him and Susan to be). For him, swinger is Tom & Trina and everything else is Roger & Janet.

All that said, yes if there was a cause that I really believed in and a fund-raiser or event was being held around that cause and my husband would not take the time to listen to why I wanted to go and just flat out said "no" without listening or making an attempt to understand why, I would go anyway. HOWEVER, when he showed up and then walked out, I would have gone home a lot sooner to discuss with him why I went anyway, rather than sitting outside by myself while everyone else was inside watching the movie.

[Playful1]

Something like that, that was social rather than sexual (or at least the starting intention wasn;t sexual) and my sig other acted like bruce, heck yeah i'd go anyway. In fact, acting that way towards me is the fastest way to get me to do exactly the opposite of what you want, lol.

To a swinging party, no, but we'd likely have a long talk about why they didn't want me to go.

[deanncat]

Usually when hubby doesn't want me to go to something I would not unless i'm trying to prove a point its just not worth the arguement

[2inSanDiego4u]

The Mrs. says "absolutely, she would go". However, she also says that she would not have gone down in the basement at the end of the party! She did not see this event as a lifestyle event, so all bets are off. The issue with Susan was bigger than just violating their lifestyle "rules". Bruce should have gone with her to show his support. The problem is him, not her. Heck, even her prudish best friend showed up to support her!

[myhw4u]

We had a lengthy discussion about this specific topic, lol. B wouldn't go to the party, but then again I wouldn't have gone bowling either. That's not quite how things should work, at least not for us.

[beachguyz]

It seems to me that the show has more than the obvious plot. It illustrates some of the mentality that people had in the 1970's as well as today. Women/Wives are not property.
They are fully capable of making their own decisions and any man who believes he is in control of his wife (in most cases) is fooling himself.

I think some men somehow feel that once they have marked their territory, they take over the female and own them. While I don't believe that to be true in every case, it is fairly obvious to me that some men are still living in the stone age. My wife has a friend who is so unhappy because her husband might as well have been living 50 years ago. He actually takes her to various events so that she has no opportunity to be seen with or talk to anyone. He expects his wife who works out of the home to be his slave.

Male half

[sweet_tna]

Okay, first of all, the party that Susan went to was NOT a lifestyle party--it was a fund-raiser party for Harry Reems. Yes, there was an "after-party", but that was not the main event to which the invites were sent.

That said, would I have gone to a fund-raiser party if Mr. Sweet had reacted the way Bruce did--telling me "No" as though I were his child and not his equal partner? Hell yes! I would have, like Susan did, try to explain why I felt it was important, and stated that I WAS going. None of the responses so far have taken into account that Susan did not lie to Bruce, which she could easily have done, since she knew he'd be out bowling all evening.

Bruce made no attempt to listen to Susan, and (like Julie pointed out) left for his "guy's night out" expecting her to be at home waiting. And really, what's the likelihood that he would actually have discussed his reasons with her when he got home at Lord-knows-what-hour ?

I also agree that Bruce is still under the impression that everything with the Deckers equates with sex/swinging, but I think the bigger issue is that he is having a lot of trouble accepting Susan's budding independence. And I think that's gonna' be their biggest hurdle for their relationship.

And for the record, if Mr. Sweet asked me not to do something and we discussed our reasons with each other, then I would elect to stay home. It's part of that whole respect thing. But chances are, he'd let me go if it was important enough to me.

=)

[gnb4u]

Maybe I am seeing things differently than most. I guess I DO see the Deckers fund raiser as a "lifestyle-related" event. It is being hosted by swingers, a good percentage of the guest list are swingers and the guest of honor is a porn star and it is to raise money for legal defense to distribute a porn movie. What is not lifestyle-related about all of that??

Would a reasonable person not think that there was a reasonable expectation for play to be taking place at an event like that? If Trina were hosting one of Janets Tupperware parties for the nieghborhood ladies then yes I would say that is not a lifestyle event but i think this particular event clearly was even thought the invitation wasn't specifically a "play party."

I agree with everyone else here that the event was not a "lifestyle" party. It was a couple who are swingers that decided to host a "fundraiser" for a porn star.

I was born in 1976,so I never had to make decisions like Susan had to do then. During that time period, woman did not really get to have their own say in things or get to stand up for something they felt strong about. I commend Susan on going to the movie on her own to see what she was missing and what the talk was all about but I also commend her on going to the fundraiser and supporting something she felt strongly on. I think for Susan that was a time to show Bruce that she doesn't want to be just the stay at home mom and wife, who goes along with only what he believes is right. She stood up for what she felt was right and I am so glad she made that decision to go to the event.

As for your initial question, if this was a lifestyle event and MrVan asked me not to go, then I would not go. I would never want to do anything that would hurt MrVan's feelings or get him upset. The lifestyle is for US not for me.

MrsVan