Jump to content

RaysWays

Registered
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

Community Reputation

-31

About RaysWays

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Info

  • Location
    Pasadena
  1. There weren't any responses I 'wanted' (other than ones that were on topic). Many people did make interesting, if not germane, points. OK... now may I ask you: is this because you feel that it is 'wrong' in a moral sense (like it violates something spiritual)? A practical reason (drama, danger, whatever)? Because a cheater (including your friend) is dishonest and therefore at some gut level unappealing? Or - something else entirely (horseradish on his penis, whatever)? Maybe 'all of the above and then some' is what you are thinking, but what reason is the most important?
  2. Seems to me that at this point one is, within a context of sex, parsing the meaning of 'cheating'. The word used minimally means 'having sex without the knowledge of the partner'. Think of a therapist clinically describing a case to another therapist - 'he'd been cheating for several months when he left for New York...' The word can additionally imply immorality (in a tone of disapproval), e.g. 'He'd already been cheating on her for months when he went to New York with that girlfriend' Additude's example (the informed spouse) is cheating by the first meaning but not by the second. OK, now take that example a step further: Is it cheating (by either def. or some third one) if the withholding partner is indifferent to it? How about if s/he couldn't care, like a married couple that has had no contact for two years?
  3. The fourth principle, by your example - When you have nothing at all, pound away with ad homineum arguments (hey, it's still billable hours). Isn't the customary litigator's phrase "this unique legal theory" --? That is beside the point. What I suggested was that a cheater does not warrant knee-jerk condemnation. The idea that one is not bound to honor a breached contract was a challenge to the reflexive 'it's wrong, period' mindset. You no tell, I no tell Yikes! Even without children? Sho' 'nuff. But the discussion was really more about long-term withholding than tiffs or squabbles. I bet your wife has, too Yup, a lawyer. Hmm - is honesty also the reason that racism, ageism, appearance-ism, matriarchal unilateralism, homophobia and sexism are ubiquitous among swingers? Yes Mom. I noted previously that these posts are not about my life. What I was prodding at is whether swingers, clearly possessing both broader views of sexuality and a willingness to flout conventional propriety, extend their open-mindedness to cheaters. * Chill. My father (a lawyer) -- fave lawyer joke: A judge in his chambers hears a knock. A man enters and says "Your honor, my client's case will be tried in your court tomorrow. This envelope has ten thousand dollars cash in it; I'm leaving it to ensure of your favorable consideration." The judge nods, the man leaves. Later that day another man appears. He also puts down an envelope, says "Your honor, my client's case will be tried in your court tomorrow. In this envelope is five thousand dollars to ensure of your favorable consideration." The judge looks at him for a few moments, then says "You know, this is actually a pretty interesting case. For another five thousand we could let the jury decide".
  4. Whoo-hoo! Next time why not deal with the topic (IvoryTowers' error)? Just a thought. OK -- "blimped out mommies" - sorry if this offended. It was used (as a cliche) to clarify in a question. So yeah, different strokes - some guys even have a fetish for pregnant women. "Not all sex starved men have only their wives to blame." Of course not - why would anyone think so? "why would anyone WANT to swing with someone that was cheating, when there are so many opportunities to swing with people who AREN'T?" For the same reasons. This question highlights the matter - that while stigmatizing and rejecting a cheater may well be a suitable reaction, it really isn't justified or fair-minded to do so automatically. You went on to discuss how people will automatically assume swingers are evil or dangerous - the same reaction in a different context, and equally unjustified. "Pardon my simplicity...but two wrongs make it right?" The heart of the matter is whether the second 'wrong' is really wrong or whether the first wrong voids the agreement which makes it wrong. Like, if your gardener stops working, it's not wrong to stop paying him - the agreement was voided by the gardener's actions.
  5. Forgot this one - "Do you really think that someone who cheats on a spouse and a swinger are exactly the same? If not, you've made a judgment" A lack of opinion is not a judgment, Ms. Intellectual, it is an empty set, an absence. Rather, the assertion of 'sameness' would be a judgment.
  6. Ditto, triply. Not even Butch Cassidy or the Sundance Kid (film versions)? It wasn't responsive to your original premise. Nowhere did I say you should go outside your own limits. What I did say was that the blanket knee-jerk condemnation of cheaters was unjustified, citing a possible (and common) situation, that of withholding, to illustrate the point. Gadamighty, what a non sequitur (another victim of the public schools?). Swinging per se has basically been irrelevant for a couple of posts! The context is swinging, but the issue is now the ethics of cheating, a topic that transcends swinging. Just out of curiosity, IT, what do you think of prostitution and pornography? ASIDE: If withholding is done as often by men as by women can anyone come up with a slang equivalent to "pussywhipped" for women?
  7. Swingers Board Addict? That's maybe 70% right. And you have gone beyond the issues I raised. First of all, I'm not big on judging others. We do not walk in others' moccasins and we do not experience life as they do. It is up to us only to decide who we accept and who we don't. So if your own standards are that you are not ok with playing with a cheater, so be it - I don't judge, and I don't somehow think you 'should'. I didn't say that the man has the 'right' to seek it outside marriage, in fact I don't think that idea is even relevant. My point was that reflexive condemnation - judging a cheater morally wrong - is not justified. Harsh words aimed at the cheater are ugly even if they feel morally empowering to the speaker. Clarification of two perspectives: From the POV of contractual (marriage) obligation, the sex-withholder has breached the terms of the contract. The other person is not then bound by the terms of a breached contract, neither by logic nor by contract law. Condemning that person as dishonest (for not honoring the agreement) does not hold water. The contract ceased to exist when the withholder breached it; a cheater can't be accused of breaching something that no longer exists. Out of the sexual context: you hire a gardner and agree to pay him to clean your yard. He doesn't show up (a breach), you don't pay him (NOT a breach). The POV of morality also does not support condemnation, much less reflexive condemnation - "cheating is wrong, period". That absolute use of morality, devoid of context, makes no sense. Take "lying is wrong, period", the absolute view. Saying "I have a gun" while I push a pen against a thug's spine is lying, but in context calling it wrong makes no sense. SO. It is not a given that cheaters are immoral or that they are dishonest, and invoking absolutes in dealing with them is not justified. You might then reconsider how you view the topic. Foller? You can't know that any more than you can know anything else that might make you avoid him - whether he has an STD, whether he is a criminal, whether he robs banks, kicks his dog or doesn't use turn signals. So why does cheating in particular seem to get close attention among lifestylers? Do what is right for you, obviously. But you can also look at cheaters and cheating from a new perspective and adjust your attitudes accordingly. Hmmm... "Casual and unsupported gender claims"... want to start a new forum along these lines, sort of a 'Mythbusters' post?
  8. Oh Lordy, indeed. This response is even worse than IvoryTowers for a disconnect from content and purpose of my posts. Would you mind so much READING what I said before commenting on it? And not responding to what an angry reaction makes you believe I said? This kind of stuff drives me gaga - it derails the discussion through misdirection because of errors that are easily avoided. Example: I did not say it was or anything even close to that. Read the post... 'Lying about the gun' was cited as an example of the misapplication of moral principles. The immoral act in a cheating situation that I was comparing was the withholding of sex by the cheater's spouse. The comparison WAS NOT to anything done by the cheater, right or wrong, and the point I was making WAS NOT any justification of any behavior of the cheater. The point WAS in the very next comment: "To judge the cheater's actions out of the context of deprivation is to establish a false frame of reference where moral principles become servants of an existing wrong." If you would READ what I wrote - it is clear I didn't say that or mean that at all. Your response is outrage that blocks reason (echoing IvoryTower almost perfectly). My point exactly - didn't you read what I said? That's an example of your belief that morals are fluid? Or is it an example of huge female sexual power that protects you when you believe flattering but hopelessly contradictory ideas? The anger in your response I've heard before, always from younger women. [Aside and off topic - my grandmother's early 20th century etiquette: "Never say someone is old or young; good manners requires 'older' or 'younger'] ...which is precisely why I invoked avatars to describe posting. Gaw! So walk the walk. Oy, enough of this. Let's get naked .
  9. Swingers are not representative of the population - swinging by its very nature selects for people who are very sexual and willing to flout convention. The surplus of males and dearth of females indicates quite clearly that there is a large gender gap. I would guess you are right that a lot of it is due to the traditional double standard. But there is much more to the social dynamics, especially using withholding to manipulate males. Another is what you mentioned - it seems to be almost entirely a female problem to feel guilty or inhibited by disapproval associated with her mother.
  10. No, I'm neither a cheater nor a cheatee. The only related experience I had was some years ago when my play partner moved away. My status changed from "with bi-female" to "single male" and the doors slammed shut. What I'm interested in is how others view insiders vs. outsiders and related topics (if at all). It seems to be an area with a considerable amount hidden (and denial thereof).
  11. No, I'm not in the situation of playing with a cheater, nor have I been.
  12. OK, IvoryTowers, it's the weekend and I've got some time to respond. Candidly, your outrage and lack of reasoning are what is most visible in your reply. AH! Ivory tower, Philly and sloppy thinking. U of Penn?? B'gaw, fits perfectly what we thought of Penn when I was at Harvard and sis was at Penn. ;~). Not hardly. Of course 'available sex' is the default in marriage! Only prior or mutual agreement would override that. Withholding and refusal are wrong - at minimum a breach of implied covenants. Example (actual client of a therapist friend) - a couple had gone through a conventional courtship, etc, including sexual activity. Then, as soon as they were married, the woman simply would not have sex any more. Nothing had changed but marital status. Who would you say was in the wrong? (FYI She turned out to be a total narcissist, saw sex only as a way to get a husband. Divorced in less than six mos.) Actually it was clearly labeled a guess. Read before responding. As to sexism, swinging is the most sexist activity that I can even think of - "No Single Males" & "Single Women Free Admission". We've already seen the gender divide in playing with cheating women vs. cheating men. ...which you in fact have no knowledge of I said I GUESSED 90% women. Clearly the remaining 10% meant men. And for your own example - a single anecdote does not establish a social pattern. At least I KNEW I was guessing - still a higher standard than anecdote. Gaw! (Your friend's husband apparently has real problems... did she go the 'blimped out mommy' route or otherwise lose attractiveness?) I didn't say anything like that. Pass. So what made it mine? This is quite a generalization and you present no evidence for it. For the sake of argument, say it's true. It may indeed be the easiest or the best way (why is that bad?) - that's not the issue. The issue is whether the cheating, a response to withheld sex, is wrong or not. It's like lying to an attacker that 'a pen is a gun' (see my previous response). So is it then immoral to pretend a pen is a gun to stop a crime? The core issue here is not what morality says but how to apply morality to the situation correctly. I would argue that morality has to be rooted in what in the situation is right, not what is wrong. To judge the cheater's actions out of the context of deprivation is to establish a false frame of reference where moral principles become servants of an existing wrong. Any resulting 'moral' judgment lacks foundation and therefore validity. That's up to you. But there is still more confusion. Why have sex with him? Because of something that appeals? Because (for example) he is charming, funny, sexy and a hot f-ck who knows his way around a woman's body? Because it will be just plain fun? How about because you can see he is a sweet guy caught in a place with no room, hurting and longing for intimacy and fun? Let him eat cake? Why NOT is a better question. Perhaps because in your eyes it is all about what YOU (the female) want (because you can)? Your reaction to the cheater reflects the immensity of the sexual power disparity - with no personal knowledge you haughtily condemn and reject all cheaters as beneath your consideration. Since his character seems to be your focus, ponder this: The real measure of character is how we act when we will not suffer consequences for our own misbehavior toward another. Example - a boss who is a sexual harasser is displaying poor character. Good character is demonstrated when someone with significant power over others refuses to indulge it and treats them with consideration, kindness and respect. What character would one infer from your venom, contempt and use of stereotyping? Chill a lot and think a little. I.T., it isn't personal (really). Yes this is response doesn't mince words, but remember that in here we are two avatars arguing for entertainment and enlightenment, not real people. If it matters, what I actually believe is that you are probably a perfectly good person and not like what I was describing - after all, you are open-minded enough to be in the lifestyle. So maybe you haven't really had a reason to think about these issues in depth.
  13. Surprised at the level of interest! When I've discussed this topic (and related ones), the trend seems to be that the men agree, the older women disagree and the younger women disagree violently. The point of my post wasn't to lay out an examination of sexually dysfunctional marriages - it was to point out that cheaters (esp. males) may be responding to impossible situations. While (as always) it is a matter of personal choice to play with them, some insight into their situations could well show you that being supportive is appropriate and condemnation is not. So ok, one can hold that cheating is wrong no matter what, but I don't find this view to be very logical in a situation where the correspondent isn't operating ethically. Example: You come home and observe that thug has broken in and is threatening your spouse. You sneak in, jam a pen against his spine, tell him you have a gun and will use it. This is, obviously, lying. Does that make it wrong? Another ex. - when questioning a suspect, police will often use ruses, lies or tricks to fool a culpable suspect into believing they know his story is false (the US Supreme Court has upheld this practice). Are the police morally wrong for using deceit? Personally I would say no -- a situation's morality is not derived from the actions of the wrongdoer. So the breach of marital conduct (by the sex withholder) invalidates the existing standards as a measure of marital behavior. So I guess one's level of comfort with a cheater (assuming everyone is truthful and forthcoming) depends on one's view of the validity of a set of standards that have been breached. I'll bet the gender divide on that issue is quite large. Some responses to comments: Shutting down sexually - overall I'd guess it is much more common among women, but I've never seen any stats. 'How often do you want sex' -type studies usually seem to have the men wanting somewhat more than the woman, if that is any indicator. Of COURSE this situation isn't behind most cheating! So Mr. CXCC, for you the standards were still valid and you adhered to them; more power to you. But I don't see that this would be true for everyone subjected to spousal withholding (does anal sex, um, rectify the situation?). This I know: when a baby arrives (esp. the first one) things conspire against sex: exhaustion, too little sleep, new chores. I don't think it's at all uncommon for the man to get pushed aside for a couple of months because the woman is so focused on the baby. This seems to pass in 6 mos to a year, but for some women it is a new status quo. Mr. CXCC, it takes TWO to communicate. Hmm... does that mean you learned this fact because of the preverbal 2x4?. (sorry, bad puns are one of my spices).
  14. Everyone has a take on it, I guess. No shortage of condemnation of cheaters, but it is interesting that no one condemns the spouse who chooses to stop supplying sex. In even the most vanilla marriage, the agreement and expectation are that sex is available. The spouse who unilaterally withholds by choice (I would guess that 90%+ of the time it is the woman) is the one violating the marriage agreement. Why is the other person then bound by expectation of fidelity? Anyone who knows even a little law can tell you that a broken contract is no longer binding - as, would you honor your obligation to pay the refuse company if they stopped picking up your trash? Also it is interesting that some here would engage with a cheating solo bi-f, even if they held cheating to be wrong, because bi females are in short supply. The reverse argument, that married men are less guilty for cheating because females willing to engage with them are hard to find, is laughable. One of the ten commandments proscribes adultery (more male than female, nature's programming), but there is nothing comparable that tells women to 'supply'. If you consider the situation a male faces when his spouse 'turns off' it is pretty bleak. Basically he can abstain, masturbate secretly (keep that damn porn hidden, mister), cheat or leave - 'beat, cheat or the street'. Ok - who endorses male sexual shutdown because of the woman's withdrawal? What percent of shut-down women would have fits about porn (my guess: high)? For a man, leaving his family (when he may well not want to) will almost certainly wreak financial havoc and create emotional devastation on a huge scale, especially to children - and to fathers (that is - males). The underlying reasons for this stuff are not pretty. Reality is that women basically control sex (the powerless female), not men. So overwhelming is the power imbalance that even when the results are absurd, they seem normal, invisible, part of the woodwork. For example, consider a woman who deceives a trusting man to get pregnant (and so ensure a continuing relationship, even... marriage?). The male has no control at all over the fetus (half his) - can't even require adoption. The woman's deceit is endorsed by the system - she is awarded absolute power to decide whether to hand the man an 18-year sentence. If he at any point agrees to provide for the child, he cannot get out even when it is revealed that he is not the father! But the woman has committed no crime; a lot of women would even hold she has done nothing wrong. So, folks, where does the tilted playing field (dead-ass vertical) leave the male when his partner just opts out of sex? Empowered? Consider what even a short walk in his moccasins is like before you turn him away and castigate him.
  15. Feminine side? I say no... unless you consider being tuned in to others 'feminine'. Seems to me the attraction of swinging is two or three things -- fun, sharing and heat with others is one. Also, there is a connection with your partner that comes from seeing and accepting the other's sexuality, which can be electrifying. Many swingers report having the hottest sex ever after a party or club. Finally, there is the outlet for bi women to be with women in a way that doesn't challenge the relationship. As to who controls the scene, let's get real! Women control sex in the larger world, where it is much less prominent, and they control it here. The underlying dynamic is that generally the male needs the female to participate, but the reverse is not true ("Single Men Not Allowed, Single Women No Charge"). So at least implicitly, the woman has the power. Power blinds, here and outside. One woman I know who likes gangbangs really gets off on (her words) "being able to pick and choose among the men because they all want her". I personally find this power tripping kind of ugly, and when I told her so, she couldn't at all relate, thought it was 'twisted'. As one who has been in the situation where my partner moved away, I can tell you it is nearly impossible to get back in at all - but women are recruited and can walk right in. And I agree wholeheartedly that advanced forms of sex are much less about one's self and more about one's partner(s). The key: good lovers take their greatest pleasure from the partner's responses. Similar notion to connecting to your own partner's sexuality, which is a prerequisite to knowing how to get him/her to respond. Is this feminine? Frankly, I think it's more common for guys to "get it" than women. I LOVE getting a woman to respond more intensely than she even knew was possible (and she'll remember in the old folks' home). I've never met a woman who was fully there, but I have met guys who "get it".
×
×
  • Create New...