|
Post by h on Dec 11, 2019 15:13:14 GMT -5
h Handy angeleyes65 et AL We women do have our ways. Most women I see have DEVELOPED those ways because "our culture" still values youthful appearance above most other aesthetic qualities in women. IMHO When I speak of culture and aesthetic preferences, I guess I'm largely speaking of "Western Eurocentric Colonialistic Culture." Is that a thing? It seems most of us on this board are in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Canada. Those areas seem to share that culture which values youthful appearance in women. Other areas also value those qualities, of course, but I don't think we have any South Americans on the board, for example. Shout out to northstarmom in Mexico, but that's still North America even though it's warm there! Yeah, yeah, I know the why. I was more baffled by the how. Unless my eyesight is terrible, I thought she was closer to my age. It wasn't meant to be a societal commentary, but rather, an observation.
|
|
|
Post by angeleyes65 on Dec 11, 2019 15:52:26 GMT -5
h. That picture is me. I'm 54 my kids are 35 and 31 my grandson is a year old. I think I just got good genes lol. But thank you!
|
|
|
Post by carl on Dec 11, 2019 16:48:41 GMT -5
sadkat. angeleyes65 thank you for sharing some of how you connect to men or men you like. I like the way Sadkat explores people using her mind and connects on an intellectual level and angeleyes connects by sharing film and music. A lot of thoughts and emotions involving the mind and brain. That certainly would render some people quite vulnerable for sure lol. I don’t like to be so emotional or as deeper thinker like that maybe. But it’s nice that other people are. It’s a lovely way to connect. If you can. I wouldn’t like to connect like that as it would seem like too much of an investment. I think I would naturally feel some attachment, so I am not sure if that would be fun. Maybe the opposite. I am so different. It’s a wonder I ever got anywhere. Perhaps that’s why I stay. I hear the term bait and switch being used sometimes. I never thought much of it but I feel curious about recently. What a strange concept. I’ll read about it. What do other people understand by it ?
|
|
|
Post by angeleyes65 on Dec 11, 2019 18:30:22 GMT -5
carl we talk about bait and switch alot For instance when my ex and I were dating I was the center of his world. After marriage I was like a piece of furniture he only noticed if it was useful to him at that time. My bf wife loved sex until they got married but after the ring was on she had no use for it beyond trying to get pregnant and it was more like a science experiment than intimacy. I think often people represent them selves like they are trying to land a client. Whatever they think you want is what they pretend to be. After the ring is on they show you who they really are. I am not a fake person not even on a first date. I may temper my personality a little but I'm more you like me as I am or you don't kind of girl especially as I have gotten older.
|
|
|
Post by sadkat on Dec 11, 2019 23:01:42 GMT -5
It’s curious carl. I can’t think of any other way to create a solid relationship with someone without making an emotional investment and being vulnerable. I agree with angeleyes65- you have to be true to yourself. Not everyone can connect with someone like me and I wouldn’t be happy pretending to be anyone else. But I’ve also realized that it takes time to really know someone and create a solid connection. That’s why I’m not a big believer in “love at first sight”.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Dec 18, 2019 7:53:39 GMT -5
saarinista It bothers me a LOT that people use the words "outsourcing" and "cheating" on here to describe extramarital sex.
Both of those words are highly loaded with negative emotionas. I find them unhelpful and hurtful.What term or word would you like instead of "outsourcing" and "cheating?" How about extramarital sex or sexual relationship. These terms equally describe unmarried sex. They are less precise and if there's anything sexual interaction can use more of, it's good communication. "Outsourcing" in a platonic definition means getting something from elsewhere that is available nearby, but not chosen. Sexually, its description is apt. Sex should be available close by, domestically, but there are reasons you'll decide to go afield. The reasons have multiple parallels. It fits. I would like to ask who put the negative connotation on those words and why? I put it to you that those who would place a negative connotation of all "outsourcing" are those that condemn it and wish for the word to become negative in order to discourage the activity. They will do the same to any word you choose instead, rather than address teh problem that outsourcing solves (or bypasses). I'm concerned you are allowing the moralists to dictate your language and they will be unsatisfied by any chocie of words you may make. Better to refuse the condemnation of teh word and keep it rather than twist yourself into knots pointlessly coming up with new words which perform no function but temporary refuge from the moralists' contempt which will inevitably return. "Cheating" has some value, but may need to be more narrowly targeted. Platonically, the word "cheating" tend to be attributed to a game. In a contest between people, there are usually rules one follows. If one person breaks a rule, that is what we call "cheating". If one person cheats, the other may not know and perhaps lose, falling under the assumption their opponent was better when they were not. They may give up the game henceforth assuming they lack talent at it when they would have won without the cheating going on. If teh cheating is discovered, the person may discontinue the game with the cheater or continue with no restraint towards following that rule anymore (perhaps breaking others since following rules is no longer to be assumed) Sexually, it fits. In the case of a presumed monoamorous relationship (monogamous/monandrous), it is against the agreed upon rules to have a second lover. To break this rule is cheating at the "game" of love. The negative connotation may be suitable. Here there is a betrayal of trust. We do not care for cheaters when playing a game. No need to care for cheating sexually either. Perhaps unspoken (and perhaps it should be spoken about prior to exclusivity?) is the "rule" that monamourous relationships will not become asexual. In he case that it does, this too could be described as "cheating". One person breaking the rules. In the case of refusers who have no intention of even saying yes, this is deceptive and arguably a betrayal, if not for the fact that few couples say out loud that forced celibacy is against the rules of marriage. (It may behoove our society to make this explicit) When cheating is discovered, the honest participant may quit the game or continue with a new set of rules in place. Sexually, this is going to be effected as divorce or negotiated infidelity. This leads me to the need for an additional word. We need a word for the negotiated infidelity; taking a second partner with the other person's knowledge. Platonically, if you are in a one mile race, and one of you is a quarter mile ahead, does it make sense to finish when it's obvious the game is over and you are poorly matched? It should be okay to refuse to finish due to futility. If the game is to maintain interest, rather than puff the ego of the victor, one should entreat for renegotiation. Perhaps a half mile head start to keep it interesting. Sexually, spouses that grow mismatched libidos should not be condemned for wishing to change the rules of the game since teh game is growing unpleasant. In the analogy, do we sympathize the the runner who was a quarter mile ahead and accuse the slow one of being a sore loser? Not usually. That is the purpose of mercy rules. A runner that insists you finish teh race despite your misery is not likely to be looked upon with admiration should anyone hear the truth of the circumstances. If that losing runner were to take a shortcut the faster runner didn't know about and could not see, do we condemn the loser? Of course! Sexually, if a refused spouse takes a lover without their spouse's knowledge, is that breaking the rules? I dare say it is. If, instead, the refused spouse points out the gross unfairness of the refuser's advantage, a discussion of renegotiation of the rules may take place. Commonly, the winner's decision may be to quit and tell the loser to run with someone else. (I don't need to spell out all the analogies, do I?) Yet we praise refuser's fidelity to the marriage. It comes so easily to them. Perhaps we admire them because we don't see their opponent wheezing, gasping, woozy a quarter mile back and factor that in to our assessment. If the negotiation of rules takes place but the winner refuses all changes, the loser may instead chose to run with another. Perhaps they'll suggest inviting a third jogger who is a more competitive speed so the sprinter can rn as fast as they like without concerning themselves about slowing down to let their partner keep up. (Perhaps it's the fast runner who proposes a third runner to allow them to improve their speed?) What may make the most sense is too runners getting added that match the speeds of both, and they find other things to do than race. What if the slow runner offers to take shortcuts in order to end up ahead of the fast runner and make teh race competitive again? The offer to cheat on purpose wouldn't be offensive. It has a goal. It isn't deceiving teh fast runner. It offers a scenario in which both athletes might enjoy a more enjoyable day's contest. It simulates equally matched partners. This second scenario may be accepted in which case, sexually, we might equate it to open marriage or if both runners change rules, polyamory? Society may still condemn messing with rules in the middle of a game, but it isn't dishonest.' What then of slow runners taking shortcuts but not telling their running buddy? Do we call both practices "cheating"? What of teh "bad winner" scenario in which the clearly superior athlete refuses to give the loser any chance of achieving a victory with a head start or allowed shortcuts? The lsoer may continue to huff and puff and get shinsplints trying to follow the rules and regretting agreeing to the contest at all. Or perhaps the loser may announce the shortcuts in advance and take them. Changing the rules in the process. The sore winner will cal it "cheating" still, but the distinct difference, the change with no intent to deceive needs a new word, does it not? It serves the winner's purpose to NOT invent a second word. They get what they want and society condemns both rule changers equally, at least semantically. Sexually, a person who informs a refuser they are changing the rules allows the refuser to continue the race with the refused spouse's shortcuts being taken against their wishes. OR they may quit and run with someone else, or not run with anyone. When this new word is adopted, expect refusers and their sympathizers to heap as much negativity upon it as possible in preservation of their quarter mile lead. You can spedn time doing their dance, or you can spend it instead refusing their judgement and communicating more effectively. Your fear of societal judgement places you at teh mercy of those with their own interests in mind, be it their own relationships, or their own, limited understanding of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Dec 18, 2019 10:57:34 GMT -5
Perhaps unspoken (and perhaps it should be spoken about prior to exclusivity?) is the "rule" that monamourous relationships will not become asexual. No. They become celibate. And if we really want to be precise, they become celibate with each other. Not necessarily - the rules assumed a unique attraction. If something happens throughout the course of the marriage to either me or to my partner or our circumstance (and our circumstance might be the marriage itself), then the attraction may turn to dissociation or aversion. It is a change of the intention in the marriage - but it isn't necessarily assigned to "one person" - to the extent that they are responsible for restoring it. How does one go about that? Marriage does not include celibacy as part of the oath. That's true. There is no forcing though - only choices and consequences. If you envision marriage as a sexual union, and you are in a celibate one - then you are likely already living something that is outside of what you agreed a marriage is. It's a subtle point, but I think the thrust of your discussion is about laying blame, whereas my slight clarification is about simply observing what you have and what you don't. I find that paramour worked well enough for me when I was doing that. The polyamory community has a lexicon that gets a bit complicated, but I find the basics work well enough. Consensual non-monogamy works well. I think it's a terribly overstated presumption that the reason sex falls off the table is because of libido mismatch. Aesexuality as a diagnosis hits only .5% of the population, and doesn't strike suddenly - it's more of an orientation. Do people realistically think that when they split and move out that their aesxual partner is never going to have sex again? More than likely if they have the means, they are going to taste the rainbow. Not necessarily. THEY are also in a celibate marriage. They've chosen the celibacy over the two alternatives: having sex with someone they don't like or don't want, and ending the marriage. In that sense, they are the heroes of their own story. This was what I tried in my marriage when everything else failed. A problem is that you are still faced with the issue of your "primary" relationship --> the fact that your partner doesn't want sex with you anymore for reasons. It's those reasons that fuel the contempt that eats like a cancer in your home. And they are not pleased or fulfilled by your sexual joy and intimacy with someone who is not them. It serves to focus attention on what they are trying to avoid looking at - just as the person who is outsourcing is. To your point though, I think the serious and open contemplation and planning of a consensual and transparent non-monogamous relationship as a third alternative to celibacy and divorce, has a way of breaking a stalemate and forcing people to really get to the core of whether they are onboard with the relationship or not.
|
|
|
Post by mirrororchid on Dec 18, 2019 19:59:20 GMT -5
No. They become celibate. And if we really want to be precise, they become celibate with each other.I read a long dissection of yours between asexuality and celibacy. Conceded on all points. Your term is more precise, then you refined it yet further and more accurately. Marriage does not include celibacy as part of the oath yet. Perhaps one day. If it still doesn't make it in the vows (unquestionably it's unromantic to acknowledge unpleasantness in advance), a more clear understanding of the course of action to take might be decided in advance by wiser, kinder couples, and hopefully those actions will be deemed okay with both parties if and when the time comes. There is no forcing though - only choices and consequences.
True enough. The forced celibacy is only to maintain my vow of fidelity and that is indeed a voluntary condition. One I'm on the verge of changing since I (to my discredit) did not foresee nigh celibacy as a risk when I married my beloved wife. (though, really, the warning signs were there if I'm being honest.) If you envision marriage as a sexual union, and you are in a celibate one - then you are likely already living something that is outside of what you agreed a marriage is. And couples considering marriage would do well to explicitly state whether sexual interaction is mandatory, urgent, optional, or unwanted, while recognizing things can change and contingencies for such changes may avoid many a disappointment. I find that paramour worked well enough for me when I was doing that. The polyamory community has a lexicon that gets a bit complicated, but I find the basics work well enough. Consensual non-monogamy works well.Ah, it's not the word for a lover I need. It's the word for non-consensual, but informed non-monogamy. No hiding the extramarital sex from your spouse. Full disclosure in advance. That is the intent I have but my wife likes to call it "cheating". I don't have a better word for her, but it's the same word used if I took a lover in secret. "Informed, non-consensual monogamy" is a bit clunky. I want a word as simple as "cheating". One that can be acknowledged as undesirable, but better than uninformed non-monogamy. I, personally, make no such assumption. I've even told her if she wishes to find a lover herself, I've no expectation of outsourcing but she staying "true" to me. The thought that she could get hot for another guy has occurred numerous times once I read about the Coolidge Effect. Stories on Experience Project strongly reinforced the likelihood that what applies to rats applies to homo sapiens. Good gracious, erotic love is a sweet sweet part of this life and if she can only find it with another man, then she must! It deprives teh world to have that woman frozen. I'd rather we be with each other, but maybe that cannot be.
Contempt is past, I think. Mine anyway. She might be building up some now that I've told her I'm outsourcing starting next month. Marriage is more than sex, we're told and I promised to love honor and cherish her. If sex isn't a way I can do any of those three, why would I insist on it? On the other hand, I strongly consider erotic love to be a way I wish to be loved until death do we part and she's not willing to oblige. Instead, I'm offering her the opportunity to love me by letting me couple with a second wife (Biblically speaking, not legally). Perhaps when you speak of the issue in the primary relationship you're holding there's an issue that, if solved, we could grow sexual again? I've heard such things but remain skeptical. As for her wishing me well in finding erotic love? I'm aware compersion may be beyond her grasp. It will be the reason she musters the energy to get paperwork from the courthouse as she's threatened. To your point though, I think the serious and open contemplation and planning of a consensual and transparent non-monogamous relationship as a third alternative to celibacy and divorce, has a way of breaking a stalemate and forcing people to really get to the core of whether they are onboard with the relationship or not.
The announcement that my NON-consensual extra-marital sexual relationship would begin in January appeared to trigger a delightful night a week and a half ago. One that was almost good. The effort was very consoling and enriching, even if it wasn't as elegant as we've been before. I'm concerned that since it was a bit bumpy, she's not inclined to try to stoke her own fires for the sake of stopping me from seeking companionship. I'm skeptical she has it in her if she did make that decision. She's had almost three years to take measures and hasn't done much of anything. My seeking erotic company doesn't seem likely to cause the kind of investment I think will be necessary in terms of mental and physical health improvements she'll need to make an honest go of things. I'd hold off if I saw her sincerely try. I think she'd start to view such a situation as blackmail. No, hon. Just trying to scratch an itch I haven't been able to reach for over four years. It's nothing personal. I wish it were you. Really, really do. Thanks for the comments, apocrypha.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Dec 18, 2019 23:08:42 GMT -5
Ah, it's not the word for a lover I need. It's the word for non-consensual, but informed non-monogamy. No hiding the extramarital sex from your spouse. Full disclosure in advance. Infidelity. We could make fine mince over whether the transparency matters more than the consensuality of it. I think it actually does to some degree in the ethics, but not so much in the practical result. I've often thought that neglectful "checked out" partners could somehow see the consequence of their aversion a t the moment it is about to occur, that this would sharpen their attention much more productively than after the damage is done, and much more than simply another verbal argument that they tolerate every month or two on the subject. At the same time, for it to have weight - there needs to be something hefty to attach to it. The implication of someone who will knowingly commit an imminent infidelity that you have stated you don't want - is that it puts the marriage on the line. Don't be so sure it's past on her part. Unless it's always been this way, something happened somewhere in which you shifted from being the kind of person who is her sexual partner to the kind of person who is not a viable sexual partner. In the single world, we call this The Friend Zone. I don't know many people who come back from The Friend Zone. This is how they get you. You get trapped into focusing on the sex and weighing it against the marriage and household. What wouldn't you do to save the marriage, right? But isn't the question of Sex vs Marriage absurd? Widen the lens a bit and look upstream. It's about the REASON you have sex that's important. And the REASON you don't have sex is important too - because that says something about the way you view your partner. At some point, you'd need to decide what your relationship offers that differs from that of an amicable ex-spouse. I don't know about that. Usually people go through a period in which they have sex with someone even though they've already disconnected or they think their partner is bad for them. And then, a while later, they just stop because the discomfort is too high. The default state is not love and attraction. Once whatever perception of you, or of the circumstance you both are in - changes - to the extent that she doesn't see you in that role anymore - I don't often see people forget what they saw or know to fall in love like that again. Of course she hasn't done much of anything. For most people, until it comes to this - most people don't affix a consequence more severe than an occasional argument. You've upped the ante and changed the game from Sex vs Divorce - a cost she correctly thinks is too high for both of you, and changed it to Sex with Her vs Sex With Others - which now serves the ball of choice to her court. What's she going to do about that? Divorce you or have sex with you? Because it's pretty hard to tell you that you can't have sex with anyone and neither can she. Neither of you really signed up for that. So you will come to an honest assessment of what you have with each other, and an idea of just how important it is TO HER to avoid sex with you. And then weigh what that means to you.
|
|
|
Post by sadkat on Dec 18, 2019 23:32:11 GMT -5
If you could have anything you wanted for Christmas, what would it be?
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Dec 19, 2019 0:36:41 GMT -5
If you could have anything you wanted for Christmas, what would it be? A Red Ryder BB gun, of course! 😂 Or perhaps, success in the new year for an innovation project. (Presuming standard rules apply here, that I can’t wish for more wishes; and skipping the obvious like ‘winning the lottery’... and ‘more intimacy’, which is a bit like winning the lottery...) p.s., if you don’t get the BB gun reference, you need to watch some holiday classics, starting with A Christmas Story.
|
|
|
Post by deadzone75 on Dec 19, 2019 0:46:43 GMT -5
If you could have anything you wanted for Christmas, what would it be? Hmmm...you can't wrap sex, I'm too selfish to wish for world peace, and nobody can go back in time to bring me the 1993 version of Gillian Anderson, so I guess I'd go with a signed, first-edition copy of Stephen King's "The Shining".
|
|
|
Post by angeleyes65 on Dec 19, 2019 8:25:06 GMT -5
If we are talking about actual gift I would say an engagement ring given with a romantic proposal. If we are dreaming big a winning lottery ticket so I can volunteer instead of work. And make sure my kids are taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Dec 19, 2019 9:15:54 GMT -5
If you could have anything you wanted for Christmas, what would it be? Well my first choice would be a delicious gentleman to occupy the other end of my two person bath. More realistically, a transatlantic plane ticket to visit two friends as we all need a giggle over the holidays.
|
|
|
Post by misssunnybunny on Dec 19, 2019 9:22:50 GMT -5
If you could have anything you wanted for Christmas, what would it be? Health, happiness, and spending time with my family (only see them a few times a year).
|
|