RE: CIAW

RE: CIAW (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Quivver -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl When a person suspects their partner is cheating and takes no action to confirm or deny this, then what does that mean? It doesn't mean the guy isn't cheating....it means the other doesn't want to know. They have accepted that their partner might be cheating but have no desire to prove it. No, he hasn't told her and gained her approval....but she isn't disapproving either, is she? DG Exactly DG, I knew for over a year that my ex was out looking.... I didnt care. When asked if he was cheating on me I always answer I dont know, I dont care. I knew he was looking so in a way I had already given my permission by omission. On the other hand the first time I went out alone a few months before I did leave, HE had the melt down and began accusing. I found it amusing.......

juliaoceania -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I don't think we're talking wrong, IMO we're talking always wrong. If murder, for instance, was always wrong, IMO, we would not have a justice system, or juries. The severity of the alleged offense (when it occurs) would not be separated by degrees - (1st degree, 2nd degree, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or not gulity by reason of insanity), for instance. Very good example, IMO. - Susan There are mitigating reasons people murder but it is still wrong to take a human life. People are still put in prison for negligent homicide. There are mitigating circumstances to cheating, but it is still wrong to cheat. If someone is certifiably unresponsible for their actions (crazy) I could say they were not wrong for cheating. I would say this is fairly rare. Now if someone is defending themselves then they are not guilty of murder. If someone is raped they did not cheat... I find that an analogy

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:31:41 PM)
Well it is not an altogether fair comparison. When someone is murdered, they're dead. They're not gonna ever get a chance again to do much of anything else, let alone cheat, or not cheat. When someone is cheated on, they are still very much alive. Altered, perhaps, but still very much alive. That is a significant difference (to me) - Susan

adaddysgirl -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velvetears quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl And if that works for them, great. But i don't see how that anywhere near resembles a cheater who sneaks around behind his partner's back, lies about it, and knows he's deceiving his partner. Sounds quite different to me. DG So then are you saying that lies of omission are "better, less despicable, wrong, etc" then outright lies? No...i never said anything like that. If, and i say if cause really we don't know for sure what this man was doing on his weekends, BUT if he was seeing someone on the side, and he kept silent about it - that's a lie by omission - but *it's still a lie*. Yes, that could be considered a lie of omission. Seems if cheating is ALWAYS wrong - why isn't lying ALWAYS wrong - i ask this to all in the CIAW crowd - bit hipocritical to me. Most people lie to protect themselves in some way. Usually they couldn't handle the consequences if the truth were to come out. Lying is always wrong if done under those circumstances. Did i imply it wasn't? i merely said that if the mother didn't want to know and didn't ask, she was accepting of the lie of omission (i suppose). And that is up to her. And that is different than a partner having no inkling something is going on....or asking and getting lied to....mainly because they do want to know.....the truth. DG

juliaoceania -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Well it is not an altogether fair comparison. When someone is murdered, they're dead. They're not gonna ever get a chance again to do much of anything else, let alone cheat, or not cheat. When someone is cheated on, they are still very much alive. Altered, perhaps, but still very much alive. That is a significant difference (to me) - Susan You do not get my point, I am not saying that cheating and murdering are exactly the same, of course murder is worse in my mind... but there are some things that people do find to be absolutely wrong all the time, and murder is one of those things. To me lying to and deceiving your mate in a way that disallows consent is always wrong. There may be extenuating circumstances that mitigate how much of a jerk they are for their mistake, but wrong is wrong. If you are going to say that murder is always wrong, that there is no exception to the wrongness of hurting people by murdering someone they love, then why should there be a pass that makes cheating okay? It hurts people, destroys families.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:50:29 PM)
I really do see a sort of analogy to the Savage article and cheating, as far as degrees of severity (in terms of the effect on someone else) in the degrees of murder analogy. I think there are definite instances where it is wrong (but am not sure I want to go into what I think those are right now, but might tommorrow, I need some shut-eye). But I also still think there are things like judges and juries, and I really envision (and have seen) things like almost "open marriages" where the other person suspects, hasn't been told out-right, that their partner is cheating, but might not care (or most likely wouldn't) if they did know. The presumption that I see that goes along with CIAW, is that one party at least (the one cheated on) is always emotionally devastated. From what my sister has told me, this is definitely not always the case. Maybe (presuming these are "vanilla" folks), if they operated in the bdsm world, these folks would actually end up being Poly, or something. Maybe not, but I think the possibility definitely exists. There are a lot of foks who don't even know what the term Poly means, but maybe they have inclinations in a direction like that. After all, according to that article on fidelity stats, it is natural (just maybe not sociallly acceptable to many, if not most) to not be monogamous, but bdsmer's (supposedly) only comprise something like 10% of the adult population. That leaves a lot of "vanilla" folks out there, determining what is considered acceptable for the rest of society. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do you see what I am saying? I am not heavily advocating one or the other, I just think it's interesting to ponder a little bit. Which of course, doesn't mean cheating doesn't often devastate people. I am pretty sure it does. - Susan

juliaoceania -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:50:35 PM)
quote: IMO, someone's infidelity just isn't going to make them an ineffective parent automatically, I just think that is too simplistic, although I feel pretty safe in saying some cheaters might be ineffective parents, as some married non-cheating folks might be not very effective parents with really screwed up kids, as well as making wonderful parents I did not state that infidelity makes someone an ineffective parent. I stated that cheating often leads to broken homes, this impacts the community at large. So yes, if someone is cheating they are impacting not only themselves, but their family and eventually the community is affected too. You asked why we care, I answered you.

juliaoceania -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:57:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I really do see a sort of analogy to the Savage article and cheating, as far as degrees of severity (in terms of the effect on someone else) in the degrees of murder analogy. I think there are definite instances where it is wrong (but am not sure I want to go int what I think those are, but might tommorrow, II need some shut-eye). But I also still think there are things like judges and juries, and I really envision (and ahve seen) things like almost "open marriages" where the other person suspects, hasn't been told out-right, that their partner is cheating, but might not care if they did know (or wouldn't). The presumption that I see that goes along with CIAW, is that one party at least (the one cheated on) is always emotionally devastated. From what my sister has told me, this is definitely not always the case. Which of course, doesn't mean cheating doesn't often devastate people. I am pretty sure it does. - Susan - Susan I have a lot of trouble believing this claim. I wonder what the numbers would be, and without knowing I have a jaundiced view of it. If we are talking about people so alienated from each other that they are going to court to divorce each other, I bet they are not devastated that someone they cannot stand the thought of is banging someone else on the side, these are really not very applicable situations we are speaking of, people who are done with their marriages are usually too pissed off to be devastated any longer.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 7:58:00 PM)
Okay. I really do understand that. I said I edited that part out (after thinking it over), because yeah, I do think it can sometimes negatively impact people other than the cheater. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 8:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO The presumption that I see that goes along with CIAW, is that one party at least (the one cheated on) is always emotionally devastated. From what my sister has told me, this is definitely not always the case. Maybe (presuming these are "vanilla" folks), if they operated in the bdsm world, these folks would actually end up being Poly, or something. Maybe not, but I think the possibility definitely exists. There are a lot of foks who dont even know what the term Poly means, but maybe they have inclinations in a direction like that. After all, according to that article on fidelity stats, it is natural (just maybe not sociallly acceptable to many, if not most) to not be monogamous, but bdsmer's (supposedly) only comprise something like 10% of the adult population. That leaves a lot of "vanilla" folks out there, determining what is considered acceptable for the rest of society. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do you see what I am saying? I am not heavily advocating one or the other, I just think it's interesting to ponder a little bit. Which of course, doesn't mean cheating doesn't often devastate people. I am pretty sure it does. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 8:13:48 PM)
It would be interesting to see the stats. I might look them up (because I am pretty intersted myself) but I know there are folks like this out there. They just don't talk about it all that much. - Susan

clover -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 9:31:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You do not get my point, I am not saying that cheating and murdering are exactly the same, of course murder is worse in my mind... but there are some things that people do find to be absolutely wrong all the time, and murder is one of those things. To me lying to and deceiving your mate in a way that disallows consent is always wrong. There may be extenuating circumstances that mitigate how much of a jerk they are for their mistake, but wrong is wrong. The murder analogy is actually a pretty good one because there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn. Most people think murder is wrong. Most people think cheating is wrong. Murdering in self-defense is like cheating because your spouse is in a coma - both rare exceptions that are very understandable. In both murder and cheating, the majority of cases don't fall into the rare exception category. I'm sure there are more similarities to be made, but what I really wanted to point out is a big, glaring difference. A murderer (who didn't kill in self-defense) who has pleaded guilty to the crime usually expresses some sort of remorse. They will usually admit that what they did was wrong. They don't typically sit in the court room and claim it was just "a personal decision" to commit murder or that well, it was the right decision at that point in time...not unless they're sociopaths. And, no, before someone says otherwise, I am NOT saying that cheaters who don't show remorse are sociopaths. And I don't even think that the CIAW camp is looking for remorse. It's not that we want you to feel bad and down on yourself for cheating in the past. Hell, a lot of us have BEEN cheaters in the past. It's just that it's unfathomable to some of us that you can't even say the words. Just once. Even if only to yourself (especially to yourself). The words being: "It was wrong."

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 10:00:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy The majority, not all, of people who are in a decaying relationship, whether cheating is involved or not, have only to go look in the mirror to find a great part of the reason. Is that so hard to understand?...You blather on and on...Read the article! You are the one that posted it...Oh, by the way ...Good research to invalidate your point. *domiguy:* I am not going to argue. Apparently, you have a worldview that insists on one side always "winning" or "losing" at another's expense. You seem to think I am having an argument w/you that in fact, simply doesn't exist. I could handle it a lot better if you were at least willing to concede that I have already stated what I think, and yet you've continued to ignore it. I don't consider this some sign I've lost an argument I am not having. You can't only participate in an discussion if you vehemently only see one side of an issue existing. I posted it, not to "hide" something, but to offer information. I read it all. I especially read the part at the bottom, and still mulling it over. I thought it was interesing, period. All of it. I read the article, hon. I am taking for granted everyone can read, and that I don't have to point out everything that is in there. I also noticed it is comprised of many studies, not simply one, nor one conclusion - if you didn't notice this, then read it again, and maybe you will - because to me, that fact practically screamed off the page. http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html Read the last paragraph. It stated pretty clearly: "with this many marriages affected, it is unreasonable to assume the prevalence of affairs is due merely to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives" I am not drawing a conclusion that cheating is always right from that statment. But I am certainly thinking that it's at least clear that mongamy, while possible, and even desireable to many, is not likely the natural state of humans, and can't get myself to state that cheating is always, always wrong and furthermore always due to communication failure with a page full of stats from numerous studies that illustrate it happens 40-80% of the time. The bdsm world comprises only something like 10% of the adult population, why wouldn't it be plausible that many of these folks, if they knew, for instance, that a concept like Poly existed, might not choose that, instead of "affairs"? This whole idea is probably a side tangent, but am bringing it up anyway, because I was just trying to investigate the whole idea, not particularly castigate either "side", or win". I am trying to understand, period. I am almost afraid to make this statement, because I am almost sure some presumptive person is going to insist this must mean I think all Poly folk are cheaters. That is not at all what I am saying, nor do I believe it - any more than I would if someone said all monogamous folk are cheaters merely because they believe in bdsm, or practice it.I consider myself Poly. I am very sure many folk can be and and are honest, and Poly or Monogamous. What I am asking is: With apparently 40-80% of adults having an affair at some point, it isn't hard for me to believe that, if given a chance, some of these folk would not instead choose to be Poly, for instance - except they don't know it exists as a working living arrangement or even a possibility,** if what they really want is simply more than one partner vs. serial mongamous relationships, or one long monogamous relationship. Personally, I think that's kind of a little sad. I aslo want to make it clear that I know Poly folk who have had LTR's of coinsidderable duration, and monogamous folk who have serial LTR's of very short duration, and -or divorces because one or the other partner wants SOTS (some on the side). Given that it doesn't look to me as if folks are by nature monogamous, Poly makes a lot of sense to me. If someone cannot "get' hows this might be pertinent in a discussion about "cheating - is it always wong?" then think harder. I guess I am asking where does anyone think bdsmer's come from? Are we separated from the "vanilla" world by some electric fence, or something? After all, bdsmer's only comprise about 10% of the adult population (supposedly). That leaves a lot of "vanilla" people making decisions about how society is going to supposedly work. I mean, when did you find out a concept like that existed? How did you form your values? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I am almost sure these statements are going to be somehow misinterpreted, and that nobody will understand them, but I'll toss them out there, just in case anybody can get something from them. - Susan

domiguy -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 10:43:00 PM)
quote: susanofO *domiguy:* I am not going to argue. Apparently, you have a worldview that insists on one side always "winning" or "losing" at another's expense. You seem to think I am having an argument w/you that in fact, simply doesn't exist. ar·gu·ment [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif[/image] [image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image][image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] /ˈɑr[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]gyə[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]mənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-gyuh-muh[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation. 2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: 3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons 4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point. 5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse Yes SusanofO, you have bee involved in an argument with the majority of the people who are out here, including me....However, the third definition as well as the fourth do not apply to you. Christ, not really even the fifth. quote: SusanofO.... .I also noticed it is comprised of many studies, not simply one, nor one conclusion - if you didn't notice this, then read it again, and maybe you will - because to me, that fact practically screamed off the page. I aready know what's in there - I found it, remember? Yes you found it and still for some God unknown reason you can't grasp that when someone includes in their paper the words:" "What Do Infidelity Statistics Mean " It probably means there are going to tell you "What in the Fuck the Infidelity Statistics Mean!!!!! And Voila here it is....Wow! "What Do Infidelity Statistics Mean." http://www.menstuff.org/columns/sommer/archive.html#infidelity I'm tired. I don't know what to tell you...Take your meds...get some sleep....Masturbate! Start another rant.. I don't care.. I was just illustrating the fact that both you and cloudboy don't read the material that you think will aid you case....I don't care ....To prove it! I am going to fuck three other women and not tell sub susie,,,I don't care! Do something more constructive with your time....For fuck's sake, I know I can find anything better to do with mine...(Domiguy looks around and realizes there is some unfinished whittling that needs gettin done) Go away.

juliaoceania -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 10:48:10 PM)
I do not think most people are poly in practice. In other words some cheaters seek the thrill of the chase, getting a little strange, the rush of infatuation, some actually enjoy the thrill of perhaps getting caught, doing something "bad". Others are in it only for the sex, you do not need to have a full blown relationship for that. I think the vast majority of people that stray are in the place where they have trouble forming one stable and healthy relationship... why would they want to try to forge multiple unhealthy relationships?

MadameMarque -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 11:07:01 PM)
Oh, save us all from the pitiful moral state of justifying our own bad acts by pointing at someone else and saying, "But they knew!" It's not only irrelevant to the fact that you did something you know is wrong, but it doesn't even make any sense. If you choose to do what you freely agreed not to do - presumably, in this case, get romantically and/or sexually involved with someone outside your current relationship - without letting your partner know before doing it (so that they, in turn, can choose what they want to do, before you've ever betrayed your agreement) or after (so that your partner can have a chance to choose whether or not they want to expose themselves to the various problems and risks you've brought into the relationship), then you're keeping it a secret, aren't you? And if your partner knows, then you don't have to hide it at all, do you? And if they discover or realize you're cheating, but can't bring themselves to confront it, because they're scared of losing you or can't stand to deal with the pain, how does that make you any less guilty of doing something wrong? This is a cheater's argument. And "cheating" is wrong. Look it up - the word, I mean. I responded to the original post on page 8 of this tome. But I was amazed to see the thread still active, and I come back to find it's degenerated into the, 'but they knew I was cheating' defense. Arggh "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." - Groucho Marx

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 11:24:15 PM)
Well that is a good question, julia, IMO. I think what you said it certainly true sometimes, and some folks have been devastated by cheaters, and very hurt. There are definitely folks who have sex w/someone for a thrill only. If somebody says that out-right, I don't have a problem with it (because they state it). Of course, not everybody does that, because not everyone is honest. Also, though, I think some folks plain don't know what they want, and say they do; insist they know they do. Sometimes, this is the person complaining about the person who "cheated", and maybe sometimes the "cheater", IMO, I can imagine it going either way. I think those folks who are "in it for a thrill" maybe can be good for things like giving someone their first bdsm experience, etc. I think sometimes they don't know what is is they are seeking. I also think it's possible some folks are sort of trying to feel their way toward something possibly more long-lasting and stable by doing those things sometimes, and they sometimes happen upon it in circumstances where they might not think it could end up a LTR, that can become a comitted one, and it does (although those relationships acc. to the stats, don't last as long as a relationship where both folks were comitted only to eachother from the start, a lot of momogamous committed relationships don't last as well). I do think there are committed Poly folk, and probably quite a few. I think the same of monogamous folk. I mean those stats say a lot of folks are cheating, but a lot of folks aren't cheating, too - from what I could gather, at least 40% (depending on which stat you look at on that page). I say I am Poly, but that is because I know how it went for me in one monogamous LTR. I am not willing to commit myself to only one person for a long period of time (yet), but I think I could, if I met the right person. I also think I might be able to committ myself to more than 1 person. I am sure it requires balance and patience and committment, not to mention energy. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/13/2007 11:33:29 PM)
Madam Marque: No, that isn't always what it means (to me). Not my view - and you are certainly free to disagree, but if you yell, I am not discussing anything. A good way to avoid turning discussions like this into vehement screaming matches is to keep them on a hypothetical level as far as making personal, attacking statements. Btw - Using the word in a post thread "you" instead of saying something like: "I think a person..." can sometimes make someone think they are being yelled at (some people I think, don't realize that). Believe it or not, there are people who know their spouse is cheating, and decide they don't care. Please note I did not say All of them. I am suggesting they've possibly become just as bored with their partner as the cheating partner has become with them - and may have started off in a monogamous situation, and it's possible later that situation develops into an "open relationship" w/the original cheating partner. I am also postulating that it's possible that many monogamous relationships are short-lived anyway - and not simply due to cheating. I am not saying there don't exist LTRs (of say, 10 years or longer) they obviously do - I don't think human beings are perhaps mongamous by nature. Let's look at divorce stats - about 50%. My view: In some cases, if someone knows they are being cheated on, if it bothers them, and the other person hasn't come clean and told them, I am assuming they have their reasons for not confronting the other person. I am not assuming they are always devastated by they idea, I saying they are people who may be not all that affected by it, for their own reasons. I make no blanket assumptions about what those reasons are, there could be quite a few, I suppose, and I think these folks exist. I am not saying by suggesting this, that cheaters haven't devastated other folks. Also, please note I didn't say cheating is always right, merely observing the reality of the different types of relationships that do exist. - Susan

agirl -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 2:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Really?....... Perhaps cheating under other circumstances might be justifiable, though. In your quote he stated...under your particular circumstances. agirl If you know what situations cheating is ok in, can you answer the question why is it ok to remove the right to informed consent for sexual activity? I didn't say, at any time, that I thought it was ok. My comment was in reference to Dan Savage and his quote. agirl

agirl -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 3:12:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl quote: ORIGINAL: agirl I don't think I'm missing your point at all. Cheating is what he is doing. By NOT gaining my Mum's approval, by NOT having her agreement, by NOT telling her clearly, openly and honestly......... He is cheating. If she KNEW he was, she'd be very hurt. How many people suspect their partner is cheating but take no action to find out for certain? Most with this suspicion want to know because they do not want to live like that. Some come right out and ask...some may hire private detectives...whatever. They want to know so they can either 'fix it' (if they are so inclined)...or maybe leave...whatever. When a person suspects their partner is cheating and takes no action to confirm or deny this, then what does that mean? It doesn't mean the guy isn't cheating....it means the other doesn't want to know. They have accepted that their partner might be cheating but have no desire to prove it. No, he hasn't told her and gained her approval....but she isn't disapproving either, is she? If she were saying she did not approve of your father's going away and he continued to do it, i would think she would be unhappy. But according to you, she's not unhappy...but she doesn't approve of it. She doesn't approve of it....she thinks he may be cheating....she chooses not to confront him about it...she is happy that her marriage is still intact.....she has certainly agreed to his going away and possibly cheating....but she doesn't really want to know if that's true or not. She'd be hurt if she knew he was cheating but she's not hurt by thinking he might be. Honestly, this all sounds a bit convoluted to me. If i thought i were being cheated on, i would definitely want to know. If i didn't want to know so i could retain some semblance of a happy marriage (because if i knew the truth, the marriage wouldn't be so happy), then so be it. i guess that would be up to me. If that is what i am willing to accept....if that is how i prefer to handle the situation....no one is stopping me. If my partner goes out with his friends every Sat night and while out, screws a different girl every night....if i suspect this but don't question it....then i accept that he might be screwing someone else. Otherwise, i would take some action to find out the truth. She may not ask what he does when he's away .........but that is not anything like giving her approval to infidelity. If he does not have her approval, he is cheating on her. Your mother is not saying 'i know he is cheating and i approve of that'. But she is saying 'he may be cheating but i'd rather not know for sure'. Eh, after writing this whole thing, i realized i did not use the term 'approve of'....i used agreement....that your mom has agreed to allow your father to possibly be unfaithful, with no questions asked. i am not implying that she would approve of his cheating....but that she has accepted the possibility and chose to stay with him without knowing one way or the other. There is a difference between agreement and approval. DG quote: She has neither agreed, nor approved. She doesn't know. Whether she thinks there's chance it could happen is irrelevent. The only way he could escape being a cheater would be if he told her firstly. If she considers the possibility and asks.......he's a cheat. If she considers the possibility and doesn't ask.....he's still a cheat. He can't assume that he had either approval or agreement by her not asking. All he can claim is that she didn't ask. HER reasons for not asking are irrelevant. It's HIS actions that determine whether he is or isn't a cheat. agirl quote:

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625