RE: CIAW

RE: CIAW (Full Version)

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

Message

cloudboy -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 6:14:40 PM)
That's a brilliant post. Obviously cheating is not the "best option," but unlike others, I think there are many contexts where its a very rational, human option. Only the unmarried or never been in a LTR types advocate unequivicolly that you must be open and honest about everything. The fact is, such a policy is just plain stupid in a myraid of contexts. I would never presume that absolute platitudes offer someone any help to deal with their own personal choices and responsibilities. Usually the person who knows whats best to do under their own marital circumstances knows what is the wisest course of action. Ideally, and its an ideal, you can be honest and work something out with your marital partner. If you do, then there is no sneaking around, no abject lying, much less stress, and a deep appreciation of a spouse that understands your special needs. The rung below honesty is a don't ask, don't tell policy between marrieds --- aka living a life of "constructed" monogamy. The rung below that is cheating. The rung below that is becoming an embittered shrew unhappy in your marriage --- and taking out your dissatifactions on the spouse who does not satisfy you in every area of life, as they "should."

GeekyGirl -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 6:22:26 PM)
quote: Only the unmarried or never been in a LTR types advocate unequivicolly that you must be open and honest about everything. So I guess my marriage didn't count. For that matter, I guess my mom's 14yr marriage doesn't count either. ETA to remove my snarkiness.

cloudboy -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 7:34:57 PM)
People are free to set standards for themselves, but its another thing to believe that your own standards apply to everyone else in all situations, no matter what. I think benji vainly tried to make this point to you. If you and your mom make absolute honesty work effectively in your own marriages, good for you, but if you expect everyone else to employ the same model and judge them harshly if they don't ---- then, sure you "count," but not in any kind of helpful, connected to the real world way. You become, in such a case, an ideologue. Idealogues are philosophically narcisisstic and are notoriously bad problem solvers and fact gatherers. They also tend to polarize people, create tension, and acrimony when they encounter resistance to their own doctrine.

AquaticSub -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 8:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy That's a brilliant post. Obviously cheating is not the "best option," but unlike others, I think there are many contexts where its a very rational, human option. Only the unmarried or never been in a LTR types advocate unequivicolly that you must be open and honest about everything. The fact is, such a policy is just plain stupid in a myraid of contexts. I would never presume that absolute platitudes offer someone any help to deal with their own personal choices and responsibilities. Usually the person who knows whats best to do under their own marital circumstances knows what is the wisest course of action. Ideally, and its an ideal, you can be honest and work something out with your marital partner. If you do, then there is no sneaking around, no abject lying, much less stress, and a deep appreciation of a spouse that understands your special needs. The rung below honesty is a don't ask, don't tell policy between marrieds --- aka living a life of "constructed" monogamy. The rung below that is cheating. The rung below that is becoming an embittered shrew unhappy in your marriage --- and taking out your dissatifactions on the spouse who does not satisfy you in every area of life, as they "should." I have never said honesty about everything. I view it as being about limits and consent. My limit, hard and fast - will never change, is that you will never have sex with me unless I believe you are being honest about your current sexual partners. I will also *never* have condom free sex with you unless you provide me with an up to date STD report. By having sex with another partner and not informing your current you are removing their ability to make informed choices about who they will and will not have sex with. If you agreed to abide by these terms, then I don't see a problem in expecting you to live up to this agreement. If you don't want to live up to to this agreement, break up with me. I spell this out very clearly beforehand so I don't see the issue.

cloudboy -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 8:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Usually the person who knows whats best to do under their own marital circumstances knows what is the wisest course of action. GOTTA SAY, I butchered the English language with this sentence. I'm just too damn tired to edit it, tho.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 8:52:51 PM)
I actually don't think some people in this thread are completely and totally as far apart as far as viewpoints as it might appear. I think sometimes folks misunderstand where others are coming from, etc. Of course nobody wants a rotten relationship - that's rarely, if ever, the goal. And of course people do have the right to set their own standards for what works for them in a relationship, and stick with them. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 9:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy As for honesty, I think a person trains others how honest they can be with him (or her.) So, I don't look at honesty as something I expect, but more as something I can help create and foster. I think that's a nice way of putting it, and sounds like it fosters a cooperative atmosphere. And it also puts the onus on both parties, where it belongs, within a realistic context. People really do sort of train partners, IMO, just how honest they can be with eachother. And I imagine there folks who really do want to hear the things they can do to make things work, and try to improve things when they do hear a partner's comments or concerns, and folks who won't hear them, (yet still somehow expect things to work as well as ever, or at least not change), and folks who claim they want to hear a partners concerns, and do hear them and then reject them all or mostly, as invalid, etc. and claim all the work should be done by the other partner, etc. and everything in between. Like gentlethistle said - I believe in trying (and did). Trying is a good aim. I know that is what you are saying, too. Hopefully, this thread has offered some ray of hope, to those who may feel they are in what might appear to be hopeless situations. I am glad you started it. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 9:24:13 PM)
*LaT's comment made me also think about what are gay folks supposed to do? This is another reason I've never been able to get into the CIAW camp. I mean, do some really realize just how much societal pressure there was, in, 1970-75, for example, (or even today, depending on who one associates with, or is influenced by), for a gay person, in many, if not most instances - to get married and try to procreate with the opposite sex, regardless of the fact they weren't going to ever be able to get their sexual needs met within their marriage to a straight person without* cheating? This might be almost totally foreign as a concept to some of the younger ones here, and might seem almost incomprehensible to some here, that this would have been expected of those folks from some of the people I've met, but it was, it really was par-for-the-course, at one time. And sometimes, even still today, by some folks. At that time, (pre- DSM-IV) homosexuality was almost considered to be mental illness by the medical profession. Today, I think most would hopefully consider cheating under these conditions understandable, and I am there would be some who would say - hey, just don't get married. That would be the ideal, I suppose. And yet, I point back to societal and family pressure, and if people don't think these things can ever be a factor in influencing someone's decisions, then I say they lack an ounce of compassion. Not to mention the fact, that there do exist folks who may indeed not even realize they are gay until they are into older years. The scale of sexuality is all over the charts. If it wasn't, there wouldn't even exist such people as bi-sexuals, IMO. - Susan

justheather -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 10:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Only the unmarried or never been in a LTR types advocate unequivicolly that you must be open and honest about everything. The fact is, such a policy is just plain stupid in a myraid of contexts. I would never presume that absolute platitudes offer someone any help to deal with their own personal choices and responsibilities. Well, this is pretty broad-sweeping. May I see the results of the research you did in order to make this conclusion? First of all, you seem to be implying that everyone who says CIAW is also saying "You must be completely honest about every thing." Would you not agree that "No, your butt doesnt look fat in those pants." (An answer to a question I would never ever ask my partner, by the way, because he would probably very gently suggest I wear something different if he felt the outfit I had chosen did not do my body justice) and "No, Im not abandoning my vow to foresake all others/our agreement to be monogamous and sharing physical intimacy with another person" are several orders of magnitude apart in terms of lies? And secondly, some people actually value honesty over avoiding discomfort. They also present potentially difficult truths in love and with respect to a partner who understands and is assured (because of their partner's consistency in behavior and history of loving and honest communication) that the fact that a particular truth may be difficult does not mean that they are being attacked or that they need to read any big and horrible and broad-sweeping thing into what is being said. Go figure. Some people do not choose to participate in a culture of deceit. I can understand that if you tend to spend your time in such a culture, lying becomes something that is taken for granted. But there are people who are participating in healthy, fulfilling relationships who do not buy into the culture you are assuming is universal.

justheather -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 10:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy People are free to set standards for themselves, but its another thing to believe that your own standards apply to everyone else in all situations, no matter what. I think benji vainly tried to make this point to you. If you and your mom make absolute honesty work effectively in your own marriages, good for you, but if you expect everyone else to employ the same model and judge them harshly if they don't ---- then, sure you "count," but not in any kind of helpful, connected to the real world way. You become, in such a case, an ideologue. Idealogues are philosophically narcisisstic and are notoriously bad problem solvers and fact gatherers. They also tend to polarize people, create tension, and acrimony when they encounter resistance to their own doctrine. She was responding to your assertion that "all people who advocate for X are Y", which is false, as is proved by the fact that she is a single exception. So, you respond by implying what a horrible problem-solver she must be and how people cant stand her because she is polarizing. That's rich.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 10:14:21 PM)
I think that this thread could maybe still evolve into how people do work out that tricky, middle in-between part that sometimes gets over-looked in threads. How people who find themselves in conditions where absolute honesty is maybe not working well, or they don't know how to broach a topic with their partner theoretically works (especially how to talk about a need for bdsm sex). I am probably being vague (sorry) I am a lil' tired. No general advice of course would ever apply under all conditions, as every relationship is different. Still, sometimes helpful hints, if anyone tossed out a specific scenario with which the need help, might prove to be really helpful to some folks. I know there are other threads on that here, but I think sometimes these folks need all the help they can get. Anyway....it has been an interesting thread, IMO. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 10:21:23 PM)
well, IMO you never did that heather, but some folks here appeared to do that (and maybe they didn't really mean it. I do contend this is the internet, and it's easy to misinterpet folks sometimes). Hugs to everyone![:)] not directed at heather, general comments: I don't think anyone ever wants a horrible relationship, and I doubt anyone ever wants to particpate in a culture of deceit (well yeah, those folks are out there, for which cheating and mis-representing themselves in short or long-term relationships is more or less a life-style, but I am not referring to those folks.Which maybe I should have made obvious pages ago, Big oops on my part, possibly). I do think that situations exist where a partner is not trying to foster a culture of deceit, and they might try pretty hard to create an open and honest atmosphere w/ the other partner, and yet they still can come up with squat in terms of cooperation from the other party. Especially when UMs are involved, this can make the situation very complicated for these folks sometimes. These situations do exist, (and I know people really do know that) and yet it seems sometimes that people rarely discuss how they deal when this happens. They rarely seem to talk about it, and when someone does come to these boards w/ an actual real-life situation, sometimes, which may be less than savory to some (horrors!), they can be shouted off and told to "discuss it off the boards". IMO, this isn't particulary helpful.It can leave some with the impression peope rarely have real-life problems, which, IMO, just isn't true. I think it can sometimes be wiser, perhaps, for them to approach a 3rd, disinterested party, or a family member, or an intimate friend for advice - but there are honestly loners out there who might feel alientated and have literally not very many other places they can turn. This might be hard to believe for some folks, but it's not a stretch for me to believe that some folks in the bdsm world might feel incredibly isolated, for a host of reasons, sometimes. I think sometimes by merely discussing these situations that others are really afraid that some will think this means they are somehow condoning participatin gint he worst example ever of the probelm in question - even if they are not all for it happening. I believe there is perhaps a happy medium people can reach, in terms of being helpful and giving advice? Because there are many really savvy folks on these boards, who are smart and also pretty nice folks. I don't actually think there shoud be "camps" of CIAW or not-CIAW (even if it appears there maybe are). I think people should try to help eachother, period. The problem I see w/a concept like CIAW, is that, much like George Bush's "if you're not with me you're against me" policy, anyone who admits that any exceptions exist is chewed up and spit out as somehow not "patriotic" to "the cause". I actually do realize that most here (except a few) admitted there do exist circumstances where a mitigating circumstance might invalidate the concept, in that instance. Therefore, I don't see these folks as rabidly CIAW. I do notice that *cloudboy* attempted to point out, in his response to *incognitogal,* that there is a rung of choices, as far as relating to a partner, and how people deal w/ it, when they find themselves in less than ideal circumstances in situations w/their partners, and that he mentioned cheating was pretty far down on the scale of desireable options. I think a lot of what he says makes sense, and I also think on the internet it is sometimes easier for folks to misinterpret eachother. - Susan

hisannabelle -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 10:43:04 PM)
i think it's interesting that no one's bothered to respond to aquatic's last post, which i found a good response to the stuff the anti-ciaw seems to be talking about. heather, i really value your posts on this thread.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 11:23:47 PM)
annabelle - I'll answer it. sidenote: And I am also of the opinion it is not the goal of cloudboy to assume, or promote, a "culture of deceit" as universal, or that it should be. I think that there are people who may not admit (or don't believe) that there exist people with real problems relqated to fidelity in the world, who have found alternate solutions which for them work just as well, and promote contentment between the people involved - even when "complete and total honesty at all costs" (whatever that really means)doesn't seem to always, 100% of the time seem to be the smart or compassionate thing to do. To think that other folks' experiences aren't as valid as one's own, and automatically discounting them, is, IMO judgmental, and if he said anything about being ageist in realtion to how he feels he's been answered, maybe it's because that is what really has been his past experience may have been on these boards, almost any time he'd ever brought this whole area up at all - some others basically just told him his experence just didn't happen, or judged him extremely harshly for them - and attempted to invalidated them, for pages, and pages. Maybe he feels isolated. It sometimes is disheartening to me when people are first ready to assume the worst about someone, instead of the best, or at least that they could be nuetral. I can't get my head around why some would not actually believe that someone could live in these circumstances (an "open relationship"), and have it work out just fine for them, and for their partner, especially given that they also sometimes rabidly appear to believe that things like Poly families can sometimes work well, which I am pretty sure many weren't born knowing about, since our culture values monogamy much more highly at the present time. re: Aquaticsub's statement: I agree it removes informed consent. I think she and her partner are an adorably cute couple and I sincerely wish them well. She appears to be a smart cookie (he's only written in once or twice, that I recall, but I can't imagine her being w/a real dumbo, so I am assuming he is a decent guy. Not that it's really my business, but I do wish them well). What I rarely see discussed is the other myriad circumstances that could ever possibly exist sometimes, when these discussions sometimes take place, besides the stereotype some seem to have in their heads of the cheater who lies about every little thing, spreads STDs w/no conscience about it, and has made it more-or-less a life-style, and routinely tosses folks out of bed merely because they've tired of their presence. There do indeed exist situations where people cheat where this stereotype bears only the slightest resemblance to that type of cheater. That this stereotype seems to be what often springs to mind in these types of discussions I admit as well has made me wonder sometimes, abut the LTR experience-level f some folks. Maybe it is just a lack of cmmunication. Or maybe - some have just been lucky, in which case they should maybe be thankfor for that. And if they haven't been lucky, and just aren't talking about it, well, I dunno, I am (truly) sorry if I personally have hurt anyone's feelings, but I am not a mind-reader. - Susan

hisannabelle -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 11:31:41 PM)
all aspects of that stereotype do not have to be present for her words to be relevant, imho, and i know that the stereotype you're presenting is pretty far from the picture i have in my mind when i think of cheater, personally. i think we've discussed myriad other circumstances at length in the last 23 pages...or am i wrong? we've dissected at least a large number of common situations in which cheating happens, and some not so common. i don't see anyone ignoring mitigating circumstances here, personally. my own personal experience of cheating has been far from that stereotype, as well - both what i've seen in my own relationships and what i've seen of others. i think insulting people's experience of ltr relationships is kind of short-sighted. not everyone in the ciaw camp has -no- experience with difficult or long term relationships. (heck, people who are pretty well-recognized posters, who've been in long relationships, who are much older than aquatic and myself have posted in support of the idea that cheating shouldn't be considered acceptable.) eta: i do want to say i respect your taking the time to answer her post. personally, i felt it was pretty relevant to the conversation as far as why some of us consider cheating to be unnacceptable in any case. regardless of the emotional circumstances, the issue of informed consent and knowledge of who you're having sex with is always going to be there, imho. anyway, just wanted to add that i do appreciate you taking the time to respond :)

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/14/2007 11:47:49 PM)
Well, I think maybe the concept of CIAW is a problem, simply because personally, I can think of mitigating circumstances, and as you've mentioned others have and did do that as well. I think anytime people start talking in absolutes as a starting point, it can relegate consequent conversation into the hypothetical sometimes, and leave less room for people to talk about real-life situations and problems. But IMO that also very much depends on how people view the question or topic. I viewed it as an intellectual area for discussion (as well a chance to discuss areas where I've been challenged w/the topic area personally), and so did some others. Some viewed it as an opportunity to state there viewpoint on the fact it occurs at all (which IMO can be okay, unless someone may be reading who has a genune problem in the topic area, and then they might really hesitate to discuss it. Maybe not (I dunno). I might, though, if I did. Because suddenly there can be created a sort of "hush-hush-we-just-don't talk-about those things-here" atmosphere, which can be less than helpful to someone who may have a genuine probelm within a topic area, IMO. I mean, of someone really actually believes that it's wrong, and then the conversation just stops there - or say they believe that under no cirumstances would it ever be understandable a person might cheat (and of course I know that isn't what some said, I really do) but - if somone really believes that (no exceptions to CIAW,ever) - Then, I'd think they might feel a little obligation to help the person at least by maybe being willing to offer sound advice, or an ear, because if they see the person with what they've deemed is a "problem" as so far off "the golden path of being a stellar person" (or whatever), then that person w/the "problem", IMO, obviously deserves some help, not derision, I mean if just to be practical, if for no other reason (and I also know you're not deriding anyone, I really do. It was just a general comment, truly, and I appreciated your comment. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/15/2007 12:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Usually the person who knows whats best to do under their own marital circumstances knows what is the wisest course of action. Ideally, and its an ideal, you can be honest and work something out with your marital partner. If you do, then there is no sneaking around, no abject lying, much less stress, and a deep appreciation of a spouse that understands your special needs. The rung below honesty is a don't ask, don't tell policy between marrieds --- aka living a life of "constructed" monogamy. The rung below that is cheating. The rung below that is becoming an embittered shrew unhappy in your marriage --- and taking out your dissatifactions on the spouse who does not satisfy you in every area of life, as they "should." I think this was a wise post. I think it's based on some hard-won experience in this area, too. I do think there are some here who undoubtedly have sound advice to offer to folks in less than ideal and perhaps trying circimstances, like he does, as opposed to mere sob stories, or derision, and that maybe they tried to give it, and were possibly mis-interpreted. Because I've seen them often enough, and I also know there appear to be some smart, experienced folks here. Hugs to all.[:)] - Susan

cloudboy -> RE: CIAW (3/15/2007 2:12:51 AM)
quote: "all people who advocate for X are Y", CIAWs fit a consistitent profile. Like all profiles, its a generalization. The core unifying characteristic is: 1. Have not been in a reasonably successful, monogamous, LTR of ten years or longer. ("not been in" as in NEVER.) CIAWs tend to be any one or all of the following: a. Young b. Never been married c. Serial Monogamists d. Victims of cheaters who universalize their own experience as opposed to differentiating it. e. single and idealistic f. in the romantic stage of a new relationship Its very, very, very rare that a CIAW is #1 above. This is the main point. If you want to score points that that all people don't fit this profile go ahead. That's a truism and is basically assumed by all intelligent people to begin with. Consistent with the profile, CIAWs argue from a standpoint of idealism and ideological conviction --- and they also tend to rotely apply the logic of "right and wrong" to human relationships. That's one way of looking at the world and the people in it, but non CIAWs use a completely different approach.

SusanofO -> RE: CIAW (3/15/2007 3:15:47 AM)
I think the CIAW profile type, and who it usually consists of, is a keen observation, cloudboy. general comments for anyone: I don't think it's an insulting one, either (or needs to necessarily be seen that way). I also want to say that, I am an INFJ on the Myers-Briggs, plus a Pisces, plus a "9" ("Peacemaker" type) on the Enneagram personality profile there was a thread on here about last week, so if I seemed to go on and on about what I felt, I just want some to know I was not trying to be offensive to anyone, but maybe I got the "triple-whammy" when it comes to being a "feeler" type (if folks believe that stuff, which I can tend to, more than not). So anyway, I just hope nobody gets defensive or insecure (like I just did now, hahahehe).[:D] [:)] P.S. Whoa. Its only 5:15a.m., and already I can feel one of those really weird days a comin' on.They can be fun, sometimes, though. It's time for a nap already, and I just got up. Oh well, my dog won't mind if he has to eat at 8am instead of 6am, I guess. I am starting to talk to myself again...hope everyone has a good day.[:)] I still think it's a great topic, as far as how it can maybe evolve. I'd toss a scenario relevant to the topic at hand into the mix for discussion, but I gotta get some shut-eye. Maybe someone else will do that, though, since there's so many folks that read this thread. - Susan

justheather -> RE: CIAW (3/15/2007 4:32:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy CIAWs fit a consistitent profile. Like all profiles, its a generalization. This is a very different statement than: quote: Only the unmarried or never been in a LTR types advocate unequivicolly that you must be open and honest about everything. And, by the way, you'll note that the second quote there is a completely different assertion that than the main topic about whether or not cheating is always wrong. It's actually a statement that you have conveniently pinned to the shirttails of the people who have not agreed with you here. Those who are arguing against your stance that cheating is a valid option are not advocating for total honesty in every matter in a relationship, and yet you've lumped the people who are saying you are wrong about cheating in with the people who say "honesty always". quote: This is the main point. If you want to score points that that all people don't fit this profile go ahead. That's a truism and is basically assumed by all intelligent people to begin with. I didnt say all the people dont fit your profile. I was responding to the other post where you said that THE ONLY people who believe X are Y. If that isnt what you meant, you shouldnt have said it. Not being a mind-reader, I try to limit the assumptions I make about what a person means vs what they say. (Edited because the bold seemed inflammatory)

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125