Talk About Marriage banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

I was too hot to be faithful

16K views 67 replies 34 participants last post by  Kivlor 
#1 ·
#59 ·
Very attractive women and men have a huge advantage in desirability that allows them to cuckold partners if they had average or less attractiveness. Now is that any reason to behave immorally, absolutely not, but many very attractive people get a "free ride" through life because of the genetic proclivity's that comes with it, particularly women.
 
#60 ·
I find the article to be highly discriminatory against ugly people. Ugly people cheat too! Just as much I'd argue. In fact ugly people often cheat with people that are much more attractive than they are. Cheating is about an individuals desire to do it. If one is willing, its not difficult to find a partner in crime. It has nothing to do with how you look, its about if you are okay with crossing that line or not.

Regarding the author's looks. Since she opened herself up to judgment, I don't think she is bad looking, she is attractive...but....I wouldn't put her in the category of a stunner. What she says about all the attention she received is believable to me. I think guys in the UK favor a different look than American men.
 
#61 ·
If a man wants to cheat & pursues other women like a hound he's going to find willing participants. If a woman wants to cheat she simply doesn't blow a guy off when he pursues her. Of course there are exceptions but this is an undeniable generality. In my decades of working in a professional industry I have witnessed the following: every attractive woman is pursued endlessly by men - single or married. The pursuit looks harmless as in just having lunch together in the building and lots of private conversations. Most of these workplace flirtations don't end up in bed but it's only because the woman doesn't let it get there. Every single man (to my knowledge) wants to bed them. So when I say it's easier for a woman to cheat this is the context I'm speaking in. And it's pretty much the same in bars and everywhere else I've ever been in my life. Sure, there are guys who get more ass than a toilet seat but they really have only 2 things going for them: they are nice looking and they are not afraid to ask for sex - and they are willing to ask over and over until they find a "yes".

Yes, anyone can come up with one-off kinds of examples of some man being swept off his feet by some hungry woman but that's usually not the case. And the idea that every time a woman cheats it means a man cheats is not true. If it was than the cheating statistics would be 50/50. You have to factor in that often the OM/OW is single and they might be having a FWB relationship with multiple married partners.

The female of the species has always been the gatekeeper of sex. She ultimately decides who, what, when, and where. When a man violates this it is often viewed as sexual assault. I mean no insult to women when I say it's easier for them to cheat. Since most women are bombarded with temptation I see it as much more difficult to establish and maintain boundaries so that she doesn't just say "yes" every time she's angry with her husband or simply needs an ego boost.
 
#62 ·
She's the natural, obvious and direct consequence of her parent's unmitigated and unreconciled adultery and divorce {and, quite possibly, her grandparents before that}.

I wonder if her parents presumed that their children were resilient and would simply be OK?
 
#64 ·
I would like to respectfully point out to my detractors that I was interviewed over the telephone for this utterly self-aggrandising and ridiculous article and did not actually write it myself. I was rung up by the Mail and asked if I would like to write an article on the back of a Harvard study that said attractive people were more likely to divorce. I thought this sounded interesting and was reluctantly persuaded to be ghosted – this is the term for when someone writes an article in your name. I would have much preferred to write it myself and if I had it would have been a very different article.

Obviously I had no idea I would be trailed on the front page as `the agony of being too beautiful to be faithful’. How I wish they had put, `Julia was speaking to....' but unfortunately this is not Mail policy. Many articles are ghosted in Femail these days, which is why many of them read like they are written by a Stepford wife on Valium.

Many of my comments were taken wildly out of context and of course I would never say that I was `too beautiful to be faithful'. This is a completely ludicrous statement and utter Daily Mailese fabrication. People are unfaithful for many reasons, something I did try to get across, however any attempt at a nuanced approach to the subject was sadly missing.

Take just one error. The story that a man gave me his card in an airport. Yes that did happen but the article goes on to say that I called him and this led to the demise of the relationship I was in at the time. The truth is that I didn’t call him and I was single at the time. I also made it very clear to the writer that I did not consider myself beautiful; as a young woman I brushed up well enough but like most women I have never been particularly confident about my looks. I certainly don’t sanctify adultery. In an ideal world everyone would be faithful to their partners. I made some bad decisions and am not alone in that.

So, at the risk of spoiling a good story folks, I am a middle-aged woman of 54, have been in an utterly faithful and monogamous long term relationship for 13 years and am disappointingly not the temptress that the very old photos the Mail dug up might imply. For many years I wrote an eco column in the Independent, have represented the Green Party in numerous elections and now own a dog sanctuary in Surrey called Chimney Farm Dog Rescue. I live a very boring life indeed and am far more likely to be picking up dog poo than seducing hot fellas on the town. However, dreary reality does not sell newspapers.

Unfortunately editors are looking for scandal and clickbait – who can blame them when people don’t bother to respond to really dreadful stories (like the husband who was recently let off for forcing his wife to drink bleach) with the same venom.

Of course I would much rather write about my dog sanctuary but guess what; those of you that took the time out to comment on this article wouldn’t bother to make a comment – good or bad – on something like that, it appears you would rather repeat made up tittle tattle. Around A.D. 100 a Roman poet wrote; `two things only the people desire - bread and circuses’. I really can’t see anything has changed.

Of course I must take some blame for being naïve enough to get sucked into such a nonsensical story. Mea Culpa. How I wish I could go back in time. Imagine the silliest mistake you have ever made blown up and exposed in front of millions of people. Fortunately, many experienced and cynical media observers can see it was a bit of a stich up but I'm quite surprised that some people take this sort of story on face value and even more bizarrely, have time to comment on it when there are so far more serious events in the world to worry about.

I can’t stop you taking cheap pot shots about me at me but please stop to think about those editors who twist facts and destroy reputations for their own ends. As most of those writing abusive messages come from America it appears that Americans have a gullible belief in everything they read in the tabloids. Hopefully this message may give you a reality check and make you think twice before getting so hot under the collar about a completely fabricated story.

As I'm not logged into this thread I won't be reading any more abusive comments - but feel free to keep venting into the ether if you've nothing better to do.

Kind regards,

Julia Stephenson
 
#65 ·
I would like to respectfully point out to my detractors that I was interviewed over the telephone for this utterly self-aggrandising and ridiculous article and did not actually write it myself. I was rung up by the Mail and asked if I would like to write an article on the back of a Harvard study that said attractive people were more likely to divorce. I thought this sounded interesting and was reluctantly persuaded to be ghosted – this is the term for when someone writes an article in your name. I would have much preferred to write it myself and if I had it would have been a very different article.

Obviously I had no idea I would be trailed on the front page as `the agony of being too beautiful to be faithful’. How I wish they had put, `Julia was speaking to....' but unfortunately this is not Mail policy. Many articles are ghosted in Femail these days, which is why many of them read like they are written by a Stepford wife on Valium.

Many of my comments were taken wildly out of context and of course I would never say that I was `too beautiful to be faithful'. This is a completely ludicrous statement and utter Daily Mailese fabrication. People are unfaithful for many reasons, something I did try to get across, however any attempt at a nuanced approach to the subject was sadly missing.

Take just one error. The story that a man gave me his card in an airport. Yes that did happen but the article goes on to say that I called him and this led to the demise of the relationship I was in at the time. The truth is that I didn’t call him and I was single at the time. I also made it very clear to the writer that I did not consider myself beautiful; as a young woman I brushed up well enough but like most women I have never been particularly confident about my looks. I certainly don’t sanctify adultery. In an ideal world everyone would be faithful to their partners. I made some bad decisions and am not alone in that.

So, at the risk of spoiling a good story folks, I am a middle-aged woman of 54, have been in an utterly faithful and monogamous long term relationship for 13 years and am disappointingly not the temptress that the very old photos the Mail dug up might imply. For many years I wrote an eco column in the Independent, have represented the Green Party in numerous elections and now own a dog sanctuary in Surrey called Chimney Farm Dog Rescue. I live a very boring life indeed and am far more likely to be picking up dog poo than seducing hot fellas on the town. However, dreary reality does not sell newspapers.

Unfortunately editors are looking for scandal and clickbait – who can blame them when people don’t bother to respond to really dreadful stories (like the husband who was recently let off for forcing his wife to drink bleach) with the same venom.

Of course I would much rather write about my dog sanctuary but guess what; those of you that took the time out to comment on this article wouldn’t bother to make a comment – good or bad – on something like that, it appears you would rather repeat made up tittle tattle. Around A.D. 100 a Roman poet wrote; `two things only the people desire - bread and circuses’. I really can’t see anything has changed.

Of course I must take some blame for being naïve enough to get sucked into such a nonsensical story. Mea Culpa. How I wish I could go back in time. Imagine the silliest mistake you have ever made blown up and exposed in front of millions of people. Fortunately, many experienced and cynical media observers can see it was a bit of a stich up but I'm quite surprised that some people take this sort of story on face value and even more bizarrely, have time to comment on it when there are so far more serious events in the world to worry about.

I can’t stop you taking cheap pot shots about me at me but please stop to think about those editors who twist facts and destroy reputations for their own ends. As most of those writing abusive messages come from America it appears that Americans have a gullible belief in everything they read in the tabloids. Hopefully this message may give you a reality check and make you think twice before getting so hot under the collar about a completely fabricated story.

As I'm not logged into this thread I won't be reading any more abusive comments - but feel free to keep venting into the ether if you've nothing better to do.

Kind regards,
Julia Stephenson
 
#67 ·
Julia,

Thanks for stopping by. I'm sure it's pretty awful to see yourself being eviscerated on a variety of websites. It's nothing I'd want to go through.

But at the same time, I'm amazed that you would talk to the Daily Mail at all. It's like closing your eyes while walking into traffic: you had to have at least suspected that it wouldn't turn out well.
 
#68 ·
@juliasophia

Sorry you got dragged through all that. I hope you learned a lesson that so many have suffered from in this modern era: Never give an interview to an edited format. If it won't be published in its unadulterated entirety, then don't do it.

It's horrible to watch people's mistakes--or even worse, fabricated mistakes--immortalized to the rapid gossip machine that is the internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top