# What do you mean I'm having an affair?



## Deejo

Had an interesting phone call with a dear female friend last night. 

She called for my counsel. And her concern could very easily be a post on TAM ... were she not to deride and be utterly dismissive of all things internet.

She is single, divorced (was in a sexless marriage), 12 year old son. She owns her own business.

Sharp, spunky, fit, attractive, and generally unapproachable. (I've told her this many times. She gives off a 'GTF away from me' vibe)

She associates every week with other individuals in her field, mostly men of course. Same group of men, for years.

Well, one of them it is well known in this circle cheated on his wife about a decade ago.

Over the course of the last 10 weeks, this same guy has become more familiar with her, and of course as part of that familiarity discussed that his marriage has been sexless for decades ... the reason for his first affair, and apparently still remains sexless.

They began texting. The texts on his part became overtly sexual.

And completely untrue to form, she confessed to me that she is utterly and absolutely caught up in having VERY sexual feelings for this guy ... who is still married. No bones about it. He turns her on and she wants to have sex with him.

And I'm left thinking ... why? Why this guy? 

We talked for about 2 hours. I was pretty much astounded in listening to her rationalize all of the things that people swept up in an affair do ... and I never would have expected it from this woman ... ever.

By her own admission, she doesn't have time for a relationship. Absolutely true. She simply isn't available. She is either at her business, or home with her son. She gets two weekends off a year.

Part of the attraction for her is that it would never be a 'real' relationship. Yet when I told her to just create a profile online and find someone who she wants to have sex with, that isn't married, she considered that to be a 'crazy' option. She would never consider dating and becoming intimate with a stranger. To which I retorted, "But you'll have sex with a married business colleague ..."

The other factor is she hasn't been in a relationship, or had sex in about six years. Full disclosure, that last relationship and sex was with yours truly.

I was gobsmacked listening to the rationalizations she was making in order to justify why it would be OK to sleep with this guy. "They both know their marriage is a sham, they just don't want to blow up their lifestyle or their kids lives.", "How many people do you know that are happily married?", "There is a difference between the person you want to grow old with and the person you want to just f*ck the sh!t out of you ...", "She has plenty of responsibility for this circumstance too ...","It's like he switched something on in me. No one has ever talked to me or made me feel the way this guy does."

All standard stuff. And keep in mind I'm pretty reasonable when seeing or understanding why people choose to have affairs. Clear as day to me, why many people make that choice. And she understands that it is purely sexual. Frankly it appears that is part of the attraction and appeal.

Told her flatly that were this guy separated, I'd be saying go hit that sh!t like a ninth inning home run. But ...
if she ends up in a protracted physical affair with a colleague in her business circle, who has no intention of leaving his wife; eventually it's going to get out ... it always does.

And rightly, or wrongly, the repercussions for her would be far heavier than they are for him. Perhaps doubly so because her colleagues would wonder what the hell she was thinking ... knowing the guy was already an adulterer, as well as the potential fallout for her business if word got around.

Lastly, I emphasized that the guy, for as hot as he made her, is a coward, and that she would be an adulterer (her response was, "who the hell isn't these days?" ... hard to argue with) She got stuck on the coward piece. That and I told her she is already having an affair ... she argued that one for a good long time too. 

Again I told her, as far as public opinion goes, it doesn't matter if you only texted about giving him a blow job, or actually gave him one. It's an affair. And you're currently having one.

My driving the point home was that if she was really ok with it, she never would have called me.

So ... after being very wordy, my friend wants to do the right thing, but is admittedly struggling.

Any other salvos of assurance, advice, or condemnation that I could pass along would be welcome.

I thought long and hard about posting this, but ultimately chose to in part, because I am utterly and absolutely shocked my very smart, independent, attractive friend 'fell' for the very thing that I see time after time here ... people (both genders) say they would never fall for.

I know she'll tell me if she caves. And based on her openness with me, I won't be surprised if she does.

Just highlighting the fact that despite knowing how horribly wrong and potentially cataclysmic a given decision can be ... we go through with it anyway.


----------



## jld

I just hope she listens to you.


----------



## Deejo

I do too, jld. 

But I won't be at all surprised, or judgmental, if she doesn't.


----------



## always_alone

My guess?

She has completely sublimated her sexuality, putting that energy into other things, deciding, perhaps, that they are more productive, useful, and likely to make her feel good about herself.

This guy has, for whatever reason, reminded her of that side of herself she has shut down, and she really, really, really wants a little taste.

But she doesn't want the risk of an actual person that she might come to care about because it could get messy and ugly, and sap her. And she doesn't want the risk of a total unknown, because that too could get messy and ugly, and sap her.

I have a friend, who like yours, is smart, kind, attractive, and generally wonderful in a million ways. She too got caught up with a married guy at her work. It was a way for her to have a taste without having to let someone in, or to let down her walls. Someone "safe" enough that she knew he wasn't a psycho AND that he would never become attached to her or want it to turn it into a "thing".

If you were to ask my friend if she wanted a relationship, she would say yes. But *all* of her actions indicate otherwise.


----------



## jld

I'm concerned about her business suffering. She's a single mother, after all. It's very important that she can take care of her child.


----------



## SamuraiJack

Isnt it amazing to see someone who is usually so calm, rational and direct….suddenly turn into a total machine designed to serve the pleasure centers of the brain.
I know one gal who was all that and more and then one day that switch flipped. 

It was like watching a movie…she just turned into a totally different person. Logic was elusive and rationalization was king of the moment.
In the end she had totally convinced herself that it was okay to have the affair “because the guys wife found sex a chore…so she would be doing her a favor.”
Amazing.

The only thing that really bears mentioning is that she runs the risk of this happening EVERY time she is with him. All he needs to do is say just the right thing and she is a goner.
He may not even be aware of what it is, but each exposure increases the chance of it happening because HIS brain is also working on the pleasure principle.

Ahhh the fog…


----------



## skype

The heart wants what the heart wants.

Affair fog thinking at its finest. Perhaps you could ask her to imagine how the betrayed wife will feel.


----------



## ConanHub

Well, she has succumbed to the call of the crotch monster. That monster does not care what it eats, just so it eats. Her child's well being is certainly on the monster menu not to mention her future success. That type of BS is not always stomached in the corporate world.

I'm actually a little pissed at her statement that everyone is like her when it comes to fvcking people over to feed their crotch cravings. She is far gone to be making sweeping idiot statements as justification for her behavior. I don't think logic will help at this point. She chose to let this scumbag into her system. Now that he is in, he is pushing her pleasure buttons and it will take a serious jolt, repercussions, for her to snap out of it and eject captain stupid from her system. She has already damaged her business environment by this and is willing to possibly financially harm everyone else in her business for the sake of her choice to let a jackass push her buttons.

It started with who she let in. Once he was allowed in, her brain became her gonads. Women don't always think with their big head either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## meson

Ask her how she would feel if that guy were her husband. I bet she wouldn't like it a bit. Don't do to others things you wouldn't want done to you (the original version of the golden rule). 

Remind her that she is feeling the high of a new relationship and that bit can be flipped by someone else who she can respect more. Let it happen with someone else unattached.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> But she doesn't want the risk of an actual person that she might come to care about because it could get messy and ugly, and sap her. And she doesn't want the risk of a total unknown, because that too could get messy and ugly, and sap her.
> 
> I have a friend, who like yours, is smart, kind, attractive, and generally wonderful in a million ways. She too got caught up with a married guy at her work. It was a way for her to have a taste without having to let someone in, or to let down her walls. Someone "safe" enough that she knew he wasn't a psycho AND that he would never become attached to her or want it to turn I to a "thing".


How did it turn out for her?

I think it's hard for women to not come to care about someone they are having sex with, regardless of how immune they thought they were at the beginning.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> How did it turn out for her?
> 
> I think it's hard for women to not come to care about someone they are having sex with, regardless of how immune they thought they were at the beginning.


They had their affair for a little while, and then one or both or them tired of it and went their separate ways.

I've never seen this friend attached to anyone, and I've known her for getting on to 20 years. She likes her freedom, her autonomy, her ability to live like she wants and do what she pleases. She doesn't want to let anyone in, as far as I can tell.


----------



## jld

I'm glad it ended. I'm glad she moved on.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

See - here's the thing - that man IS a coward. 

She says he's just being pragmatic. 

But pragmatic is demanding an open marriage and then letting the chips fall as they do....

The lying - that's parasitic....




QUOTE=Deejo;11704625]Had an interesting phone call with a dear female friend last night. 

She called for my counsel. And her concern could very easily be a post on TAM ... were she not to deride and be utterly dismissive of all things internet.

She is single, divorced (was in a sexless marriage), 12 year old son. She owns her own business.

Sharp, spunky, fit, attractive, and generally unapproachable. (I've told her this many times. She gives off a 'GTF away from me' vibe)

She associates every week with other individuals in her field, mostly men of course. Same group of men, for years.

Well, one of them it is well known in this circle cheated on his wife about a decade ago.

Over the course of the last 10 weeks, this same guy has become more familiar with her, and of course as part of that familiarity discussed that his marriage has been sexless for decades ... the reason for his first affair, and apparently still remains sexless.

They began texting. The texts on his part became overtly sexual.

And completely untrue to form, she confessed to me that she is utterly and absolutely caught up in having VERY sexual feelings for this guy ... who is still married. No bones about it. He turns her on and she wants to have sex with him.

And I'm left thinking ... why? Why this guy? 

We talked for about 2 hours. I was pretty much astounded in listening to her rationalize all of the things that people swept up in an affair do ... and I never would have expected it from this woman ... ever.

By her own admission, she doesn't have time for a relationship. Absolutely true. She simply isn't available. She is either at her business, or home with her son. She gets two weekends off a year.

Part of the attraction for her is that it would never be a 'real' relationship. Yet when I told her to just create a profile online and find someone who she wants to have sex with, that isn't married, she considered that to be a 'crazy' option. She would never consider dating and becoming intimate with a stranger. To which I retorted, "But you'll have sex with a married business colleague ..."

The other factor is she hasn't been in a relationship, or had sex in about six years. Full disclosure, that last relationship and sex was with yours truly.

I was gobsmacked listening to the rationalizations she was making in order to justify why it would be OK to sleep with this guy. "They both know their marriage is a sham, they just don't want to blow up their lifestyle or their kids lives.", "How many people do you know that are happily married?", "There is a difference between the person you want to grow old with and the person you want to just f*ck the sh!t out of you ...", "She has plenty of responsibility for this circumstance too ...","It's like he switched something on in me. No one has ever talked to me or made me feel the way this guy does."

All standard stuff. And keep in mind I'm pretty reasonable when seeing or understanding why people choose to have affairs. Clear as day to me, why many people make that choice. And she understands that it is purely sexual. Frankly it appears that is part of the attraction and appeal.

Told her flatly that were this guy separated, I'd be saying go hit that sh!t like a ninth inning home run. But ...
if she ends up in a protracted physical affair with a colleague in her business circle, who has no intention of leaving his wife; eventually it's going to get out ... it always does.

And rightly, or wrongly, the repercussions for her would be far heavier than they are for him. Perhaps doubly so because her colleagues would wonder what the hell she was thinking ... knowing the guy was already an adulterer, as well as the potential fallout for her business if word got around.

Lastly, I emphasized that the guy, for as hot as he made her, is a coward, and that she would be an adulterer (her response was, "who the hell isn't these days?" ... hard to argue with) She got stuck on the coward piece. That and I told her she is already having an affair ... she argued that one for a good long time too. 

Again I told her, as far as public opinion goes, it doesn't matter if you only texted about giving him a blow job, or actually gave him one. It's an affair. And you're currently having one.

My driving the point home was that if she was really ok with it, she never would have called me.

So ... after being very wordy, my friend wants to do the right thing, but is admittedly struggling.

Any other salvos of assurance, advice, or condemnation that I could pass along would be welcome.

I thought long and hard about posting this, but ultimately chose to in part, because I am utterly and absolutely shocked my very smart, independent, attractive friend 'fell' for the very thing that I see time after time here ... people (both genders) say they would never fall for.

I know she'll tell me if she caves. And based on her openness with me, I won't be surprised if she does.

Just highlighting the fact that despite knowing how horribly wrong and potentially cataclysmic a given decision can be ... we go through with it anyway.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld

I agree, MEM. He is a big user.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I can't believe you didn't expose. That's the answer. If it's all just fine and dandy, there will be no repercussions. If she decides you are not her friend, you have only lost someone you cannot trust. If it breaks their respective marriages up, there really is not much there to lose anyway, and they can see each other and hold their heads a little higher. Otherwise, they deserved what they are getting.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,
And as you know, my advice is not based on 'theory', it's based on practice. 

I've had the open mariage conversation with M2. 





Deejo said:


> I do too, jld.
> 
> But I won't be at all surprised, or judgmental, if she doesn't.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> I do too, jld.
> 
> But I won't be at all surprised, or judgmental, if she doesn't.


The only way she will is if she realizes that she wants to have an affair only because she wants to have sex with him, and not judge that.

The whole rationalization engine wrapped around that is where people get hung up. She can control it if she understands it.


----------



## skype

2ntnuf said:


> I can't believe you didn't expose. That's the answer. If it's all just fine and dandy, there will be no repercussions. If she decides you are not her friend, you have only lost someone you cannot trust. If it breaks their respective marriages up, there really is not much there to lose anyway, and they can see each other and hold their heads a little higher. Otherwise, they deserved what they are getting.


Maybe I misread Deejo's post, but she has not done anything yet. She knows that her feelings are wrong, and she wanted Deejo's advice. She is hoping that he will give her a good reason to ignore her desires.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I agree, MEM. He is a big user.


You never know what happens inside of marriages.

I know of one where the wife willingly turns a blind eye to his husband cheating on her, because then he stopped bugging her for sex.

She gets to have her freedom, her career, her stable home life, money in the bank... and not to have to have sex with her husband.

Who's using who in that case?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You never know what happens inside of marriages.
> 
> I know of one where the wife willingly turns a blind eye to his husband cheating on her, because then he stopped bugging her for sex.
> 
> She gets to have her freedom, her career, her stable home life, money in the bank... and not to have to have sex with her husband.
> 
> Who's using who in that case?


Dug is laughing, marduk. 

_Dictated by him as he prepares his suitcase . . ._

You want me to feel sorry for the guy? I don't buy it.

Just because the wife is okay with it does not make it okay what he is doing.


----------



## ConanHub

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> And as you know, my advice is not based on 'theory', it's based on practice.
> 
> I've had the open mariage conversation with M2.


???Is there a thread on that issue with you and M2?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> You never know what happens inside of marriages.
> 
> I know of one where the wife willingly turns a blind eye to his husband cheating on her, because then he stopped bugging her for sex.
> 
> She gets to have her freedom, her career, her stable home life, money in the bank... and not to have to have sex with her husband.
> 
> Who's using who in that case?


Both


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Dug is laughing, marduk.
> 
> _Dictated by him as he prepares his suitcase . . ._
> 
> You want me to feel sorry for the guy? I don't buy it.
> 
> Just because the wife is okay with it does not make it okay what he is doing.


I agree with Dug.

What I'm saying is that the wife is also using the husband. She gets everything she wants without having to give what she doesn't want to give.

Personally, I find the whole situation sad.

And recently watched as this lady when from being "just not into sex anymore" to starting an affair of her own. You know, with a guy that she actually wanted to bang.


----------



## 2ntnuf

skype said:


> Maybe I misread Deejo's post, but she has not done anything yet. She knows that her feelings are wrong, and she wanted Deejo's advice. She is hoping that he will give her a good reason to ignore her desires.


I may have misinterpreted. Would exposing this guy to his wife be excluded if she has not done anything? Isn't he trolling? It could save that guy's wife from further humiliation and great harm. It would allow her to have a choice in her life and marriage. Isn't it wrong to control someone by misinformation and/or lack of it? That's what I see the guy in this case as doing. 

If she did nothing, what is an EA? Isn't it sharing personal information related to one's marriage and the feelings and all of that with someone other than your spouse who is not a professional therapist? Maybe I misunderstand and everyone should just share with whomever, even if it starts to make you feel wanted again? Don't her feelings for him actually prove an EA? I guess I don't understand how rules are okay for some, but not others.


----------



## meson

2ntnuf said:


> I may have misinterpreted. Would exposing this guy to his wife be excluded if she has not done anything? Isn't he trolling? It could save that guy's wife from further humiliation and great harm. It would allow her to have a choice in her life and marriage. Isn't it wrong to control someone by misinformation and/or lack of it? That's what I see the guy in this case as doing.
> 
> If she did nothing, what is an EA? Isn't it sharing personal information related to one's marriage and the feelings and all of that with someone other than your spouse who is not a professional therapist? Maybe I misunderstand and everyone should just share with whomever, even if it starts to make you feel wanted again? Don't her feelings for him actually prove an EA? I guess I don't understand how rules are okay for some, but not others.


She is definitely having an EA. She's considering taking it physical.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I agree with Dug.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the wife is also using the husband. She gets everything she wants without having to give what she doesn't want to give.
> 
> Personally, I find the whole situation sad.
> 
> And recently watched as this lady when from being "just not into sex anymore" to starting an affair of her own. You know, with a guy that she actually wanted to bang.


Dug says she was disillusioned by her husband. He is not saying what she is doing is right, either. He says she probably feels it is an exchange.

He and she are both accepting it, I guess.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> I agree with Dug.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the wife is also using the husband. She gets everything she wants without having to give what she doesn't want to give.
> 
> Personally, I find the whole situation sad.
> 
> And recently watched as this lady when from being "just not into sex anymore" to starting an affair of her own. You know, with a guy that she actually wanted to bang.


All that wasted energy....


----------



## jld

They probably both feel trapped.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> They probably both feel trapped.


By their own poor choices.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo... here is something she may not have considered... 

There may have been more than one affair in the last ten years complete with STD's. No telling how many women he has stringing along right now right along side of her.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Dug says she was disillusioned by her husband. He is not saying what she is doing is right, either. He says she probably feels it is an exchange.
> 
> He and she are both accepting it, I guess.


Nope, not disillusioned at all.

After having a kid, she decided to focus on her kid and her career and literally could not give a F what her husband did as long as he stayed out of her way driving her type A lifestyle.

Until she complained to my wife that her husband didn't want to spend time with her any more... you know, on the occasional odd weekend that she had free and would pencil him in.

When my wife reminded her that she said his affair was a relief to her, she said she didn't really realize the consequences.

But this new guy had somehow "reawakened her sexuality..."



If they had only focused on one another...

Anyway. All that to say you never know what's going on inside a marriage. I know of more than one wife who told their husbands to go have an affair rather than to get mad about having a sexless life.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> Deejo... here is something she may not have considered...
> 
> There may have been more than one affair in the last ten years complete with STD's. No telling how many women he has stringing along right now right along side of her.


Stress that, Deejo. And show her that piece by that guy who said how he was seducing women by just giving them a little bit of attention and some compliments. Are you familiar with that one?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I know of more than one wife who told their husbands to go have an affair rather than to get mad about having a sexless life.


Doesn't mean he had to do it. He certainly was not showing any leadership.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Doesn't mean he had to do it. He certainly was not showing any leadership.


You're not picking up what I'm laying down JLD. 

In no way do I excuse, condorse, or support his behaviour. 

What I can do is see both sides of it. And she isn't innocent in this either.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> Deejo... here is something she may not have considered...
> 
> There may have been more than one affair in the last ten years complete with STD's.  No telling how many women he has stringing along right now right along side of her.


Another thing not considered... when his wife finds out she has NO way of predicting what the fall out will be to her business, herself and her child.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You're not picking up what I'm laying down JLD.
> 
> In no way do I excuse, condorse, or support his behaviour.
> 
> What I can do is see both sides of it. And she isn't innocent in this either.


Well, all I can tell you is if I told my husband something like that, he would not just say Oh, okay, thanks for letting me know, and then run out and take advantage of the opportunity.

I can't even imagine saying something like that to my husband. And I sure can't imagine his reaction.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Well, all I can tell you is if I told my husband something like that, he would not just say Oh, okay, thanks for letting me know, and then run out and take advantage of the opportunity.
> 
> I can't even imagine saying something like that to my husband. And I sure can't imagine his reaction.


My ex said it to me. 

It was about the worst thing she ever said to me. Because it is rejection on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.


----------



## jld

Hey, I'm really sorry, marduk.  ((marduk))


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Stress that, Deejo. And show her that piece by that guy who said how he was seducing women by just giving them a little bit of attention and some compliments. Are you familiar with that one?


I've never personally seen logic sinking in here. 

Your cortex really only exists to support your successful reproduction. This means that in many ways it can be subservient to your desires. 

Understanding my desires and disconnecting them from my justifications and decision making helps me to not give them power. 

All that to say getting her to realize that she wants to bone this married guy and coming to terms with that on its own may help her to not get caught up in all her rationalizations about it. 

And then refocus all that on someone available and willing, perhaps.


----------



## jld

Like another poster said, she's reaching out to Deejo. She doesn't really want to do this, not deep down.

I feel so bad for her. I think she's going to be very hurt by this, in many ways. 

Deejo, maybe you could show her this thread?


----------



## MEM2020

CH,
The link is below. Just to be clear: At the time that stuff happened M2 was claiming that it was all about menopause.

A year later she admitted that the catalyst for her bad behavior described in the thread below - was that she had fallen in love with our lead project manager at work. 

And that the intent of her behavior in the thread below was to get me to divorce her so the two of them could be together. 

So here's what I learned from this:
- M2 told me that the fact that I never 'blinked' during all this fitness testing was incredibly appealing
- That I was totally confident she would stay with me - was a turn on (it was more cluelessness on my part than courage - but I've kept that to myself)


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/18986-adventures-strange-new-land.html







ConanHub said:


> ???Is there a thread on that issue with you and M2?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

So - and this is a big theme with me. 

When I talked to M2 about having an open marriage - I wasn't asking her permission. Rather I was responding to being told: I don't want to have sex with you 

In the weeks that followed, M2 engaged in some pretty intense hysterical bonding sex with me. And in parallel tried at least a half dozen times to get me to APOLOGIZE. 

Which - truly - I found to be incredibly entertaining. Full body laugh type funny. 

Not laughing at M2 per se - just the insanity of her viewpoint which in summary was: 

I'm not going to have sex with you AND I'm still fully asserting my sexual ownership of you. Years later - this still makes me laugh. 








jld said:


> Well, all I can tell you is if I told my husband something like that, he would not just say Oh, okay, thanks for letting me know, and then run out and take advantage of the opportunity.
> 
> I can't even imagine saying something like that to my husband. And I sure can't imagine his reaction.


----------



## Fozzy

Deejo--ask her "what would you tell your son to do in this situation?"

Thinking along those lines has saved me from making more than a few bone-headed choices.


----------



## Marduk

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> So - and this is a big theme with me.
> 
> When I talked to M2 about having an open marriage - I wasn't asking her permission. Rather I was responding to being told: I don't want to have sex with you
> 
> In the weeks that followed, M2 engaged in some pretty intense hysterical bonding sex with me. And in parallel tried at least a half dozen times to get me to APOLOGIZE.
> 
> Which - truly - I found to be incredibly entertaining. Full body laugh type funny.
> 
> Not laughing at M2 per se - just the insanity of her viewpoint which in summary was:
> 
> I'm not going to have sex with you AND I'm still fully asserting my sexual ownership of you. Years later - this still makes me laugh.


I've seen this many times and with more than a few women.

Why people think that they can deny you a thing and yet control that thing in you I have no idea.

It's like the spouses that deny sex and then get mad if they go and masturbate. Saying no to sex with you doesn't make the other person no longer sexual. It makes you TWO no longer sexual.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

And let me get this straight... she owns this business this guy works for...

can anyone say lawsuit when his wife finds out??


----------



## John Lee

When there's an affair between a married and an unmarried person, I tend to put more of the moral blame on the married one. However the stupidity blame gets equally shared.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> So - and this is a big theme with me.
> 
> When I talked to M2 about having an open marriage - I wasn't asking her permission. Rather I was responding to being told: I don't want to have sex with you
> 
> In the weeks that followed, M2 engaged in some pretty intense hysterical bonding sex with me. And in parallel tried at least a half dozen times to get me to APOLOGIZE.
> 
> Which - truly - I found to be incredibly entertaining. Full body laugh type funny.
> 
> Not laughing at M2 per se - just the insanity of her viewpoint which in summary was:
> 
> I'm not going to have sex with you AND I'm still fully asserting my sexual ownership of you. Years later - this still makes me laugh.


The thing is, MEM, what is your own personal moral base? Deep down inside, you are really okay with open marriage?

You don't seem like the type to cheat. I bet it would make you feel terrible about yourself to go the open marriage route, even if it is technically not cheating.

I say all this as your friend, btw. This is probably the only issue I strongly disagree with you on. I think you are a very intelligent man, and I respect your views.

But I just cannot get on board the open marriage train.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Blossom Leigh said:


> And let me get this straight... she owns this business this guy works for...
> 
> can anyone say lawsuit when his wife finds out??


And not to mention there are scammers... how does she know he is not setting her up to GET sued?


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> I've seen this many times and with more than a few women.
> 
> Why people think that they can deny you a thing and yet control that thing in you I have no idea.
> 
> It's like the spouses that deny sex and then get mad if they go and masturbate. Saying no to sex with you doesn't make the other person no longer sexual. It makes you TWO no longer sexual.


I do not understand sexless marriage. In particular, I do not understand men who tolerate it.

And I realize that must sound very naive.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Like another poster said, she's reaching out to Deejo. She doesn't really want to do this, not deep down.
> 
> I feel so bad for her. I think she's going to be very hurt by this, in many ways.
> 
> Deejo, maybe you could show her this thread?


Lots of really good input. And for the record, with over six years under my belt here, you can count on the fact that I broke out all of the logic and rational outcomes that I know very well about.

She is in that 'place'. She trusts me. But ... she'll also fight me tooth and nail about the why's and wherefore's. Just saying "It's wrong, don't do it ..." would never cut it. For every point I made, she had a counter point, not a reasonable one mind you, but it made sense to her.

I made it clear that based on what she has told me, that there is no way in hell, that the affair that was discovered is the only one he's had. 

Always-Alone's post really kind of blew me away. I was engaged to this woman in 1994. She blew it apart 6 months before the wedding. Discovered after the fact that she had been abused by a family member when she was young. Her exact words to me, "I've never let anyone in like you. You got too close."
So ... you're right on the money with that call.

And yes, I emphasized the 'coward' aspect. I said, "Look, divorce is hard. But I did it, you did it. Someone rationalizing that everything else in their life and partnership is great except for sex, and deciding to fill that need without the awareness or consent of their partner, is a coward."


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> And not to mention there are scammers... how does she know he is not setting her up to GET sued?


To be clear, they are part of a group of business owners. He owns his own as well. To make things even more soap opera-ish, she runs her business with her ex.

I absolutely would not show her this thread. Understandably, she would be furious, and feel betrayed.

It just seems so ironic to me, that there is this world that we collectively 'know'. We know how it operates, we know what it does to people. We know how terrifyingly cookie cutter that world can be ... while all the while there are people out there oblivious to it, or think it can never happen to them, or when it does, "it's nothing like what you're describing ... our circumstances are special and unique."


----------



## jld

Call her up today.

"I know you don't want to do this, deep down inside. You think it is just about sex, but it is not. You want love, even if you cannot see it."

"You called me because you know I care. You know I will speak out of true concern for you."

"And I am telling you, as someone who actually does care for you, that you cannot do this. You cannot sacrifice your heart like this, and you cannot sacrifice your child's future."

"It is not fair to your child to risk losing your business. I can promise you that man is not thinking of your child at all."

"And that man is not thinking of you. But you will think of him, when he is home with his wife, and you are alone with your son."

"This 'man' is a loser and a creep, and if it were not illegal, I would punch him in the face for what he has already tried to do to you and your son."

"Someone can love you, someone will love you. But not that guy. Not that selfish loser."


----------



## 2ntnuf

She needs counseling. I understand now, why you are feeling the way you do. She'll just mess up her life more if she gets involved in this. Help her to see that and get the help she needs. You can't really help her with that. She has to explore it on her own with the help of a professional. I'm sorry you and she is going through this and it further cements my opinion that the guy needs exposed. There is no rationalizing with her. He will take advantage of a woman who is not right, just for his pleasure. That really feels gross to me. Getting too close to her again will only confuse her more. You probably need to stay distant, yet respectful.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo said:


> To be clear, they are part of a group of business owners. He owns his own as well. To make things even more soap opera-ish, she runs her business with her ex.
> 
> I absolutely would not show her this thread. Understandably, she would be furious, and feel betrayed.
> 
> It just seems so ironic to me, that there is this world that we collectively 'know'. We know how it operates, we know what it does to people. We know how terrifyingly cookie cutter that world can be ... while all the while there are people out there oblivious to it, or think it can never happen to them, or when it does, "it's nothing like what you're describing ... our circumstances are special and unique."


oiy... no thank you for that drama... geeze

Sounds like she has "fear of engulment" tendencies on only wanting a relationship to get just so close but no closer

yea... that affair fog sucks.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

This was the 'least bad' option for me given the hand M2 had just dealt to us. 

I could stay married despite interruption to our sex life. But I could not remain in a marriage without respect. 

And as primal as M2 is - no way she could respect a husband just 'sucking it up' she kicked him out of her bed. 

If she had chosen to break her vow to 'love' me - as a wife loves her H, than we both would have had to accept the consequences. 

I know we both value transparency so here goes: This would have felt really bad to me. Letting another woman touch me - would have felt wrong at first. And then I would have gotten used to it. 

Under the heading of what turns M2 on more intensely than anything: the thought of another woman touching her man



QUOTE=jld;11706369]The thing is, MEM, what is your own personal moral base? Deep down inside, you are really okay with open marriage?

You don't seem like the type to cheat. I bet it would make you feel terrible about yourself to go the open marriage route, even if it is technically not cheating.

I say all this as your friend, btw. This is probably the only issue I strongly disagree with you on. I think you are a very intelligent man, and I respect your views.

But I just cannot get on board the open marriage train.[/QUOTE]


----------



## karole

You should thank your lucky stars you didn't marry this woman.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

My ex tried to push me in an open marriage direction and it made me physically ill....


----------



## Deejo

He won't be taking advantage of anyone, though.

She is 100% aware, and would be if she made the choice ... fully responsible and complicit. She knows that too.

This isn't really complex at all. But there are some things people only become ready to hear, once they are ready to hear it.

She wants to get laid.

She doesn't feel like she has the opportunity, desire or avenue to pursue a REAL relationship.

She knows who this guy is via familiarity over years, and all of a sudden as a result of some conversation and calculated timing of making the conversation personal and explicit, he's thrown her switch. By her own admission, a switch she didn't even think she had.

She wants HIM. The obstacle is that he's married. She is aware of that and trying to do the math. 

We touched base briefly today and she intends to have the conversation that despite her desire to ... she can't become involved with a married man.

But her next question to me was, "So how the hell do I get rid of this feeling?"


----------



## Marduk

The fix quite simply Deejo, is for her to ovary up and admit that she wants to get laid without being in a relationship.

And I'm sure there's lots of attractive unattached dudes that would be willing to help her out with that situation.

And there's this cool thing called the internet or tinder or whatever that could probably facilitate this with a heck of a lot less drama.

Just tell her to play safe.


----------



## Deejo

karole said:


> You should thank your lucky stars you didn't marry this woman.


LOL. Oh believe me ...

She says I'm cynical and a man-wh0re. But I have always been the person she seeks out for emotional refuge.

For the record I think of myself as wise, and devilishly charming.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Always-Alone's post really kind of blew me away. I was engaged to this woman in 1994. She blew it apart 6 months before the wedding. Discovered after the fact that she had been abused by a family member when she was young. Her exact words to me, "I've never let anyone in like you. You got too close."
> So ... you're right on the money with that call.


Yes, we'll then telling her what a deceitful coward he is isn't going to cut it. Because she knows it, and that's part of the appeal. That is, she knows she will never trust, like, or respect him enough to actually fall for him in any real way. It will be easy to keep him at the distance she prefers. In no way does she want him to leave his wife for her, or be a decent upstanding guy.

She may be more receptive to considering his wife's feelings, but she may also just say that it is *his* responsibility to manage his own commitments. 

What might have some effect is pointing out that she is just repeating an age-old pattern of ensuring that no one gets too close, but in a particularly self-destructive way, one that will only feed her self-loathing instead of helping her heal from it.

If nothing else, it might make her think.


----------



## 2ntnuf

You've never moved on from her. I"m not sure you want to. If she has been abused and cannot get close to anyone, she is better off having sex with a single man who wants the same. They are out there. I can think of some here at TAM. There's no BS to possibly complicate things. Has she talked with his wife? I'd suggest she does and then it would all be understandable. That way she has confirmation of his claims. It would free them up to pursue sex and have no guilty feelings. Some have to take the coward's route. It's all they have the guts for. It's sad, but it's how some have to deal with life. It's only when it hurts others, or themselves that it becomes questionable. She could easily take care of any of those questions. She seems committed to her choice. It shouldn't be an issue to talk with his wife.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Yes, we'll then telling her what a deceitful coward he is isn't going to cut it. Because she knows it, and that's part of the appeal. That is, she knows she will never trust, like, or respect him enough to actually fall for him in any real way. It will be easy to keep him at the distance she prefers. In no way does she want him to leave his wife for her, or be a decent upstanding guy.
> 
> She may be more receptive to considering his wife's feelings, but she may also just say that it is *his* responsibility to manage his own commitments.
> 
> What might have some effect is pointing out that she is just repeating an age-old pattern of ensuring that no one gets too close, but in a particularly self-destructive way, one that will only feed her self-loathing instead of helping her heal from it.
> 
> If nothing else, it might make her think.


Wow ... it's like you were listening in on the talk.

Your last point is one that I have thought about. It would also be the thermonuclear option. She would see it as me attacking her. Me, the person she trusts to know that stuff.


----------



## Deejo

2ntnuf said:


> You've never moved on from her. I"m not sure you want to. If she has been abused and cannot get close to anyone, she is better off having sex with a single man who wants the same. They are out there. I can think of some here at TAM. There's no BS to possibly complicate things. Has she talked with his wife? I'd suggest she does and then it would all be understandable. That way she has confirmation of his claims. It would free them up to pursue sex and have no guilty feelings. Some have to take the coward's route. It's all they have the guts for. It's sad, but it's how some have to deal with life. It's only when it hurts others, or themselves that it becomes questionable. She could easily take care of any of those questions. She seems committed to her choice. It shouldn't be an issue to talk with his wife.



Whoa ... whoa ... 2nt, back the bus up.

I'm simply providing disclosure and context here ... which can be a tricky thing on TAM.

There is history. There is no confusion. 

Besides, I'm celebrating day 105 with my GF today. The woman who has my heart. Who is well aware of my past ... and yes, even this particular friend whom I was once engaged to. Just as I am aware that she still considers her first ex-husband a good friend.

I suppose folks can chew on that one for a while.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,
How about this:

What will you say to your child if this guys wife finds out and comes to your house to make a scene? It happens all the time? 

If she prefers partners who are unavailable - she needs to find someone in a truly open marriage. 



QUOTE=Deejo;11706873]Wow ... it's like you were listening in on the talk.

Your last point is one that I have thought about. It would also be the thermonuclear option. She would see it as me attacking her. Me, the person she trusts to know that stuff.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She needs an out that feels reasonable ...

Cut off that kind of relationship with him and chalk it up to her realizing now that she _has_ that switch that she didn't think she had and to consciously choose to let it be someone who is not married, be the smart gal that she is.... She can do this.. appeal to her female power ego. She can choose who to flip this switch with... tell her it just takes time for the feelings to wane, but they DO wane and because she isn't a school girl she has what it takes to choose to let them wane and choose better now that she knows she has the switch. That means he is not the only man who can flip it.

ETA: Tell her to thank him for flipping that switch, but now she is going to use that info to seek different. THAT is a path out...


----------



## 2ntnuf

Deejo said:


> Whoa ... whoa ... 2nt, back the bus up.
> 
> I'm simply providing disclosure and context here ... which can be a tricky thing on TAM.
> 
> There is history. There is no confusion.
> 
> Besides, I'm celebrating day 105 with my GF today. The woman who has my heart. Who is well aware of my past ... and yes, even this particular friend whom I was once engaged to. Just as I am aware that she still considers her first ex-husband a good friend.
> 
> I suppose folks can chew on that one for a while.


How does your GF feel about you discussing deeply personal matters with an ex? Have you talked with her about that? I should not assume that you haven't let your GF know. I apologize. Take a close look at MEM's post. If I hit something raw from your past, I'm sorry. Maybe it's a good thing to seriously think about?

Edit: Nothing to chew on, deejo. Just challenging your thinking.


----------



## jld

I think Deejo is doing fine.


----------



## Amplexor

Deej, you have some of the most interesting friends. ****ed up, but interesting.


----------



## Deejo

I think a fundamental part of why she wanted to have this talk with me, is that she KNOWS she is trying to make sense out of circumstances that can't.

She knows that rejecting this guy means she goes back to having no one ... which while under hormonal assault can break the best of us down.

Honestly, I think part of it was also she was looking to see if I was partnered. 

If I wasn't, I may have been an easy solution.

And you know what? In my desire to help out a friend in need, I would have gotten in there and given it my all.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Lol... Tmi


----------



## 2ntnuf

Looks like you've made a decision that you do have feelings for her and have not gotten over her. Looks like you may need to consider what your next step should be. Maybe try to get her some counseling and make sure your GF knows you are only in it for the short term. No problems, no deception and no one gets hurt. Good for you deejo.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> Cut off that kind of relationship with him and chalk it up to her realizing now that she _has_ that switch that she didn't think she had and to consciously choose to let it be someone who is not married, be the smart gal that she is.... She can do this.. appeal to her female power ego. She can choose who to flip this switch with...


The problem is that she *doesn't* get to choose who flips the switch. If she's rationally engaged, then no one does. She'll have a zillion reasons why this, that, or the other guy isn't attractive enough, or isn't compatible enough, or isn't someone she wants around her kid. And when she runs out of excuses, she'll have a zillion more about how she has no time, no energy, a child to look after, and on and on.

The switch will only be flipped if she isn't rationalizing, isn't choosing. But not by just anyone attractive. It would have to be someone who also feeds her need to keep her distance, who won't become too attached to her, and who she won't be tempted to fall for.

Like, eg, a cynical man-*****s.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> The problem is that she *doesn't* get to choose who flips the switch. If she's rationally engaged, then no one does. She'll have a zillion reasons why this, that, or the other guy isn't attractive enough, or isn't compatible enough, or isn't family friendly. And when she runs out of excuses, she'll have a zillion more about how she has no time, no energy, a child to look after, and on and on.
> 
> The switch will only be flipped if she isn't rationalizing, isn't choosing. But not by just anyone attractive. It would have to be someone who also feeds her need to keep her distance, who won't become too attached to her, and who she won't be tempted to fall for.


But she can "weed" until her switch is flipped by an unmarried person.


----------



## Deejo

2ntnuf said:


> Looks like you've made a decision that you do have feelings for her and have not gotten over her. Looks like you may need to consider what your next step should be. Maybe try to get her some counseling and make sure your GF knows you are only in it for the short term. No problems, no deception and no one gets hurt. Good for you deejo.


Now see, this is exactly why I need to occasionally check my internet sarcasm posts.

Because I can't tell if you're serious or not.


----------



## Deejo

Amplexor said:


> Deej, you have some of the most interesting friends. ****ed up, but interesting.












You have no idea ...


----------



## 2ntnuf

Wasn't meant that way(sarcastically). Certainly seems so now.


----------



## Deejo

SamuraiJack said:


> Isnt it amazing to see someone who is usually so calm, rational and direct….suddenly turn into a total machine designed to serve the pleasure centers of the brain.
> I know one gal who was all that and more and then one day that switch flipped.
> 
> It was like watching a movie…she just turned into a totally different person. Logic was elusive and rationalization was king of the moment.
> In the end she had totally convinced herself that it was okay to have the affair “because the guys wife found sex a chore…so she would be doing her a favor.”
> Amazing.


I think this is the thing that I find most fascinating.

She outright said that nobody had ever been that sexually forward before, and I finished the sentence for her by saying, "... and if they had, you would have thought they were a creep."

Always_alone seems to have her frighteningly nailed down.

Some of it I was very well aware of, as I've known her a very long time.

And although I deeply appreciated her confiding in me, I am/was utterly intrigued by the fact that at 47 she discovered that a dude can still turn her on, and she doesn't really understand it herself.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> And although I deeply appreciated her confiding in me, I am/was utterly intrigued by the fact that at 47 she discovered that a dude can still turn her on, and she doesn't really understand it herself.


This is what I've been trying to get at deejo, maybe not the right way. 

And why I'm not convinced she will listen to reason. 

Or why she will take this situation and use it as a learning opportunity. If this guy can trigger it in her, others can too. She can select positive situations and outcomes, or leave it up to random situations and find herself in rather... Dramatic situations. 

In other words, I think she needs some action, and that can be a good thing if steered in the right direction.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Or why she will take this situation and use it as a learning opportunity. If this guy can trigger it in her, others can too. She can select positive situations and outcomes, or leave it up to random situations and find herself in rather... Dramatic situations.
> 
> In other words, I think she needs some action, and that can be a good thing if steered in the right direction.


I think this is what Blossom is trying to say.

Deejo, please use your influence. Please do not let this opportunity to help her avoid trouble go by. You are a real friend to her, right?


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> But she can "weed" until her switch is flipped by an unmarried person.


My bet says she has zero time, inclination, or interest in "weeding". Or in finding someone to flip her switch.

Indeed, I'd guess that she would much rather not have to deal with it at all, and normally chooses to keep her emotions and sexuality in service to, subdued, by her reason and practicality.

And mostly she succeeds....


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> My bet says she has zero time, inclination, or interest in "weeding". Or in finding someone to flip her switch.
> 
> Indeed, I'd guess that she would much rather not have to deal with it at all, and normally chooses to keep her emotions and sexuality in service to, subdued, by her reason and practicality.
> 
> And mostly she succeeds....


Exactly.

Which is why the switch will get flipped by random handsome strangers, and come what may...

Or, you know, she could just do what the kids do these days and just download tinder and get laid anytime they feel like it by other unattached people doing the same thing.

Or decide a relationship might actually be worth having after all.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> 
> This was the 'least bad' option for me given the hand M2 had just dealt to us.
> 
> I could stay married despite interruption to our sex life. But I could not remain in a marriage without respect.
> 
> And as primal as M2 is - no way she could respect a husband just 'sucking it up' she kicked him out of her bed.
> 
> If she had chosen to break her vow to 'love' me - as a wife loves her H, than we both would have had to accept the consequences.
> 
> I know we both value transparency so here goes: This would have felt really bad to me. Letting another woman touch me - would have felt wrong at first. And then I would have gotten used to it.
> 
> Under the heading of what turns M2 on more intensely than anything: the thought of another woman touching her man


MEM, I get that you want to be respected. That you need to be respected. But don't you think that looking her in the eye and very firmly and clearly saying that you are not going down a path that will make neither of you truly happy would have inspired her respect? Why letting her set the moral tone?

Cue Rhett Butler. 

I have heard women say what you mention, that they think the idea of their man with another woman is sexy. I cannot relate at all. To me it sounds shattering and heartbreaking. 

I could never view Dug the same way if he did that. All the respect I have for him, all the admiration for his personal integrity -- it would just be gone in a flash.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> Over the course of the last 10 weeks, this same guy has become more familiar with her....


Do you have a gut feeling for how and why this happened?


----------



## Chaparral

Number one, if she can only take off two weekends a year, she is not taking enough time for her child and herself. That's absurd.

What's worse is she believes anything a known cheater tells her. Did his wife tell her their relationship stinks. Who told her they no longer had a decent sex life?. A guy on the make that's who. He will say anything to get in her pants.

That's just the old pua line coming from a married cheater. He's been working her for quite a while and now he's reeling her in. Ask her how she will feel if his wife finds out and it destroys his kids lives.

You should take him out back. Just kidding.


----------



## ConanHub

MEM11363 said:


> CH,
> The link is below. Just to be clear: At the time that stuff happened M2 was claiming that it was all about menopause.
> 
> A year later she admitted that the catalyst for her bad behavior described in the thread below - was that she had fallen in love with our lead project manager at work.
> 
> And that the intent of her behavior in the thread below was to get me to divorce her so the two of them could be together.
> 
> So here's what I learned from this:
> - M2 told me that the fact that I never 'blinked' during all this fitness testing was incredibly appealing
> - That I was totally confident she would stay with me - was a turn on (it was more cluelessness on my part than courage - but I've kept that to myself)
> 
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/18986-adventures-strange-new-land.html


Thanks MEM. 1st piece of a puzzle and it gave me a serious belly laugh as well. We may have similar humor bones. Do you have a thread dealing with your wife's affair?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Chaparral said:


> Number one, if she can only take off two weekends a year, she is not taking enough time for her child and herself. That's absurd.
> 
> What's worse is she believes anything a known cheater tells her. Did his wife tell her their relationship stinks. Who told her they no longer had a decent sex life?. A guy on the make that's who. He will say anything to get in her pants.
> 
> That's just the old pua line coming from a married cheater. He's been working her for quite a while and now he's reeling her in. Ask her how she will feel if his wife finds out and it destroys his kids lives.
> 
> You should take him out back. Just kidding.


Let me tell you what I guy I used to know would call women (married or not) that are overworked and overly focused on work.

Easy pickin's.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> He won't be taking advantage of anyone, though.
> 
> She is 100% aware, and would be if she made the choice ... fully responsible and complicit. She knows that too.


I disagree with this. I do not think she realizes what she would be getting into, and she's not thinking clearly about the consequences.

That guy is much more experienced, and like marduk said, sees easy pickins.

He is of course taking advantage of her. She will be much more hurt by this than he will.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> My bet says she has zero time, inclination, or interest in "weeding". Or in finding someone to flip her switch.
> 
> Indeed, I'd guess that she would much rather not have to deal with it at all, and normally chooses to keep her emotions and sexuality in service to, subdued, by her reason and practicality.
> 
> And mostly she succeeds....


And you would win that bet.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> My bet says she has zero time, inclination, or interest in "weeding". Or in finding someone to flip her switch.
> 
> Indeed, I'd guess that she would much rather not have to deal with it at all, and normally chooses to keep her emotions and sexuality in service to, subdued, by her reason and practicality.
> 
> And mostly she succeeds....


Yea, BUT  now she's had a "taste" that wont leave her anytime soon. So strike while the iron is hot and convince her it can happen beyond this guy and appeal to her prowess. From her description she loves a mental challenge... thats exactly what this guy has done. So give her an alternative one.. one where she can weild her female power/ego to choose for herself. If THIS guy is out there, who else could be out there who doesn't come with HIS risks. Anything with him will be messy and painful.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> I disagree with this. I do not think she realizes what she would be getting into, and she's not thinking clearly about the consequences.
> 
> That guy is much more experienced, and like marduk said, sees easy pickins.
> 
> He is of course taking advantage of her. She will be much more hurt by this than he will.


I know her very well, jld. She has broken far more hearts than had hers broken.
She isn't some babe in the woods. She knows the score. I don't think she had considered the possible consequences and repercussions for her life were an affair discovered. But if she were here posting, she would blow a raspberry at the idea that she is being taken advantage of. If she were to have an affair with this guy, what I do know (as does AA) that she would 100% control what happened, where, and when ... not him.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> If THIS guy is out there, who else could be out there who doesn't come with HIS risks. Anything with him will be messy and painful.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> I know her very well, jld. She has broken far more hearts than had hers broken.
> She isn't some babe in the woods. She knows the score. I don't think she had considered the possible consequences and repercussions for her life were an affair discovered. But if she were here posting, she would blow a raspberry at the idea that she is being taken advantage of. If she were to have an affair with this guy, what I do know (as does AA) that she would 100% control what happened, where, and when ... not him.


Are you sure she has not met her match in him? I bet he won't tolerate coming out anything but on top.

And even if she deserves whatever comes of this, does her child?


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> Do you have a gut feeling for how and why this happened?


I do ...

She is in perimenopause. I think she's having a 'spike'. By her own admission, she feels like a teenaged boy.

She has known this guy, all of the men that she interacts with, for years.

As I said, she has had no relationship and no sex since 2009.

Nobody that has even a middling libido willfully would choose to go six years without any form of partnered sex.


----------



## ConanHub

She is going to feel slimy when she "wakes" up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> She is going to feel slimy when she "wakes" up.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yep. And he is not going to feel anything.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Are you sure she has not met her match in him? I bet he won't tolerate coming out anything but on top.
> 
> And even if she deserves whatever comes of this, does her child?


Her son will never, ever, ever know anything about it or him ... unless the whole enterprise were to go careening off the rails. Seriously, this is the kind of woman where if you were to say, "What would your son think if he knew you willfully engaged with a married man?"

Regardless of your gender, you would risk a broken nose, black eyes, and a dislocated shoulder.

This is not a woman that would EVER submit to, or defer to a man. She calls her own shots, and makes her own opportunities.

That position has only become hardened (but was very much present) since her divorce a decade ago.


----------



## jld

Well, if you think letting her learn the hard way is best, then so be it. It just sounds very unnecessarily painful to me.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> I do ...
> She is in perimenopause. I think she's having a 'spike'. By her own admission, she feels like a teenaged boy.



 - Okay. It's tough to reason with hormones...


----------



## ConanHub

LOL!! Honestly it sounds like she is going to get what is coming to her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yea, BUT  now she's had a "taste" that wont leave her anytime soon. So strike while the iron is hot and convince her it can happen beyond this guy and appeal to her prowess. From her description she loves a mental challenge... thats exactly what this guy has done. So give her an alternative one.. one where she can weild her female power/ego to choose for herself. If THIS guy is out there, who else could be out there who doesn't come with HIS risks. Anything with him will be messy and painful.


I disagree. This guy is not a mental challenge at all. He's utterly boring in his predictability, and will at best simply serve a function. Someone called her easy pickin's, but fact is he is the easiest pickin's of all: willing, clearly only in it for sex, and not at all the kind of person you might respect or fall for. Perfect for a quick itch scratch with no emotional complications.

You seem to be assuming that she actually wants someone for more than that, but I don't think it at all clear that's so.


----------



## Deejo

Spoke not five minutes ago.

She has conveyed to him that the nature of their relationship is not something she is comfortable moving forward with.

Indicated that our talk last night gave her a lot to think about.

And if I know her the way I think I do, if this guy thinks he can press his luck and push through her resistance, she'll despise him in less than a week.

Apparently he reiterated the fact that he understood, and it was important to him that she understood he has no intentions of leaving his wife (stressing that there could be no exclusive LTR with him), she responded with, "Don't flatter yourself."


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I disagree. This guy is not a mental challenge at all. He's utterly boring in his predictability, and will at best simply serve a function. Someone called her easy pickin's, but fact is he is the easiest pickin's of all: willing, clearly only in it for sex, and not at all the kind of person you might respect or fall for. Perfect for a quick itch scratch with no emotional complications.
> 
> You seem to be assuming that she actually wants someone for more than that, but I don't think it all clear that's so.


You're friggin' scaring me.


----------



## Deejo

CH, I know this kind of stuff triggers you ... and plenty of others here.

That is in part why I chose to post it.

Because this woman who I have known for more than half of my life, up until last night was the poster person for integrity, doing what's right and thinking what is morally wrong is blatantly obvious.

And all of that changed in a matter of a few weeks.


----------



## ConanHub

I deleted it. Still, if she is the kind of person that would kick your ass for asking her a tough question..... Well she shouldn't be surprised when the dish she prepared for someone else is served to her.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

And to be crystal clear for the viewership, she did not sleep with the guy.

Believe me, based on what she told me was going on in their texting, she most assuredly would have told me if they had bumped uglies. There has been absolute zero physical interaction. No so much as a peck on the cheek. All text.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> CH, I know this kind of stuff triggers you ... and plenty of others here.
> 
> That is in part why I chose to post it.
> 
> Because this woman who I have known for more than half of my life, up until last night was the poster person for integrity, doing what's right and thinking what is morally wrong is blatantly obvious.
> 
> And all of that changed in a matter of a few weeks.


And I think it's important that you did. 

We demonize folks like this all the time. But truth be told, how many times have any of us been tempted to do the unthinkable?

It's important to discuss this, understand it, and let's remember that she didn't do it - she reached out to someone she knew would talk her out of it. 

My wife's friend did the same thing recently, and for the same reason. Complex situation, but enlightening. 

We all have our demons. It doesn't make us demons.


----------



## Deejo

ConanHub said:


> I deleted it. Still, if she is the kind of person that would kick your ass for asking her a tough question..... Well she shouldn't be surprised when the dish she prepared for someone else is served to her.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh it was.

When our relationship ended in 94. She became involved with someone very shortly after ... unsurprisingly to me.

She moved in with him, something she said she would never do. Keep in mind we were in our 20's back then. She lived with him for 2 years. She estimates that he was cheating on her for half of it.

The guy moved the new girlfriend in a week after she moved out.


----------



## ConanHub

Also doesn't mean we don't need our ass kicked when we are fvcking someone over.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

I don't get that deejo, as you might have expected. haha

Seriously, she was abused as a child and now in peri, and somehow you think that she can represent any woman changing in a few weeks? 

How do you mean she had integrity? It seems she is showing some integrity now, by telling him to take a hike. Are you blaming this on peri and an uncontrollable urge to mate and therefore, not her fault? There's something I am missing. 

And I know you will think this is a smart allek post, but it isn't. I truly don't get how she is so filled with integrity?


----------



## ConanHub

Deejo said:


> Oh it was.
> 
> When our relationship ended in 94. She became involved with someone very shortly after ... unsurprisingly to me.
> 
> She moved in with him, something she said she would never do. Keep in mind we were in our 20's back then. She lived with him for 2 years. She estimates that he was cheating on her for half of it.
> 
> The guy moved the new girlfriend in a week after she moved out.


She definitely knows better. Glad she reached out to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Nobody that has even a middling libido willfully would choose to go six years without any form of partnered sex.


This is not entirely true. Many people will sublimate their libido into other activities, and scratch the sexual itch themselves, solo.

It isn't always a question of how strong the libido is, but of how willing and/or able they are to navigate the emotional minefield of relationships.


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> - Okay. It's tough to reason with hormones...


You said it ... I didn't. 

It's amazing how in conversations I have IRL, how often TaM'isms come into my head. I was recalling SimplyAmorous' poignant and really informative posts about when her libido spiked a number of years ago, the moment my friend said, "I feel like a teenaged boy."


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> This is not entirely true. Many people will sublimate their libido into other activities, and scratch the sexual itch themselves, solo.
> 
> It isn't always a question of how strong the libido is, but of how willing and/or able they are to navigate the emotional minefield of relationships.


Perhaps the insight I have provided surrounding my friend, may shed a light on why I have always thought highly of you. I'm not saying your circumstances are hers ... but holy sh!t, it's like you know exactly who I'm talking about.

And again, you are correct. It's part of the very reason why she makes herself unavailable, and always is too focused on other things to even think about dating.


----------



## Decorum

Sounds like she is benefiting from your help. 

My thought, he pushed a boundary to create a sexual vibe with her and let it do its work. She was receptive to it for the reasons you said. Lust was born and she was good to go, 


"Enter the hamster"!!!










Guys do this all the time, if they don't flirt and create a sexual vibe they end up a friend.

How often have I (we) seen a woman who says she cant stand some crude dude, or some acquaintance we know who is embarrassingly forward, even with a reserved woman and yet make head way (N.P.I.)? (Ok, maybe some pun intended)

He just found her kryptonite, we are surprisingly biological creatures sometimes.

Hopefully you helped save her a lot of personal loss.


----------



## Deejo

marduk said:


> And I think it's important that you did.
> 
> We demonize folks like this all the time. But truth be told, how many times have any of us been tempted to do the unthinkable?
> 
> It's important to discuss this, understand it, and let's remember that she didn't do it - she reached out to someone she knew would talk her out of it.
> 
> My wife's friend did the same thing recently, and for the same reason. Complex situation, but enlightening.
> 
> We all have our demons. It doesn't make us demons.



For all of the in's and out's and lengthy, spirited discussions we have about these subjects here on the boards, trying to make sense of it all ... sometimes it simply doesn't.

And that can be the most vexing thing of all to accept or get your head around.

Again, why I tend to emphasize always building the bond, and fostering attraction, rather than getting bogged down in complacency, or ending up in the death spiral of resentment and marital breakdown.

Keep the emotional score cards in the plus column and we can worry less about someone poaching us away on a whim from the person we have made loving commitments, and oaths to.


----------



## 2ntnuf

The only trouble is, if you give perimenopause that much credence and control over a woman, all those emotional points don't mean a thing. It's what's inside her that matters. 

So, what you're saying is, it's okay to cheat if you have a problem with your hormones? Your husband should understand, since it's his fault?

Sorry, I disagree.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Sorry, but there had to be some mental challenge or she wouldn't have even given him the time if day. And that does not mean I assume she wanted more than physical. There is _something_ about his intellect that caught her attention.


----------



## ConanHub

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sorry, but there had to be some mental challenge or she wouldn't have even given him the time if day. And that does not mean I assume she wanted more than physical. There is _something_ about his intellect that caught her attention.


Probably familiarity. She was repulsed by the thought of casual sex with someone she didn't know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Decorum

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sorry, but there had to be some mental challenge or she wouldn't have even given him the time if day. And that does not mean I assume she wanted more than physical. There is _something_ about his intellect that caught her attention.


They have been colleagues for years, I would think so too. Not to mention that sympathy creates an emotional connection.


----------



## Deejo

2ntnuf said:


> I don't get that deejo, as you might have expected. haha
> 
> Seriously, she was abused as a child and now in peri, and somehow you think that she can represent any woman changing in a few weeks?
> 
> How do you mean she had integrity? It seems she is showing some integrity now, by telling him to take a hike. Are you blaming this on peri and an uncontrollable urge to mate and therefore, not her fault? There's something I am missing.
> 
> And I know you will think this is a smart allek post, but it isn't. I truly don't get how she is so filled with integrity?


I don't think her having been abused or being in perimenopause has anything to do with representing women.

Nothing whatsoever. 

I was sharing information. If anything to make it clear that this woman ISN'T promiscuous, and in my opinion isn't even all that sexual. 

I absolutely believe that many times, affairs are nothing more than 'incidents of opportunity'. And my point is that almost ANYONE may be subject to an incident of opportunity ... and all of a sudden you find yourself thinking about doing things, wanting things, and rationalizing things that only a short time ago you never would have done.

I have never said that affairs are ok or justifiable. But I do think that simply throwing a blanket over exploring the how's and why's surrounding how they occur by either putting our heads in the sand or collectively buying into the notion of 'cheater's are bad people, once a cheater, always a cheater ...' 

that we are doing a disservice to ourselves and those whom we care about that may find themselves struggling with these very concepts. 

Such as, my friend.

I'm not 'blaming' anyone or anything.

I'm just saying this sh!t happens ... all of the time. I make no pretense of surprise or shock that it does. But my friend's phone call last night absolutely surprised and shocked me.


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sorry, but there had to be some mental challenge or she wouldn't have even given him the time if day. And that does not mean I assume she wanted more than physical. There is _something_ about his intellect that caught her attention.


Don't think it's mental.

Physical, circumstantial maybe.

Their business is physical. She's nearly 48 and looks 30. He is in shape, and ... owns his own business. And I'm not kidding you when I say this, and I purposely didn't earlier because I thought it may cause a bit of a dust-up ... she described him as being very 'Alpha'.

I laughed out loud when she said it. That's when I also started pulling the coward card.


----------



## Deejo

marduk said:


> We all have our demons. It doesn't make us demons.


Like.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo said:


> Don't think it's mental.
> 
> Physical, circumstantial maybe.
> 
> Their business is physical. She's nearly 48 and looks 30. He is in shape, and ... owns his own business. And I'm not kidding you when I say this, and I purposely didn't earlier because I thought it may cause a bit of a dust-up ... she described him as being very 'Alpha'.
> 
> I laughed out loud when she said it. That's when I also started pulling the coward card.


I'm telling you... Don't believe me if yall don't want to, but your ex doesn't let just anybody in... He hooked her with mental charge that goes beyond physical. The Alpha comment confirms it for me.


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> I'm telling you... Don't believe me if yall don't want to, but your ex doesn't let just anybody in... He hooked her with mental charge that goes beyond physical. The Alpha comment confirms it for me.


I get what you are saying. And I would acknowledge the same. I said the words ... "This guy somehow flipped your switch."

I just don't think it would ever be a matter of this dude somehow has a mental hold over her ... although I hope we never find out. I think he 'fit' her idea of being able to have her needs met and not have to invest much of herself. A big part of the attraction would have been her ability to manage the nature of the relationship and limit her emotional investment. It somehow felt both enticing, and safe to her.

It remains enticing. She no longer believes it is safe.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

To a degree she would follow her old m.o., but THIS is the first time she has ever considered risking banging a married man, so that "somehow" he enticed her is totally mentally charged for her... I didn't say mental control, but charged 

I'm really glad she is moving away from that choice.


----------



## ConanHub

Alpha.... That got me giggling!&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ConanHub said:


> Alpha.... That got me giggling!��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Doesn't surprise me


----------



## manticore

Deejo said:


> So ... after being very wordy, my friend wants to do the right thing, but is admittedly struggling.
> 
> 
> I thought long and hard about posting this, but ultimately chose to in part, because I am utterly and absolutely shocked my very smart, independent, attractive friend 'fell' for the very thing that I see time after time here ... people (both genders) say they would never fall for.
> 
> I know she'll tell me if she caves. And based on her openness with me, I won't be surprised if she does.
> 
> Just highlighting the fact that despite knowing how horribly wrong and potentially cataclysmic a given decision can be ... we go through with it anyway.


Deejo you already knows how this will end as most of us know, and yes she will eventually go trought an horrible fall out were she will be marked with names and with bad luck even will reach her son's ears, but really there is nothing you can do, the moment she defended him as "not a coward" and the moment she justified everything what is about to happen, is the moment she decided in her mid she was going to do it.

To be honest with you, I don't feel sorry for her she was warned of everything she will suffer eventually


----------



## Q tip

Mention STDs, Serial cheating, Ovid...


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,
I am thinking she called you hoping your availability might allow you to ummm - help her with this little hormone problem. 






Deejo said:


> I don't think her having been abused or being in perimenopause has anything to do with representing women.
> 
> Nothing whatsoever.
> 
> I was sharing information. If anything to make it clear that this woman ISN'T promiscuous, and in my opinion isn't even all that sexual.
> 
> I absolutely believe that many times, affairs are nothing more than 'incidents of opportunity'. And my point is that almost ANYONE may be subject to an incident of opportunity ... and all of a sudden you find yourself thinking about doing things, wanting things, and rationalizing things that only a short time ago you never would have done.
> 
> I have never said that affairs are ok or justifiable. But I do think that simply throwing a blanket over exploring the how's and why's surrounding how they occur by either putting our heads in the sand or collectively buying into the notion of 'cheater's are bad people, once a cheater, always a cheater ...'
> 
> that we are doing a disservice to ourselves and those whom we care about that may find themselves struggling with these very concepts.
> 
> Such as, my friend.
> 
> I'm not 'blaming' anyone or anything.
> 
> I'm just saying this sh!t happens ... all of the time. I make no pretense of surprise or shock that it does. But my friend's phone call last night absolutely surprised and shocked me.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> I'm telling you... Don't believe me if yall don't want to, but your ex doesn't let just anybody in... He hooked her with mental charge that goes beyond physical. The Alpha comment confirms it for me.


She has known him for years and years, and only now is even considering this. In this case, I'd say his alpha-ness is what makes him both safe and disposable. Safe because he will need care for her and disposable because she will never care for him.

My guess is that she has been shut down so long that she "forgot" what it felt like to have someone be sexual towards her. And it struck a chord.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Perhaps the insight I have provided surrounding my friend, may shed a light on why I have always thought highly of you. I'm not saying your circumstances are hers ... but holy sh!t, it's like you know exactly who I'm talking about.
> 
> And again, you are correct. It's part of the very reason why she makes herself unavailable, and always is too focused on other things to even think about dating.


This is familiar ground for me. I told you the story of one friend, a story that very much echoed yours, except that my friend did cross the line. All her friends that knew about him were shocked by her breach of ethics. It was not like her, no one expected it of her, and she caught a lot of flak for it.

And other friends too, with maybe not the same story, and no affairs, but still a similar outlook. A deep frustration with affairs of the heart, and a decision to concentrate their energies elsewhere.

And, of course, there's me. My story is different again, but for a long time, years, I was ultra cynical and ultra jaded, and had all but given up on relationships. I had (maybe still have) not just a GTFO vibe, but a veritable force field that could halt an approach at 10 paces. 

I had to very deliberately and consciously decide that I would let my SO in, that I would wait and see how things would unfold, and actively resist my frequent temptations to pull the plug, particularly in the beginning. It wasn't at all easy.


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> I am thinking she called you hoping your availability might allow you to ummm - help her with this little hormone problem.


I actually think so too. She never came out and said it, but she did say, "Ok, so tell me what's going on with you?"

Were I single, rather than in a committed relationship, I would have had no issue with being her 'Plan B' in this particular case.

In our conversation this evening, she thanked me for my support, and said it meant a great deal to her.

Which may sound like subtle flirtation to many here, but as I said in an earlier post, our history is very long and familiar, but not confusing for either of us. We care for, and about one another, but there are things that would each drive the other crazy were we to try to fit our dynamic into a typical LTR. It just wouldn't work. Her need to 'manage' a relationship in terms that she is fully comfortable with is flat out something I could not tolerate. We both know this, and that is also part of what makes me 'safe' for her. There is no pretense. I'm not trying to get or take anything from her.


----------



## MEM2020

Deej,

The single funniest bit about this whole thing is that your friend described the man as 'alpha'. 

So let me get this straight:
- The woman (his wife) who knows him best out of everyone in the world WONT sleep with him and hasn't for a long time
- And despite being totally shut down he's so afraid of his wife that he's sneaking round behind her back

Hmmmmm








Deejo said:


> I actually think so too. She never came out and said it, but she did say, "Ok, so tell me what's going on with you?"
> 
> Were I single, rather than in a committed relationship, I would have had no issue with being her 'Plan B' in this particular case.
> 
> In our conversation this evening, she thanked me for my support, and said it meant a great deal to her.
> 
> Which may sound like subtle flirtation to many here, but as I said in an earlier post, our history is very long and familiar, but not confusing for either of us. We care for, and about one another, but there are things that would each drive the other crazy were we to try to fit our dynamic into a typical LTR. It just wouldn't work. Her need to 'manage' a relationship in terms that she is fully comfortable with is flat out something I could not tolerate. We both know this, and that is also part of what makes me 'safe' for her. There is no pretense. I'm not trying to get or take anything from her.


----------



## Deejo

MEM11363 said:


> Deej,
> 
> The single funniest bit about this whole thing is that your friend described the man as 'alpha'.
> 
> So let me get this straight:
> - The woman (his wife) who knows him best out of everyone in the world WONT sleep with him and hasn't for a long time
> - And despite being totally shut down he's so afraid of his wife that he's sneaking round behind her back
> 
> Hmmmmm


Exactly. Pretty much where I went.

I also emphasized his affair a decade ago. Apparently the husband of the woman he was sleeping with, discovered and was going to expose ... so he told his wife. That was the story.

To which I appended, "So you're telling me this guy who was found out in an affair a decade ago, dug his heels in to fix his marriage? And that after all of his efforts, his wife a decade later, still shuts him down, and you believe he has been a model husband until your circumstances just a couple of weeks ago? You're being naive. The affair that was discovered was not his only affair, it's only the one you know about. He seduced you. I know, because I've done it."

At which point she pulled the cynical, man-wh0re card.


----------



## TiggyBlue

You don't think she was using the "his wife doesn't doesn't sleep with me" excuse he uses to f*ck around on his wife to her benefit?


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

The beautiful thing about you is your honesty. 

Yes - you're capable of and often diplomatic. And you aren't foolishly candid (unfiltered). 

And I'm confident that pressed to reveal stuff before you are ready, you can smile and deflect like the best of them. 

But you do not say stuff that isn't true. And that's a big deal. 

One of my BEST memories of M2 is one of my most difficult. 

I asked her a sincere and difficult question. 

And she exploded. It was a brief but intense eruption of fury. 

And I looked at her and thought - damn - she's jamming the channel with rage. I can't read anything through that. 

The thing is - she wasn't ready to tell me the truth but she was unwilling to lie to me. And I give her props for that. 





Deejo said:


> Exactly. Pretty much where I went.
> 
> I also emphasized his affair a decade ago. Apparently the husband of the woman he was sleeping with, discovered and was going to expose ... so he told his wife. That was the story.
> 
> To which I appended, "So you're telling me this guy who was found out in an affair a decade ago, dug his heels in to fix his marriage? And that after all of his efforts, his wife a decade later, still shuts him down, and you believe he has been a model husband until your circumstances just a couple of weeks ago? You're being naive. The affair that was discovered was not his only affair, it's only the one you know about. He seduced you. I know, because I've done it."
> 
> At which point she pulled the cynical, man-wh0re card.


----------



## Deejo

TiggyBlue said:


> You don't think she was using the "his wife doesn't doesn't sleep with me" excuse he uses to f*ck around on his wife to her benefit?


Of course she was. Hell that's a standard part of the buy-in for many.

Which let's be serious here, why would anyone expect something different?
I often hear the refrain of 'put yourself in their spouses shoes, how would that make you feel?'
When it comes to trying to get someone having an affair to feel sympathy and/or compassion for their affair partner's spouse.

It is to their advantage in facilitating the facade of justifiability for their affair. They quite obviously AREN'T thinking of their partners spouse ... or their own spouse depending upon the circumstances, when in the throes of passion with their partner.

The ONLY circumstances that I know of where this becomes a painful factor for the affair partner, is when they didn't know they were an affair partner in the first place. In other words, their affair partner lied to them about their marital status.


----------



## MEM2020

J,
I had already initiated a few attempts to understand why M2 was BSC. Got nowhere. Worse than nowhere. Got the borderline walk away wife spiel. 

Clearly you and M2 are very different. After 4-5 days of being increasingly aggressive and irrational she got a ruthless emotional spanking. 

Given truth serum she would have said: I actually wanted to physically harm MEM for planning to let another woman touch what is MINE. But strangely enough I also felt intense desire for him. 

Given that he was the sole breadwinner (at the time) and my strong pragmatic nature I recognized that an injury might prevent him from working for a while. 

So I decided to fvck him senseless for a few weeks all the while threatening to cut him if he even thought about letting another woman touch him. 






jld said:


> MEM, I get that you want to be respected. That you need to be respected. But don't you think that looking her in the eye and very firmly and clearly saying that you are not going down a path that will make neither of you truly happy would have inspired her respect? Why letting her set the moral tone?
> 
> Cue Rhett Butler.
> 
> I have heard women say what you mention, that they think the idea of their man with another woman is sexy. I cannot relate at all. To me it sounds shattering and heartbreaking.
> 
> I could never view Dug the same way if he did that. All the respect I have for him, all the admiration for his personal integrity -- it would just be gone in a flash.


----------



## MEM2020

Folks who aren't fogged up notice some blatant contradictions here:

My wife hasn't slept with me for years (subtext: she treats me like shlt)
Coupled with:
I'm NEVER going to leave my wife






Deejo said:


> Of course she was. Hell that's a standard part of the buy-in for many.
> 
> Which let's be serious here, why would anyone expect something different?
> I often hear the refrain of 'put yourself in their spouses shoes, how would that make you feel?'
> When it comes to trying to get someone having an affair to feel sympathy and/or compassion for their affair partner's spouse.
> 
> It is to their advantage in facilitating the facade of justifiability for their affair. They quite obviously AREN'T thinking of their partners spouse ... or their own spouse depending upon the circumstances, when in the throes of passion with their partner.
> 
> The ONLY circumstances that I know of where this becomes a painful factor for the affair partner, is when they didn't know they were an affair partner in the first place. In other words, their affair partner lied to them about their marital status.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> She has known him for years and years, and only now is even considering this. In this case, I'd say his alpha-ness is what makes him both safe and disposable. Safe because he will need care for her and disposable because she will never care for him.
> 
> My guess is that she has been shut down so long that she "forgot" what it felt like to have someone be sexual towards her. And it struck a chord.


I think its the reverse. Only now was the first time he noticed a ***** in her armour open up and went for it. He caught her off her normal guard without rattling her abuse triggers the wrong way and she was intrigued on how he did that and like a moth to a flame... She was hooked. I hope she sticks to her decision to unhook herself. I too think she was falling back to Deejo as the safer option.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> I think its the reverse. Only now was the first time he noticed a ***** in her armour open up and went for it. He caught her off her normal guard without rattling her abuse triggers the wrong way and she was intrigued on how he did that and like a moth to a flame... She was hooked. I hope she sticks to her decision to unhook herself. I too think she was falling back to Deejo as the safer option.


If by "***** in her amour" you mean "sex drive", and if by "intrigued" you mean "horny", then I would agree.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> If by "***** in her amour" you mean "sex drive", and if by "intrigued" you mean "horny", then I would agree.


Maybe... I still think it the intrigue included a mental charge element, not just chemicals and libido.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> This is familiar ground for me. I told you the story of one friend, a story that very much echoed yours, except that my friend did cross the line. All her friends that knew about him were shocked by her breach of ethics. It was not like her, no one expected it of her, and she caught a lot of flak for it.
> 
> And other friends too, with maybe not the same story, and no affairs, but still a similar outlook. A deep frustration with affairs of the heart, and a decision to concentrate their energies elsewhere.
> 
> And, of course, there's me. My story is different again, but for a long time, years, I was ultra cynical and ultra jaded, and had all but given up on relationships. I had (maybe still have) not just a GTFO vibe, but a veritable force field that could halt an approach at 10 paces.
> 
> I had to very deliberately and consciously decide that I would let my SO in, that I would wait and see how things would unfold, and actively resist my frequent temptations to pull the plug, particularly in the beginning. It wasn't at all easy.


Listen, please don't take this personally...

But there are guys like me out there that the gtfo vibe either doesn't work on, or actually find it attractive. It was kinda my thing single - hit on the hot smart intimidating girls, because once you got inside their shields, anything went. 

It's how I hooked my current wife when most couldn't. 

What I'm saying is that vibe can create both a false sense of security and shock and awe when some stud breaches your defences. Which might be easier than some women think. All it takes is balls.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> Of course she was. Hell that's a standard part of the buy-in for many.
> 
> Which let's be serious here, why would anyone expect something different?
> I often hear the refrain of 'put yourself in their spouses shoes, how would that make you feel?'
> When it comes to trying to get someone having an affair to feel sympathy and/or compassion for their affair partner's spouse.
> 
> It is to their advantage in facilitating the facade of justifiability for their affair. They quite obviously AREN'T thinking of their partners spouse ... or their own spouse depending upon the circumstances, when in the throes of passion with their partner.
> 
> The ONLY circumstances that I know of where this becomes a painful factor for the affair partner, is when they didn't know they were an affair partner in the first place. In other words, their affair partner lied to them about their marital status.


I've had women say the exact same thing to me to try to get me to sleep with them.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> He seduced you. I know, because I've done it."
> 
> At which point she pulled the cynical, man-wh0re card.


My bet says that he's been "seducing" her for years. Probably fromethe first day they met, he's opened that door, and trying to work his angles.

But she dismissed him. For a zillion reasons, she wasn't into him, didn't take him seriously. He's married, he's a cheater, he treats all women this way, etc., and so on.

But now she wants something from him (or rather did briefly), for her, and having very little to do with him. He is but a placeholder. Like you and others have said, he seemed a safe(ish) option, and so she wanted (briefly) to rationalize her way into it.

I think it not like other affair fogs, where the other person is seen as some kind of dream come true, or solution to life's problems.


----------



## Deejo

You know what? 
I ' ll ask her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

just watch your _own_ filter and ego


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Reminds me on the research of mate poaching. It could be to boost her own ego, and prove that she is more of a catch over the wife. It is biological competition for things like attention, placing herself above another, taking resource from another, things of that nature. Not to mention the thrill of doing something taboo. I am sure she is getting a hormonal rush.

Think about the huge ego boost. He is willing to spend his time and resource on her, she is beating another female for his attention, and he is taking a risk of losing everything to sleep with her. She knows he is an a$$, but she is doing this more for her own ego likely. Most animals have a pecking order, and she is simply displacing someone else.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that vibe can create both a false sense of security and shock and awe when some stud breaches your defences. Which might be easier than some women think. All it takes is balls.


Uh, sure, I can believe that some guys get off on a challenge, and some dig smart and intimidating.

But the shock and awe you speak of? Hardly. 

The friend that I spoke of had lots of guys interested in her. I even once tried to hook her up with a male friend of mine because I knew they would hit it off. And boy, did they. They were up the whole night sharing travel stories, and talking like the best of friends. But what came of it? Absolutely nothing. Just like all of the others who wanted to get to know her better.

And she is *way* nicer and friendlier than me. Downright kind and caring, in fact. For someone like me, most guys (95%? 99%?) are not even the slightest bit interested. All I ever had to do to get a guy to start slowly backing get away from me, for example, was telling him what I do.

Of the vanishing small number who persisted, most of them only ever saw T&A, nothing more. They didn't actually like me or appreciate me, just wanted some sex while they waited for someone better.

So while I'm sure you've had your successes with some hot and smart women, you'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical about some "stud" with cajones pulling shock and awe. It would only work, I would think, with a woman who is looking for what you (he) have to offer


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> You know what?
> I ' ll ask her.


If she was totally shut down to him, she may not have noticed. So if she responds with "no", humour me, and ask her if he's been known for making comments with sexual innuendo around her, or offered up various "services" (massage, drinks, bringing something to her house) to help her/make her feel better.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Uh, sure, I can believe that some guys get off on a challenge, and some dig smart and intimidating.
> 
> But the shock and awe you speak of? Hardly.
> 
> The friend that I spoke of had lots of guys interested in her. I even once tried to hook her up with a male friend of mine because I knew they would hit it off. And boy, did they. They were up the whole night sharing travel stories, and talking like the best of friends. But what came of it? Absolutely nothing. Just like all of the others who wanted to get to know her better.
> 
> And she is *way* nicer and friendlier than me. Downright kind and caring, in fact. For someone like me, most guys (95%? 99%?) are not even the slightest bit interested. All I ever had to do to get a guy to start slowly backing get away from me, for example, was telling him what I do.
> 
> Of the vanishing small number who persisted, most of them only ever saw T&A, nothing more. They didn't actually like me or appreciate me, just wanted some sex while they waited for someone better.
> 
> So while I'm sure you've had your successes with some hot and smart women, you'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical about some "stud" with cajones pulling shock and awe. It would only work, I would think, with a woman who is looking for what you (he) have to offer


There needs to be attraction there, of course. 

What I'm saying is that I've encountered women who absolutely seemed unattracted and absolutely dissuaded any attention find themselves surprised at how attracted they found themselves, and that surprise comingled with a sustained lack of attention from others can lead quickly elsewhere. 

Especially for a guy just looking for t and a. 

And I've been told more than once about the increase in attraction that happens when I ignore the gtfo vibe. 

All I'm saying is to be aware. Girls with the gtfo vibe tend to rely on it, be surprised when it doesn't work, and exceptionally attention starved because of it. 

A volatile mix.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

yep... handle that gtfo a certain way and you can bring that person to their knees... I've done it with a guy. And this was a guy NO ONE messes with, male or female.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> yep... *handle that gtfo a certain way *and you can bring that person to their knees... I've done it with a guy. And this was a guy NO ONE messes with, male or female.


Be fearless? 

No matter what they do or say, it cannot knock you over? 

They feel your strength, and the submissive in them melts, whether they want it to or not? 

And then you own them?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Be fearless?
> 
> No matter what they do or say, it cannot knock you over?
> 
> They feel your strength, and the submissive in them melts, whether they want it to or not?
> 
> And then you own them?


Giggle... inquiring minds want to know


----------



## jld




----------



## Blossom Leigh

A girl's got to keep _some_ secrets


----------



## jld

I think lasting attraction probably works the same with both sexes, though not sure. Not sure about temporary attraction, either. 

When a man is just so strong in himself that nothing she can say or do can offend him, a woman is hooked. _He_ is not going to be a sexless husband. She is too emotionally tied in, too safe inside his protection. She cannot resist him.

Uh, what was someone saying about armchair psychology?


----------



## Deejo

intheory said:


> Everything's explained.


Ok, now that was sarcasm.

Keep in mind I'm verbalizing from the position of knowing this woman since she was 22. 

She is often times a complete contradiction. During the course of the conversation I would try to coalesce the fantasy elements.

Me: So you really want to have sex with this guy?

Her: Oh, yes.

Me. Where?

Her: What?

Me: Where are you going to have sex? In the car after your meetups?

Her: No! Absolutely not. No way at my age am I having sex in a car.

Me: A motel?

Her: Gross. No.

Me: His house? 

Her: NO! JESUS!

Me: Your house?

Her: He's almost never down this way. There wouldn't be reason for him to. And besides, Jake (her dog) hates strangers.

Me: So where? Where exactly are you going to f*ck this guy who you are so keen on f*cking?

Her: I don't know, why are you asking me such a stupid question?


I wasn't knocking her over age with my statement. I was making the comment knowing full well how she had interacted with guys for most of her life. She has been very 'off' dating for far longer than the 6 years since she last was intimate with someone.

She has commented about her perimenopause for the last few years. So, I ... and I'm guessing she, just thought the being sexually knocked on your ass portion of her life had come to a close.

In the scheme of things, I'm very happy for her. Just wish it was directed at a guy who was single and available.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I dont know


What were the armchair psychologists saying?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

And sometimes it is not her looking for safety....


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> Part of the attraction for her is that it would never be a 'real' relationship.
> 
> I was gobsmacked listening to the rationalizations she was making in order to justify why it would be OK to sleep with this guy. "They both know their marriage is a sham, they just don't want to blow up their lifestyle or their kids lives.", "How many people do you know that are happily married?", "There is a difference between the person you want to grow old with and the person you want to just f*ck the sh!t out of you ...", "She has plenty of responsibility for this circumstance too ...","It's like he switched something on in me. No one has ever talked to me or made me feel the way this guy does."


Well, yeah. 
An affair isn't a "real relationship." It is nothing like a marriage.
Also, no person having an affair is going to tell the affair partner that their marriage is awesome and their spouse is wonderful. Duh.
These things happen every day, all over the world, since the beginning of time. And the story doesn't change. Illicit, exciting, two willing people, betrayal, "he/she made me feel like o one ever has...", "the marriage is no good anyway." Same story. Tale as old as time.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> And sometimes it is not her looking for safety....


Absolutely correct. It might be him. She reassures him.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> Ok, now that was sarcasm.
> 
> Keep in mind I'm verbalizing from the position of knowing this woman since she was 22.
> 
> She is often times a complete contradiction. During the course of the conversation I would try to coalesce the fantasy elements.
> 
> Me: So you really want to have sex with this guy?
> 
> Her: Oh, yes.
> 
> Me. Where?
> 
> Her: What?
> 
> Me: Where are you going to have sex? In the car after your meetups?
> 
> Her: No! Absolutely not. No way at my age am I having sex in a car.
> 
> Me: A motel?
> 
> Her: Gross. No.
> 
> Me: His house?
> 
> Her: NO! JESUS!
> 
> Me: Your house?
> 
> Her: He's almost never down this way. There wouldn't be reason for him to. And besides, Jake (her dog) hates strangers.
> 
> Me: So where? Where exactly are you going to f*ck this guy who you are so keen on f*cking?
> 
> Her: I don't know, why are you asking me such a stupid question?
> 
> 
> I wasn't knocking her over age with my statement. I was making the comment knowing full well how she had interacted with guys for most of her life. She has been very 'off' dating for far longer than the 6 years since she last was intimate with someone.
> 
> She has commented about her perimenopause for the last few years. So, I ... and I'm guessing she, just thought the being sexually knocked on your ass portion of her life had come to a close.
> 
> In the scheme of things, I'm very happy for her. Just wish it was directed at a guy who was single and available.


I like your stealth mechanism to engage her rational brain-parts.

However, women here please don't take offense -- but I always assumed as the dude it was up to me to find an appropriate facility for coitus.

I guarantee he had a plan, is what I'm saying.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> All I'm saying is to be aware. Girls with the gtfo vibe tend to rely on it, be surprised when it doesn't work, and exceptionally attention starved because of it.
> 
> A volatile mix.


I think you're misreading the dynamic, at least some of the dynamic I'm talking about.

A guy who ignores the GTFO vibe is just as likely to be identified as an irritant as anything else. A fool on a fool's errand.

However, if he has something that she wants, she might just go for it. 

You seem to assuming that these supposedly smart women become just stupid suckers because some guy is pulling game on them for t&a, and they are so attention starved they fall for it.

I say no. Maybe sometimes for the young and foolish who are still only novices at the GTFO, or who don't really mean it. No doubt such women exist.

But for the seasoned among us? Not a chance that being attention-starved is going to make us do something we don't want to do.

Guys seem to have this idea that because a woman fvcks a man that *he* did something right, and *he* got past her defenses, and *he* is amazingly alpha attractive. Not necessarily true. No more true than a woman thinking that just because some guy wants to stick it in her that he thinks she is amazingly attractive/desirable.


----------



## Marduk

A_A I'm not saying that you would fall for these shenanigans. 

I'm saying that I've personally experienced many women that do.

I'm going to be way, way, too open and tell you a bit on how I did it.

Me - at a bar, at the gym, at a party, wherever. Look around the room. Find the subset of women who are attractive, standing tall and confident, looking everyone in the eye. And giving the GTFO vibe.

You'll often notice a circle around them totally unoccupied by single males. You'll find the occasional mate of one of her friends, or guys she has already friendzoned, but that's about it. You can tell these guys because they are already acting weak and needy and trying to get her attention.

So a guy like me walks up. Confidently offers his hand, introduces himself, and says "Hi."

And proceeds to totally relate to her on a human level. As friends. Takes genuine interest in her work, her hobbies, stuff she's into. Engages her at that level. Because, you have long realized, that while 99% of the slobs that are deflected by the GTFO vibe, 99% of the 1% remaining are just ****y good looking guys that assume that she wants to be banging you in the restroom in 5 minutes, and if not, they move on.

But how many dudes can resist the GTFO vibe by being confident enough but can engage her on a non-physical level? While being attractive and put together enough to draw most women?

Not many, that's who. Give a woman tinglies that hasn't experienced them in a while, while dropping her shields because you're not making an obvious play...

Well, that might not work for you. But it works for many.

The icing on the cake? Walking away at the end of the evening without making an obvious play. Either let her make it (which happens more often than you might think), arrange for a totally innocent meeting regarding something she's into (hey, that's weird, I just happened to have an extra ticket to that, don't think I'm trying to come on to you or anything but want to go?), or make it the next time you run into her. 

See, that way it's either her idea (that you helped plant there) or in the next interaction, the shields are down.

The key is to not get stuck in the friend zone. Various ways to achieve that, but you get the gist.

And, of course, if she appears open to it, making an obvious play sometimes works instead of the whole "let's be friends" schtick, but you get the idea. With those, I sometimes found a very direct approach to be... welcomed.

And if all that fails, well... there are always others.


----------



## Marduk

Can you talk more about the guy not doing something right if he's successful in his attempt to get a woman with the GTFO vibe into bed if that's what he wants?

You're meaning that's what she wanted?


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> A_A I'm not saying that you would fall for these shenanigans.
> 
> I'm saying that I've personally experienced many women that do.
> 
> I'm going to be way, way, too open and tell you a bit on how I did it.


Okay, so let me give you the view from the other side.

My friend: warm, approachable, fun, playful, kind, nice. She is never standing alone at a party. She is dancing, chatting, having a great time. Lots of guys hit on her. I've seen her more than once really (seemingly) connecting to a guy, had those guys ask me about her, etc., and so on. None of them, though, get anywhere with her because she just won't let them in. She might have a short fling, but that's it, and it's always strictly speaking on her own terms.

Me: cynical, dark, and for the most part would rather be left alone. I am probably not at the party, and if I am, it's because my good friends are there and I want to hang out and have fun with them. Not looking for someone to pay attention to me. Now, if you walk up to me, introduce yourself, and relate to me, I will relate back. It's possible that I might even be interested in you. It happens, after all, and unlike my friend, I actually do want to connect. But odds are very, very good that any sort of cold approach will just end up with nothing, nowhere. Because, quite frankly, I pretty much believe that anyone who is at all interested in me just wants a quick lay, and I would only go for that if it also happened to be what I wanted or needed at the time.


----------



## Marduk

When I was single I would have beelined right past your friend to you A_A. 

And I'm sure failed spectacularly, but would have loved every second of it.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Me: cynical, dark, and for the most part would rather be left alone. I am probably not at the party, and if I am, it's because my good friends are there and I want to hang out and have fun with them. Not looking for someone to pay attention to me. Now, if you walk up to me, introduce yourself, and relate to me, I will relate back. It's possible that I might even be interested in you. It happens, after all, and unlike my friend, I actually do want to connect. But odds are very, very good that any sort of cold approach will just end up with nothing, nowhere. Because, quite frankly, I pretty much believe that anyone who is at all interested in me just wants a quick lay, and I would only go for that if it also happened to be what I wanted or needed at the time.


This is exactly the type of guy that I blindsided and then some.... he never saw me coming. He ended up falling for me, but I saw just how dangerous he was for me and walked... sometimes it is not smart to play with fire no matter how thrilling it is. He just about ruined me for all men... the alpha of alphas.. makes the rest of them look like school boys to me now, except my H.


----------



## Deejo

I just pretty much seduce everybody ....

How do you think I got to be a mod?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

It was the mustache ....


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Because, quite frankly, I pretty much believe that anyone who is at all interested in me just wants a quick lay.


Always alone, you feel this way? Because if you do, you are not with the right man.

The right man affirms you on a deep level. He loves your soul, not just your body. Worthwhile men are not shallow like that.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Always alone, you feel this way? Because if you do, you are not with the right man.
> 
> The right man affirms you on a deep level. He loves your soul, not just your body. Worthwhile men are not shallow like that.


Hmm...

As a man I always thought the right guy was a guy that did affirm you at a deep level...

While simultanously wanting to rip your clothes off.

Kind of a package deal, no?


----------



## Marduk

Blossom Leigh said:


> It was the mustache ....


it's the clothes that make the man. In addition to the facial hair


----------



## Blossom Leigh

lol.. cute


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Hmm...
> 
> As a man I always thought the right guy was a guy that did affirm you at a deep level...
> 
> While simultanously wanting to rip your clothes off.
> 
> Kind of a package deal, no?


Sure. But aa needs to be loved, deeply. It is way beyond attraction issues. 

A woman who feels a man would only be interested in sex from her needs a truly loving, truly caring, secure man. They are out there, aa. 

The night Dug told me he loved me, I responded with those same words you mentioned. Just told him point blank he only wanted sex with me. He was shocked. He already knew he wanted to marry me. He was not expecting those words at all!

But I had just come out of an unhealthy relationship and was not feeling very trusting. But I am so glad I took a chance!

The right man is healing, aa. He wants to give to you, to listen to you and nurture you and heal your heart. And he does it for the pleasure of seeing you become healthy and happy. He wants the best for you, for your sake.

He is not afraid of you and he will not game you. He will be patient and kind and vulnerable in return. 

He will also be strong. He will be too secure in himself to be intimidated by your intelligence. He will enjoy the challenge. And he will be sensitive to you, not just expect you to be sensitive to him. 

In short, he will not be needy.

You are a smart woman. You are in tune with your feelings. Please consider what I am saying. You do not have to be always alone. Not with the _right_ man.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> When I was single I would have beelined right past your friend to you A_A.
> 
> And I'm sure failed spectacularly, but would have loved every second of it.


Kind of you to say, marduk. Not true. But kind.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Kind of you to say, marduk. Not true. But kind.


Ok now I'm picking up on something here. 

You would assume a guy that walks up and introduces himself just wants in your pants. 

And with what you just said I'm picking up that you think a guy like me wouldn't be interested in you. 

Am I off base here?


----------



## Q tip

Blossom Leigh said:


> It was the mustache ....


Um, ER... Uh... No comment...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

:rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo, you pointed out to her that he's a coward which is very true. Did you point out to her that she's either a coward or emotionally lazy or both as well? She's willing to take part in creating pain for someone else to get her rocks off because it's convenient. By all means, he's the one who's married so he's the one who is betraying his wife but at the same time your friend is not having empathy for the pain this will cause. I would want to tell her to put on her big girl pants and if she wants a f-buddy then put in some effort rather than participating in this.

She's probably not going to listen anyway but you never know when calling someone out bluntly for being a d!ck might make a different. And there's no doubt about it that she's being a d!ck.


----------



## jld

@Thundarr: People usually respond better to honey than vinegar.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Overall, I try not to make too many assumptions about people.
> 
> But that said, my default assumption is that he, whoever he may be, is not at all interested in me.
> 
> Until he actually hits on me. Then I assume he is doing so because he wants to get laid.
> 
> These assumptions are based in my experience, which taught me that guys aren't interested, and if they are, it's just for a bit of sex until they find someone they actually like.


You _are_ lovable. You simply must begin to believe that. It is the truth.


----------



## Thundarr

jld said:


> @Thundarr: People usually respond better to honey than vinegar.


He doesn't have to mean mug her while saying it or yell at her. Simply being blunt and saying that she's a friend and will continue to be but that she's doing mean and hurtful things and that he's surprised and disapointed. I've said blunt things on occasion to people I love specifically because their important to me. If they weren't then maybe I'd shake my head and walk off instead.

To me sometimes vinegar and honey work nicely together.


----------



## ConanHub

Depending on what you are trying to feed honey to, you might just lose an appendage in the attempt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

No one likes criticism and especially unsolicited criticism. In this case though she came to Deejo. It's possible to be tactful and at the same time really call someone out. One part of being tactful is making sure the person knows that us not liking something they're doing does not define them in our eyes as a bad person. Just a person who we think is doing bad things. Maybe things we think they will regret later on.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> You _are_ lovable. You simply must begin to believe that. It is the truth.


You are also very kind, jld. I appreciate it!!

But it really doesn't matter how lovable I think I am. Not all of us get fairy tale happily ever afters.

The most eye-opening experience for me coming to TAM, for example, is seeing exactly how much and how many men utterly despise women like me. I honestly had no real conception before. I mean, I lived those same reactions, but never saw the thought processes behind them. 

Have to say, though, it sure made sense of a few things that I felt, but never really understood before.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> You are also very kind, jld. I appreciate it!!
> 
> But it really doesn't matter how lovable I think I am. Not all of us get fairy tale happily ever afters.
> 
> The most eye-opening experience for me coming to TAM, for example, is seeing exactly how much and how many men utterly despise women like me. I honestly had no real conception before. I mean, I lived those same reactions, but never saw the thought processes behind them.
> 
> Have to say, though, it sure made sense of a few things that I felt, but never really understood before.


Remember that you're seeing a lot of men who have encountered a lot of pain, which they attribute to the women that they have been in relationships with.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

What is a girl like you a_a? I'm not familiar with you.


----------



## ConanHub

Blossom Leigh said:


> What is a girl like you a_a? I'm not familiar with you.


Uh... Yeah... Got me curious. Do I despise you always?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

K, A_A. Let's say a dude like me sees you across the crowded room and introduces himself.

Now, he may want in your pants, sure. But he may also be intrigued by you and be interested in more as well.

Whatcha gonna do in that situation? Assume he's just looking for some action?

He may actually just be a nice cool guy that's attracted to you, and that's not a bad thing.


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> Me - at a bar, at the gym, at a party, wherever. Look around the room. Find the subset of women who are attractive, standing tall and confident, looking everyone in the eye. And giving the GTFO vibe.


I'm probably wrong here, but based on watching three daughters; five sisters and twenty three female cousins over the years, the GTFO vibe, to me is aloof; avoiding all eye contact and with a, "I've just smelled poop" look plastered on their faces. 

I've actually heard female relatives complain after a social event that they were lonely, when there were easily a dozen guys that they scared off.... :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> I'm probably wrong here, but based on watching three daughters; five sisters and twenty three female cousins over the years, the GTFO vibe, to me is aloof; avoiding all eye contact and with a, "I've just smelled poop" look plastered on their faces.
> 
> I've actually heard female relatives complain after a social event that they were lonely, when there were easily a dozen guys that they scared off.... :scratchhead:


Yup!

What I'm saying is for those that aren't easily scared off...


----------



## Red Sonja

Deejo said:


> Any other salvos of assurance, advice, or condemnation that I could pass along would be welcome.


How about a salvo of real-life consequences_ for her_.

I am also a "business woman" and have been in the corporate world as a business owner and COO for 30 years and have seen this scenario play out several times. And, it ain’t pretty.

First off, the affair is _always _“found out” in the business environment. Why? Because the affair _always _ends eventually and people _always _gossip, boast, etc. Why does she think this guy is “well known in this circle to have cheated on his wife about a decade ago” … *duh, probably because he brags about his conquests. *

Second there are _always _repercussions. In the case of your friend, when the affair ends she will find that her other male business associates will start hitting on her to get their “turn” with her. She will have a difficult time in her business circle thereafter, always wondering if anyone is truly “taking her seriously”.

She needs to get her head out of her a$$ and you can tell her that I said so.


----------



## MEM2020

QFT




Red Sonja said:


> How about a salvo of real-life consequences_ for her_.
> 
> I am also a "business woman" and have been in the corporate world as a business owner and COO for 30 years and have seen this scenario play out several times. And, it ain’t pretty.
> 
> First off, the affair is _always _“found out” in the business environment. Why? Because the affair _always _ends eventually and people _always _gossip, boast, etc. Why does she think this guy is “well known in this circle to have cheated on his wife about a decade ago” … *duh, probably because he brags about his conquests. *
> 
> Second there are _always _repercussions. In the case of your friend, when the affair ends she will find that her other male business associates will start hitting on her to get their “turn” with her. She will have a difficult time in her business circle thereafter, always wondering if anyone is truly “taking her seriously”.
> 
> She needs to get her head out of her a$$ and you can tell her that I said so.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I'm probably wrong here, but based on watching three daughters; five sisters and twenty three female cousins over the years, the GTFO vibe, to me is aloof; avoiding all eye contact and with a, "I've just smelled poop" look plastered on their faces.
> 
> I've actually heard female relatives complain after a social event that they were lonely, when there were easily a dozen guys that they scared off.... :scratchhead:


Yes, but this is only one possible manifestation. And fairly obvious in the fix for those who do actually want to connect, and not scare anyone off.

But this friend I have been talking about here? She is warm and friendly, conversational, caring. She will ask you about your life, your family, your pet cat. She is lovely and charming. But you cannot touch her. She has many friends, no one gets too close.

Another woman I know is quite beautiful and feminine. Always polite, but ice, ice cold. And sharp. She'll cut you down in an instant.

Me, I'll just look you straight in the eye, one eyebrow arched, "Yes? Can I help you?"


----------



## Deejo

intheory said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> It wasn't sarcasm on *my* part. I'm being completely serious. Being in your late 40's can be a very, very, sexy time for a woman.
> 
> On an unrelated topic; your current girlfriend must be very easygoing; considering that you are still so deeply concerned and invested in your ex-fiance. And she is an ex-fiance, not merely a friend.
> 
> Which is great if you guys are both on the same page about it. Or, maybe your current gf. isn't a super serious relationship.
> 
> That's just one of the things that kept going through my mind as I read your posts.


I agree about women being extraordinarily sexy, and sexual in their 40's.

My GF is very understanding. We don't much fret this kind of thing. She occasionally hangs out with her first ex-husband. I don't hang out with my friend. I suppose it sounds more scandalous when we call her my ex-fiance. Is there a sunset clause on having an ex-fiance?

Suppose all of this sounds like I'm overly invested in a former lover?

For perspective, when she called me 2 nights ago, that was the first time we spoke in about 4 months. We've gone for years in our history without contact or interaction.

Just not something I worry about.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> @Thundarr: People usually respond better to honey than vinegar.


I use that phrase all of time, jld.

And Thundarr we covered that ground. Someone who has made the choice to participate in an affair, or is thinking about it, doesn't care about the betrayed spouse. I made it about her and her well-being, not the wife of the guy she's interested in.

What do we know about her? She chose not to leave after his previous affair. We also know the marital dynamic didn't change much at all. Hell ... I don't feel bad for her, would be hard to make that sale to my friend.


----------



## Deejo

Red Sonja said:


> How about a salvo of real-life consequences_ for her_.
> 
> I am also a "business woman" and have been in the corporate world as a business owner and COO for 30 years and have seen this scenario play out several times. And, it ain’t pretty.
> 
> First off, the affair is _always _“found out” in the business environment. Why? Because the affair _always _ends eventually and people _always _gossip, boast, etc. Why does she think this guy is “well known in this circle to have cheated on his wife about a decade ago” … *duh, probably because he brags about his conquests. *
> 
> Second there are _always _repercussions. In the case of your friend, when the affair ends she will find that her other male business associates will start hitting on her to get their “turn” with her. She will have a difficult time in her business circle thereafter, always wondering if anyone is truly “taking her seriously”.
> 
> She needs to get her head out of her a$$ and you can tell her that I said so.


I pointed this out and it seemed to stick. If ended, ended badly, or were exposed ... they would still be interacting all of the time ... and all of their colleagues would know, and the judgment would be harsher for her because everyone would have expected her to know better.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> When a man is just so strong in himself that nothing she can say or do can offend him, a woman is hooked. _He_ is not going to be a sexless husband. She is too emotionally tied in, too safe inside his protection. She cannot resist him.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, what was someone saying about armchair psychology?



I would leave psychology to psychologists, even small appliance psychologists 

A lot of people don't get offended because they're not smart enough to know they should be offended or because they don't care. Neither is irresistible material.


----------



## always_alone

Red Sonja said:


> She needs to get her head out of her a$$ and you can tell her that I said so.


I don't disagree, but I do find it very interesting how easy it is for everyone to see how this will ruin her career, but he's apparently been a philandering dog for over a decade, with nary a consequence.

I'm imagining that he never wonders if people will take him less seriously because he cheats.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

jld said:


> Sure. But aa needs to be loved, deeply. It is way beyond attraction issues.
> 
> A woman who feels a man would only be interested in sex from her needs a truly loving, truly caring, secure man. They are out there, aa.
> 
> The night Dug told me he loved me, I responded with those same words you mentioned. Just told him point blank he only wanted sex with me. He was shocked. He already knew he wanted to marry me. He was not expecting those words at all!
> 
> But I had just come out of an unhealthy relationship and was not feeling very trusting. But I am so glad I took a chance!
> 
> The right man is healing, aa. He wants to give to you, to listen to you and nurture you and heal your heart. And he does it for the pleasure of seeing you become healthy and happy. He wants the best for you, for your sake.
> 
> He is not afraid of you and he will not game you. He will be patient and kind and vulnerable in return.
> 
> He will also be strong. He will be too secure in himself to be intimidated by your intelligence. He will enjoy the challenge. And he will be sensitive to you, not just expect you to be sensitive to him.
> 
> In short, he will not be needy.
> 
> You are a smart woman. You are in tune with your feelings. Please consider what I am saying. You do not have to be always alone. Not with the _right_ man.


As wonderful and flattering a picture of your ideal man is, if you want to find a good man you will have to step out of your ideal and meet real men.


----------



## Red Sonja

always_alone said:


> I don't disagree, but I do find it very interesting how easy it is for everyone to see how this will ruin her career, but he's apparently been a philandering dog for over a decade, with nary a consequence.
> 
> I'm imagining that he never wonders if people will take him less seriously because he cheats.


I am not saying it's fair or even morally correct, but unfortunately it is the way the world is and we all have to live in it.

I will say that I personally lose respect for all who engage in affairs in the workplace regardless of gender and, in my business circle my opinion matters.


----------



## always_alone

intheory said:


> You're an IRS auditor??
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.


LOL!!!! Awesome.


----------



## jld

PreRaphaelite said:


> As wonderful and flattering a picture of your ideal man is, if you want to find a good man you will have to step out of your ideal and meet real men.


I am describing my very real husband.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> All I ever had to do to get a guy to start slowly backing get away from me, for example, was telling him what I do.


Damn.... Now I've got a mental picture of Sylvia Rafael....


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Mortician?


----------



## john117

PreRaphaelite said:


> As wonderful and flattering a picture of your ideal man is, if you want to find a good man you will have to step out of your ideal and meet real men.



It's a numbers game. Some men are like what jld describes but most are not. So if you end up with a "good strong type" consider yourself lucky. 

Or as we say... The odds are good but the good are odd


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> That's some mighty fine yarn you spin, my friend!
> 
> If any such thing were to ever happen to me, I'll try and remember that.


You have had a horrible time with men. That really sucks. No really good experiences?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Damn.... Now I've got a mental picture of Sylvia Rafael....


Oh, you guys are good...

(But honestly that's a whole 'nother category of deadly altogether.)


----------



## Blondilocks

*"Besides, I'm celebrating day 105 with my GF today. The woman who has my heart."*

That eliminated my suggestion which would have been to do the friendly thing and put this woman out of her misery. What are friends for if not to pony up for the occasion and give her a good ride.

Too bad, you don't live near Pahrump. She could get her needs taken care of by a professional.


----------



## jld

Well, the way I see it, if you are not with a great guy, you are better off alone. Win/Win, or No Deal.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

naaa.. some people like a good project... lol


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> naaa.. some people like a good project... lol


And if you can handle it, more power to you.

I just know I cannot handle it.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Well, the way I see it, if you are not with a great guy, you are better off alone. Win/Win, or No Deal.


In principle, I would agree wholeheartedly. Alone is way better than many of the other options.

But sometimes alone gets lonely, and people have needs we can't always fill by ourselves. 

So then what do you do?

(And before you answer, tell me: what's the longest period of time that you have been alone for?)


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Well, the way I see it, if you are not with a great guy, you are better off alone. Win/Win, or No Deal.



View attachment 32185


So the fraction of the population who meet the womanly criteria of "great guys" get the chicks and the rest move to Kentucky and hit on cousins 

At the individual level your advise is sound but at the population level there simply aren't enough "great guys" to go around. That leaves no space for growth or compromise if I'm reading it correctly.

I've heard similar arguments about mixed race marriages... Not sure I buy that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> And if you can handle it, more power to you.
> 
> I just know I cannot handle it.


I can and what I love about where we are is we are both learning and growing... I'm his project and I'm his. We work on ourselves, each other and we are loving it. The trick is how to separate out what belongs on whom. Once it's figured out, it helps amazingly well for us.

Basically it takes two engaging in healthy partnership. Once two people decide to do that magic happens. If one or the other or both aren't its rough.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> In principle, I would agree wholeheartedly. Alone is way better than many of the other options.
> 
> But sometimes alone gets lonely, and people have needs we can't always fill by ourselves.
> 
> So then what do you do?
> 
> (And before you answer, tell me: what's the longest period of time that you have been alone for?)


6 years? (late teens, early 20s). Occasional dates, nothing that led to anything. Anything good, anyway.

Look, I know it is not easy. But I strongly feel making your own life, with an interesting career, is much safer than taking a risk on a man of questionable character.

The beauty of the women's movement is that women are no longer forced into economic dependency. Take advantage of that. Build your own wealth, live life on your terms. 

That is what I am telling my daughter. There is no reason to settle. Better to be at zero men-wise than with someone at negative value.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> I can and what I love about where we are is we are both learning and growing... I'm his project and I'm his. We work on ourselves, each other and we are loving it. The trick is how to separate out what belongs on whom. Once it's figured out, it helps amazingly well for us.
> 
> Basically it takes two engaging in healthy partnership. Once two people decide to do that magic happens. If one or the other or both aren't its rough.


You have found something that works for you. 'Nuff said.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Look, I know it is not easy. But I strongly feel making your own life, with an interesting career, is much safer than taking a risk on a man of questionable character.



Everyone has questionable character in one aspect or another. If we wanted to play safe we'd all be dating cousins or going for arranged marriages 

Some risks are worth taking. I took a risk with J2 compared to the alternative of getting married to a local girl who would marry me for trophy and offer a nice sized dowry.... It worked for 25 years, can't complain.

My younger girl is taking your approach to extreme and I have a feeling she will end up single... Unless she meets a 60 year old French nobility guy with tge requisite chateau this summer during study abroad


----------



## jld

If she's happy, John, _tant mieux!_


----------



## TiggyBlue

jld said:


> Well, the way I see it, if you are not with a great guy, you are better off alone. Win/Win, or No Deal.


:iagree:


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> That is what I am telling my daughter. There is no reason to settle. Better to be at zero men-wise than with someone at negative value.


Again, I agree with you. That sort of choice is exactly what feminism is about.

But that sort of choice is also exactly what led Deejo's friend (and mine) to her predicament.

In the end, she again chose zero over lowering herself. And, on balance, I agree it was a good decision, the right thing to do in the situation.

But there she is again at zero, no doubt throwing herself into her work, her parental responsibilities, her friends. She doesn't need a man, of course not. No woman needs a man to be complete, valuable, worthwhile, or even happy for that matter. If she chooses single forever, power to her, it's her life.

But I guess for me this is the real question: Is it better to squash one's own desire, sexuality, need for intimacy, or is it better to squash one's personal empowerment?


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> But I guess for me this is the real question: Is it better to squash one's own desire, sexuality, need for intimacy, or is it better to squash one's personal empowerment?


With the right man, you don't have to do either. He's not going to be needy and insecure. He will believe in you and want the best for you.

I did not believe it either. I came out of a bad relationship right around the time I met Dug. I had decided to just focus on work. I did not trust men anymore.

It was actually really good because I was not looking for anything in him. I thought we were just friends. I was attracted to him, but the ball was in his court. I certainly did not have the energy to pursue anything. I was just trying to hold myself together.

So he did the work. He pursued me. He let me know what he expected. I in turn was transparent with him. No hiding. No energy to "make it work" anyway. 

He wanted me, and his stability gave me a safe place to start healing. He listened to me for hours. Just patiently listened, and comforted. And slowly I got better.

I will never have his inner security. I will never have that kind of confidence. But I am in a much better place now than I was two decades ago. And I will always be grateful to him for that.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> If she's happy, John, _tant mieux!_



:rofl: The plot thickens - we expect to be hired as staff, my older girl as the cook and me as the gardener.... 

Maybe Dug knows someone old, single, and with the requisite chateau? We are hoping for Loire valley or Aix En Provence


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> :rofl: The plot thickens - we expect to be hired as staff, my older girl as the cook and me as the gardener....
> 
> Maybe Dug knows someone old, single, and with the requisite chateau? We are hoping for Loire valley or Aix En Provence


He doesn't. Trust me.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> 6 years? (late teens, early 20s). Occasional dates, nothing that led to anything. Anything good, anyway.
> 
> Look, I know it is not easy. But I strongly feel making your own life, with an interesting career, is much safer than taking a risk on a man of questionable character.
> 
> The beauty of the women's movement is that women are no longer forced into economic dependency. Take advantage of that. Build your own wealth, live life on your terms.
> 
> That is what I am telling my daughter. There is no reason to settle. Better to be at zero men-wise than with someone at negative value.


There is a lot of gray area in this post. My mother raised me the same and it bread a lot of distrust of men in me that I still work through with my H to this day and I'm 45.

I believe in equipping our family with skills to help us better navigate our natural flawed states. And cultivate a home life that encourages personal responsibility, emotional fitness, grace, love and fun. It's working... even as flawed as we are.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> There is a lot of gray area in this post. My mother raised me the same and it bread a lot of distrust of men in me that I still work through with my H to this day and I'm 45.
> 
> I believe in equipping our family with skills to help us better navigate our natural flawed states. And cultivate a home life that encourages personal responsibility, emotional fitness, grace, love and fun. It's working... even as flawed as we are.


Again, if you are happy, good enough. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> With the right man


An awful lot rides on that little phrase ...

Awesome for you that you found him after 6 years instead of, oh, say, 47.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not at all trying to criticize, and am happy for you that you have such happiness in your life.

But, well, let me just say that I, and the friends I have talked about here, and Deejo's friend have all built careers, can look after ourselves, are confident and secure, resourceful, empowered. That good man who will "save" us or "heal" us hasn't shown up yet. So we have no choice but to save ourselves or heal ourselves that best way we know how.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> An awful lot rides on that little phrase ...
> 
> Awesome for you that you found him after 6 years instead of, oh, say, 47.
> 
> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not at all trying to criticize, and am happy for you that you have such happiness in your life.
> 
> But, well, let me just say that I, and the friends I have talked about here, and Deejo's friend have all built careers, can look after ourselves, are confident and secure, resourceful, empowered. That good man who will "save" us or "heal" us hasn't shown up yet. So we have no choice but to save ourselves or heal ourselves that best way we know how.


Sometimes it's only after you save and heal yourself that the good ones show up.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Sometimes it's only after you save and heal yourself that the good ones show up.


And sometimes they never come at all, no matter how much you think you have to offer.

Take Deejo's friend, for example. Arguably she could have had him back in 1994, if she hadn't pushed him away. But then again, he said it himself: no real interest in putting up with her needs in the longer term. Ultimately, they are too much alike for it to be anything more than short term, ancient history.

And really, there's nothing wrong with flings. I have a couple of friends that thrive on them exclusively. But this is a very far cry from what jld is talking about. And personally, I find the emptiness outweighs the fulfillment.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Sometimes it's only after you save and heal yourself that the good ones show up.



If you need to save and heal yourself from anything finding Mr. Right or Mrs. Right should be a bit low on your priorities... 

Others may call "save and heal" as "be yourself".


----------



## nuclearnightmare

always_alone:

I've read a number of your posts with interest. and I'm sorry you are lonely. Being in a relationship doesn't always cure loneliness, of which there are different types. don't let your (very normal) desire for opposite sex companionship supplant the nurturing of your female and other friendships. my observation #1 on how some that suffer loneliness can make things worse. 

my observation #2 - first thing that always occurrs to me when people express discouragement when looking for love is for them to consider where/how they have been looking. broadening the venue method can sometimes make a difference. for some reason tennis classes always strikes me as a good example (of which there are better ones I'm sure). and IMO there are a few website matchmakers that are thorough enough to consider as viable options. sites that take in a lot of data in making their recommendations. I imagine these are the ones that cost the most to the client, but hard to think that a real success would not be worth the $$ 

I, like many before me, need to take an extended break from TAM. First I need to get back over to CWI and hit my "judgemental stride" again and go out with a bang. but your post reminds me of one of the "things I have learned on TAM" if I created a list. when it comes to the character of one's husband, wife or SO as it may be -- e.g. the type of character issues the cheating spouse brings to the relationship -- often the choice is about this stark:

- become single, perhaps even lonely, but also remaining proud; or
- stay in the marriage/relationship but with never-ending shame

and it is hard to rationalize the 2nd ever being preferable to the first


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> And sometimes they never come at all, no matter how much you think you have to offer.
> 
> Take Deejo's friend, for example. Arguably she could have had him back in 1994, if she hadn't pushed him away. But then again, he said it himself: no real interest in putting up with her needs in the longer term. Ultimately, they are too much alike for it to be anything more than short term, ancient history.
> 
> And really, there's nothing wrong with flings. I have a couple of friends that thrive on them exclusively. But this is a very far cry from what jld is talking about. And personally, I find the emptiness outweighs the fulfillment.


We were very, very, much in love. We were together for years. Five and a half to be precise. We were trying to shore things up after school and forging a career. 

We have openly acknowledged that had we married back then, we never would have made it.

I was not then who I am now. Neither was she ... not remotely.

I like my life. I don't need someone to heal me, or complete me. I do like the idea of having someone with similar interests, shared experiences, common goals, and itch to travel and have adventures and intimacy.

She doesn't have a passport, and her idea of a hot date is sitting in on a Saturday night watching Housewives of Beverly Hills. I know this ... because I did it with her a few times. I made it clear by my presence and sitting through 3 hours of reality horsesh!t, that she should take that as a sign of how much I cared. 

She utterly scoffs at the idea of online dating. She thinks it's pathetic.

Conversely, knowing full well there are times when she does want SOMEONE in her life, I find her never-ending critique of the many ways of making that possible, in turn to be pathetic.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

To me when two are willing and possess capacity...

have the skills needed or are willing to get them...

mutually choose to partner on building life in the home...

then amazing relationships can be built..

That's how growth happens

Life will show you where you are lacking and it's up to the two involved to accurately assess, adjust and persevere.


Headed into a relationship we can stack the odds in our favor by choosing well.

Once in the relationship we can choose best behaviors/and grow in order to keep the odds stacked in our favor... 

or regain it if temporarily lost. 

And sometimes even if not choosing the best in the beginning can become the best by choice.


Then... you have John117 who proves that even when odds were stacked right and were in place a long time, sometimes people break. Sometimes they break physically, mentally, emotionally. Then one spouse is left to adjust to a new norm. Then its choose his best, accept the rest or leave. I really feel for his situation. Truly hope the best for you John.

I know girls who wait so long for the "perfect" guy without ever gaining skills to navigate long term relationships. One of them I've known since she was 5 and she is now 31. She is *high maintenance* and alone, never been engaged nor married and she is a bombshell, great personality, always has a man on her arm, but never settles. Her relationships are lucky if the last a year. Another one I knew never married until she was 41. I could have never done that. I relish companionship too much.

Me, I've always managed to further my career while a man was beside me. I've learned to heal when my spouse wasn't. I've learned to get over myself when he was. And I've learned how to celebrate this journey. And if the day comes that one of us breaks, I just pray for God's grace.

ETA: And sometimes we dodge bullets like Deejo


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> We were very, very, much in love. We were together for years. Five and a half to be precise. We were trying to shore things up after school and forging a career.
> 
> We have openly acknowledged that had we married back then, we never would have made it.
> 
> I was not then who I am now. Neither was she ... not remotely.
> 
> I like my life. I don't need someone to heal me, or complete me. I do like the idea of having someone with similar interests, shared experiences, common goals, and itch to travel and have adventures and intimacy.
> 
> She doesn't have a passport, and her idea of a hot date is sitting in on a Saturday night watching Housewives of Beverly Hills. I know this ... because I did it with her a few times. I made it clear by my presence and sitting through 3 hours of reality horsesh!t, that she should take that as a sign of how much I cared.
> 
> She utterly scoffs at the idea of online dating. She thinks it's pathetic.
> 
> Conversely, knowing full well there are times when she does want SOMEONE in her life, I find her never-ending critique of the many ways of making that possible, in turn to be pathetic.


Deejo, let me be clear: I'm not at all judging you or her for what happened between you. What I meant when I said you were similar is that she is clearly not at all willing to compromise certain core values or ways of being in order to have a relationship, just as you are not at all willing to compromise any of yours.

Which is not to say that you should, especially if what you choose makes you happy. But at the same time, without that compromise, odds are good that any relationship potential will be limited.

You call her pathetic, but the reality is that she does not want *someone*, she wants *someone good*, and the mere thought of wading through the cesspool of online dating probably sounds like an exercise in frustration and futility. Personally, I totally get that, even though I am aware of some serious success stories using that method. And with enough rejection under your belt, it's ever so easy to just assume that's all you'll ever get.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you that if she does eventually want someone, she will need to compromise something along the way and/or make an iota of effort. She is, I'm guessing, much like my friend, though, and wants someone only in principle, not in practice. Once you get to liking your life and enjoying your time to do with what you will, it's ever so hard to start thinking about accommodating someone else's wants, desires, needs. Especially when those wants, desires, and needs are boring and stupid.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> She is, I'm guessing, much like my friend, though, and wants someone only in principle, not in practice. Once you get to liking your life and enjoying your time to do with what you will, it's ever so hard to start thinking about accommodating someone else's wants, desires, needs. Especially when those wants, desires, and needs are boring and stupid.


Didn't think you were judging or criticizing A_A. Our relationship actually followed the exact same script she has had with EVERY significant relationship that I know of.

I did feel compelled to emphasize that we had a great and solid relationship. People used to call us the poster children for love. Everyone, I mean everyone, was utterly shocked when she backed out. 

We met at work. She got to know me, and it's now very easy for me to look back knowing full well she is the one that made it obvious she was interested. I was utterly unaware to have picked up her subtleties and made the first move. She basically orchestrated my asking her out.

We didn't kiss for a month.

Every man that she has become involved with, is someone she knew, usually for months or years prior to becoming involved.

So, what you say completely makes sense to me. I get it. And you are absolutely correct.

She likes the idea of having someone in her life, far better than the reality of it.

That's why I'm not so sure that this guy has any magical powers of seduction. I suspect it's actually quite the opposite. She chose him ... and subtly escalated the relationship herself.


----------



## Deejo

The other big difference between our relationship and most of the other significant relationships in her life, is that she and I continue to get along and without question have a bond.

She can't stand the thought of most of her other ex's.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> That's why I'm not so sure that this guy has any magical powers of seduction. I suspect it's actually quite the opposite. She chose him ... and subtly escalated the relationship herself.


:smthumbup:
Very objective Deejo. When wolves and sheep all dress alike, logic based on known attributes is smart. You're probably on to something here. I'm a little disapointed in myself for not thinking of this possibility and asking the question about her possibly being the persuer moreso than not.


----------



## jld

aa, one of my sisters was married for 20 years, and then got divorced. It had always been rocky with her husband, but there was strong attraction, so they muddled through. But finally the conflict became too great.

Six weeks after her divorce was final, she met her present husband of 15 years. They are much more compatible than either was with their first partner.

Sometimes you just need to get the wrong one out so that the right one can come in.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Six weeks after her divorce was final, she met her present husband of 15 years. They are much more compatible than either was with their first partner.
> 
> Sometimes you just need to get the wrong one out so that the right one can come in.


Jld, your optimism for me is very sweet and I appreciate it!

And I understand where you are coming from, recognize the value of what you are saying --and have even given similar sorts of advice to others.

But I think we also need to be careful about imagining that somehow, just around the corner, there is some sort of prince charming to whisk us away from cleaning the ashes from the hearth. In fact, the most likely outcome of blowing up my current relationship is that I will never again have another one.

I may have been exaggerating in my earlier post where I claimed that men despised women like me, but I wasn't lying. And yes, maybe I could take some lessons from the girl version of the PUA handbook and mold myself into something more desirable and attractive. Lie, pretend, omit. But that sort of thing just makes my head explode. I literally can't do it.

You see the catch-22? I *need* someone who will take me as I am, but who I am isn't anything anybody wants. My SO, for all our troubles, is the closest I have come, and if that can't work, I honestly don't think anything can.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Some people are the way they are for various reasons and must be accepted that way. What is good about your perspective a_a is you don't hide that about yourself.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> That's why I'm not so sure that this guy has any magical powers of seduction. I suspect it's actually quite the opposite. She chose him ... and subtly escalated the relationship herself.


I thought we established that at the very beginning to of this thread.

My bet still says that he opened the door from the beginning, and possibly flirted, or made sexual jokes, or hints that he'd be open to some illicit activities. And she ignored him.

Until it occurred to her that this might be an ideal opportunity to get some needs met with someone who wouldn't put any demands on her, would be out of her face most of the time, would out of pure self-preservation prefer to be discreet, and who she knew was not inclined to psychopathy, attractive enough, and hopefully good in bed.

The only real downside is the morality issue. And of course, that reality is so rarely accommodating to our best laid plans.

I have to say, I often wondered exactly what it was that allowed my friend to skirt that morality issue. But then I ended up in some argument here about whether the cheatee has any obligation to the cheater's partner. And learned that many just feel that the blood is not on their hands --they did not make the commitment, and so are not breaking the commitment, and have no real way of knowing how the spouse feels about it (eg because they have an "arrangement" or open marriage or whatever). Someone also argued that if it wasn't them, it would be someone else, and so they might as well get the benefit.

Personally, I disagree, and find these arguments self-serving and nothing more. But I've heard them since in other contexts and am now thinking this attitude is actually pretty common.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I *need* someone who will take me as I am, but who I am isn't anything anybody wants.


Honey, you have got to stop thinking that way! You are a wonderful gal with a sharp mind and a loving heart. You just need to believe you deserve better.

It just hurts me to hear how you feel about yourself. I have said similar things about myself, though. It is so easy to become discouraged.

You need to be loved. And you need to love yourself. And we need to love you, too, and affirm you.

Your intelligence is a gift, aa. Do not ever believe otherwise.

You just must believe in yourself. And you must believe in a better future for yourself.

That is what my sister did. She decided she had had enough. I don't think she was even looking, though she was open.

I am going to send some positive energy over to you, aa.


----------



## Marduk

you're stuck in the Woody Allen joke where he wouldn't belong to any club that would have him.

And I'm not sure where that will get you, or even where you want it to get you.

What I learned about attraction is that there are all kinds of things in there. External, internal. Behavioural, mental. All kinds of things.

And I can project my identity onto all kinds of things... fashion, ways of wording things, ways of relating to other people.

But none of those things are actually me. I actually get to pick all those things. For what works for me.


----------



## john117

They're not you because you're not going to project who you are onto an object. Make the association the other way 'round, as in, branding. 

I am not my car. But my car is "me". Etc. You project a whole package, not individual objects.

You have your own design language and all the little pieces you project on are parts of that language. The package.

(You - everyone)


----------



## Deejo

Like this:


----------



## Marduk

My point John is that sometimes we can get caught up in who we think we are instead of who we really are...

And hang onto things that we think we are that no longer work for us.

I may think I'm a muscle car guy as an example. But if I move to the UK, being a muscle car guy may no longer serve me. So I can decide to let that go, appreciate what it was, and move on.

Because being into muscle cars is an interest, a thing I like... but not my identity. It can come and go then without attachment and serve me as I choose.

Same things with attraction.

That's my point.


----------



## john117

That too.

In general you should have a "brand name" that has it's own design language but is not so overbearing that people remember the brand name artifacts and not you the person 

It's a difficult trick to pull for designed products and just as hard for people. But it's worth trying.

If you move to the UK plenty of muscle cars there. Just not Mustangs and the like 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escort_RS_Cosworth


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> But none of those things are actually me. I actually get to pick all those things. For what works for me.


And just how free do you think these choices are? I mean, could you be equally comfortable in a blue business suit and a purple pimp suit, complete with hat and pea**** feather? What about rock-star leopard-skin spandex?

And would it be just as easy for you to inspire an audience of a thousand to unleash their inner power, as it would to diagnose and fix that rattle under the hood of your car, or piss in a bucket in the middle of a restaurant, a la Justin Bieber?

Would it feel just as comfortable to play hard-ball in negotiations, as it would to play peace-keeper?

These are just random examples; I've no idea what sort of person you are. But I can say that I've been around and tried all sorts of different things, and what I learned is this: I can put on a kimono and eat with chopsticks, but I'm not deferential or demure. I can be polite and diplomatic if I need to be, but I cannot shut off my cynicism or sarcasm, nor can I respect arbitrary authority. I can try (almost) anything once, but I can't commit to ever doing it again.

I've always been one to push my limits, try new things. I'm a firm believer in change, growth, self-improvement. But no matter where I go or what I try on, there I am. Some things are simply constants.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I may have been exaggerating in my earlier post where I claimed that men despised women like me, but I wasn't lying.


Could that be a cultural / national thing?


----------



## Marduk

The point A_A is that we get to pick these things.

If something isn't working for you, change it.

You are not your cynicism. You are not your sarcasm. Your rejection of authority is not who you are. 

It's who you choose to be. And if that choice is making you happy, I'm all for it. If it's not working for you, then stop. These things are behaviours. They are expressions of your personality, not your personality itself.

So use them as you will. Like an artists uses paint. These things are not hard coded into your DNA.

I'm not saying you can re-write your personality at will... but sometimes we hang onto things that don't serve us. 

And I, for one, love to see women in kimonos. I'm supportive of that.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> The point A_A is that we get to pick these things.
> 
> If something isn't working for you, change it.
> 
> You are not your cynicism. You are not your sarcasm. Your rejection of authority is not who you are.
> 
> It's who you choose to be. And if that choice is making you happy, I'm all for it. If it's not working for you, then stop. These things are behaviours. They are expressions of your personality, not your personality itself.
> 
> So use them as you will. Like an artists uses paint. These things are not hard coded into your DNA.
> 
> I'm not saying you can re-write your personality at will... but sometimes we hang onto things that don't serve us.
> 
> And I, for one, love to see women in kimonos. I'm supportive of that.


And my point, marduk, is that I *can't* change these things. I was born cynical (you can ask my mom for verification on that). And yes, I have learned to keep my mouth shut sometimes, when I need to, but I can't shut it off. Seriously.

Now maybe with enough electro-shock therapy mixed with CBT, or maybe some heavy-duty meds, I might be able to kill it altogether. But then really, the message is basically the same one I've been told all my life: You would be all right if only you could just be someone else.

And I get it. If I never challenged authority, I wouldn't get into as much trouble. If I was a happy ball of sunshine, people would find me more pleasant to be around. If I were less assertive, fewer people would think I'm a b1tch. If I wasn't pushing back or asking difficult questions, I wouldn't be anywhere near as annoying.

But then I have to spend my whole life squashing myself to fit someone else's ideals -- and I don't want to do that. The way I am is what fits, and comes naturally and easily; changing it is being in constant battle with myself.

As for kimonos, they are extremely constricting, stultifying, and absolutely dreadful to wear. You can barely walk or function in them, and I would be a happier me to never have to put one on again, ever.


----------



## Marduk

I don't believe a word of it, A_A. 

Maybe you get something out of it that you've learned at an early age. Maybe it keeps people away from you. Maybe a whole bunch of things.

But none of those things are who you are.

Again, if it's working for you, fill your boots. Give 'er. But not being able to change it... I don't believe it at all. 

Well, except the bit about kimonos. That I believe. But it's like stiletto heels. I'm sure they're a literal pain in the ass.

I just like 'em anyway.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> Part of the attraction for her is that it would never be a 'real' relationship. Yet when I told her to just create a profile online and find someone who she wants to have sex with, that isn't married, she considered that to be a 'crazy' option.


A crazy option....as opposed to *helping* destroy a family, and possibly having his wife make her life miserable.




> She would never consider dating and becoming intimate with a stranger. To which I retorted, "But you'll have sex with a married business colleague ..."



What was her response to that? 





> I was gobsmacked listening to the rationalizations she was making in order to justify why it would be OK to sleep with this guy. "They both know their marriage is a sham, they just don't want to blow up their lifestyle or their kids lives."



Uh huh, she knows this because HE told her, right?




> "She has plenty of responsibility for this circumstance too ..."



Tell her to tell his wife that and get back to us.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Could that be a cultural / national thing?


Some things, maybe. But at least some of the red flags I raise definitely cut across a number or cultural/national boundaries.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> But none of those things are who you are.


Then you don't know me at all, marduk. Not even a little, tiny bit.

See, the thing is, I have changed over the years. A lot!! But I've also stayed the same. The key may differ, a new verse might be added, but it's still the same song.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Then you don't know me at all, marduk. Not even a little, tiny bit.
> 
> See, the thing is, I have changed over the years. A lot!! But I've also stayed the same. The key may differ, a new verse might be added, but it's still the same song.


What I'm asking you is if that's the song you want to be singing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-eckhardt/small-self-identity-constraint_b_784540.html


----------



## always_alone

Sorry, Deejo, for the colossal threadjack. I didn't mean to turn this into psychoanalyze always_alone hour! 

To all of you who sent me kind thoughts, positive energy, and your concerned insights, a very big thank-you. Your kindness and generosity is much appreciated!


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Sorry, Deejo, for the colossal threadjack. I didn't mean to turn this into psychoanalyze always_alone hour!
> 
> To all of you who sent me kind thoughts, positive energy, and your concerned insights, a very big thank-you. Your kindness and generosity is much appreciated!


Does that mean you're not going to answer?

I'm sure Deejo doesn't mind.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Well, except the bit about kimonos. That I believe. But it's like stiletto heels. I'm sure they're a literal pain in the ass.
> 
> I just like 'em anyway.


Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? What's most attractive on a woman is what's most hobbling and constricting and painful.


----------



## loveisforever

I had a girl friend who is very smart, hard-working and good looking. She considers herself a "moral" women. From my involvement with her, I observed the master manipulative skills she possesses to control others in a subtle way. She is strong minded and goal-oriented. Most importantly, she lacks trust in others, and always on high alert. She is adamant in her own right and very hard to be flexible. Deejo, do you see any similarities in her with your ex-girlfriend?


----------



## ConanHub

always...... If you didn't have an SO, I would believe you were my sister in law... I have thought it in the past, but this thread confirmed that you are her clone....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Does that mean you're not going to answer?
> 
> I'm sure Deejo doesn't mind.


I will answer, unless Deejo intervenes and tells me to STFU.

But you will have to give me some time to look at it ...


----------



## Deejo

loveisforever said:


> I had a girl friend who is very smart, hard-working and good looking. She considers herself a "moral" women. From my involvement with her, I observed the master manipulative skills she possesses to control others in a subtle way. She is strong minded and goal-oriented. Most importantly, she lacks trust in others, and always on high alert. She is adamant in her own right and very hard to be flexible. Deejo, do you see any similarities in her with your ex-girlfriend?


Dead bang.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I will answer, unless Deejo intervenes and tells me to STFU.
> 
> But you will have to give me some time to look at it ...


Kind of difficult to hi-jack one of Deejo's threads for he is easily distracted by shiny things.

Pretty obvious, internet or not you have a lot of fans here.

Haven't spoken to my friend for the last 2 days.

Oooo I've got a falcon ...


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> What I'm asking you is if that's the song you want to be singing.
> 
> PBS's 'This Emotional Life': The Small Self: How Your Identity Constrains YouÂ |Â Mark Eckhardt


Thanks for the link, marduk. Buddhists are an interesting lot, to be sure. And with the small-self, or no-self idea, I understand a lot better where you are coming from.

I agree that these filters that we look through can be troublesome. You'll even see me around here railing against the ones I find particularly limiting and awful.

But can we tall about personality for a moment?

Do you, for example, imagine that silencing this small self will eradicate all personality? So if I say, "I'm cynical" or "I'm an introvert", that none of this is ever really me?

My sense is that children are not born as blank slates to be written upon, and we all have distinctive personalities. These are shaped by life circumstance and choice, no doubt, but we aren't aren't born identical or without our own ways of being in and interacting with the world. Even monks on their way to enlightenment have personalities.

Indeed, the article speaks of the "authentic" self and acting authentically as the goal. And this is something I can get behind, as I place a very high value on authenticity.

So, then, what the &$%» does it mean?

Am I more authentic if I leap through hurdles, put myself in pain, alter everything that comes naturally, so that I can become what someone else might find attractive? Or am I more authentic if I just acknowledge what comes naturally, what fits me, and allow that the repercussions won't always be either my choice or to my liking?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Indeed, the article speaks of the "authentic" self and acting authentically as the goal. And this is something I can get behind, as I place a very high value on authenticity.


Me too...

The wisdom comes in separating what is innate and what is not...

Those are the dividing lines that allow us to strategically choose how to be, when to be and why to be at any given moment..

And what to do when we get there.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Thanks for the link, marduk. Buddhists are an interesting lot, to be sure. And with the small-self, or no-self idea, I understand a lot better where you are coming from.
> 
> I agree that these filters that we look through can be troublesome. You'll even see me around here railing against the ones I find particularly limiting and awful.
> 
> But can we tall about personality for a moment?
> 
> Do you, for example, imagine that silencing this small self will eradicate all personality? So if I say, "I'm cynical" or "I'm an introvert", that none of this is ever really me?
> 
> My sense is that children are not born as blank slates to be written upon, and we all have distinctive personalities. These are shaped by life circumstance and choice, no doubt, but we aren't aren't born identical or without our own ways of being in and interacting with the world. Even monks on their way to enlightenment have personalities.
> 
> Indeed, the article speaks of the "authentic" self and acting authentically as the goal. And this is something I can get behind, as I place a very high value on authenticity.
> 
> So, then, what the &$%» does it mean?
> 
> Am I more authentic if I leap through hurdles, put myself in pain, alter everything that comes naturally, so that I can become what someone else might find attractive? Or am I more authentic if I just acknowledge what comes naturally, what fits me, and allow that the repercussions won't always be either my choice or to my liking?


What I'm saying is that there's a place, deep down, when you strip everything else away, that you can find.

For me, that was in the dojo, and ending my first marriage. Those things stripped away a lot of what I thought was me through sheer trauma, or exhaustion, or just outright ego depletion.

There's a "you" that is still "you" even when you cut away all sensory input, all social interation, even cut away your body.

There's still something there. There's the something there that watches you doing things. That thing is what you actually are.

And when I connected that with ideas of what went wrong with attraction in my marriage... the pieces just kind of fell into place. We are never just one thing.

I'm not a 100% extraverted or introverted. It depends on the situation. And my motivation. I can go into a tough situation now, and choose to be extraverted when before I wouldn't be. Not by "pretending" but by exposing that piece of me that is that way, not letting the introverted side overwhelm it.

Same went for clothes, how I speak to people, what I do for fun. All that stuff. 

Because none of it is me. I can selectively expose parts of me the way I want to achieve what I want. Some things are tougher than others, sure. Some muscles are weak and need exercise, too. Some skin was pale and needed sun. I'm sure you get what I'm saying here.

But, in doing that, I needed to actively and objectively look at what turned my spouse on or off (in your case that may be more abstract) and take a good hard look at that. And it hurt.

Because once I saw myself through her eyes, well... I wouldn't exactly be turned on by me, either.

What I'm saying is you get to choose your song. All these things you are talking about as you isn't you. They are parts of your engaging personality that you can either use, or you can choose to show other parts of yourself that will make you happier. It's really up to you.

Authenticity isn't cynicism. It isn't hopelessnes. It isn't sarcasm.

It's being who you really are, not who you have a habit of being.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Intentional

strategic

and emotionally agile

I like a_a's acceptance of herself. She doesn't sound stressed about it to me. It just is... and she operates in those parameters. Could she self assess, sure.. that's just healthy. But I hear calm in her words.. thus just stating facts about herself, not whoa is me, self pity stuff. Sounds like a straight talker to me... my favorite kind of people.


----------



## john117

What turns the spouse on or off may be an ideation... Wifey seems to prefer the gray helmet hair $1k suit wearing BMW driving executive type while I'm the Mini Cooper driving pressed jeans and oxford wearing Einstein haired techie... 

But does she prefer the exec type for his "power" and allure and attraction or is it the money?

And, does she have enough offerings to attract said exec? Compared to her peers yes, compared to what said exec can choose, no.

Hopefully you can see where I'm headed. If you're being yourself and your wife is not responding because you don't meet her ideation of the ideal mate, think how it works the other way around when your wife is in the marketplace. Maybe SHE overestimates what her value is worth...


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> Those are the dividing lines that allow us to strategically choose how to be, when to be and why to be at any given moment..
> 
> And what to do when we get there.


I am less sure than you about the strategy part. Just a couple of vignettes, because I'm not entirely sure how to explain what I mean.

One time, long ago, I was sitting in a cafe, reading a book, and beside me sat two women, both young-ish university students. One of them was telling the other her life plans (and of course I shamelessly eavesdropped): she was at school to obtain her Mrs. with some rich and successful guy; she had mapped out exactly where she would be in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. She'd practically picked out her retirement home and cemetery plot. I was flabbergasted. Of course, I hardly know what I'll be doing next week, so there's that difference, but I couldn't help but think, "what on earth is this poor woman going to do if a wrench is thrown into her works?" My sense was that she would not take it well.

Another story: A friend of mine was working on building a name for herself, and in so doing was very reliant on her husband's input. And one day, we were talking, and she was down on herself because her husband had been criticizing her latest plans, telling her they weren't logical, didn't make sense. And I turned to her and said: "I know he means well, and I know he's helped you a lot in the past, but you have to stop listening to him because he is dragging you down. *You* know your field better than him; time to fly on your own."

I risked the whole friendship on that statement. She was shocked, appalled, defensive, angry. Afraid. And worse, I really had no idea if I was doing the right thing, but I had to say it anyway. 

And later she came back to me, and thanked me. She had heeded what I'd said, and achieved successes she had been fighting for before.

I don't know, maybe I just have a hard time with strategy. I can't even imagine, for example, being able to decide I want some guy and "bring him to his knees" as you described. Or to orchestrate some guy asking me out as Deejo's friend did. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I stand at pretty near to 100% rejection rate when it comes to mating and dating. And in other spheres too, my best laid plans often go awry. For me, gut instinct is much more powerful than strategy.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Authenticity isn't cynicism. It isn't hopelessnes. It isn't sarcasm.
> 
> It's being who you really are, not who you have a habit of being.


No, authenticity isn't the same as cynicism, of course not. But cynicism comes very naturally and easily to me. Can I choose to look at the bright side of life? Why yes, but it can be hard, and feel very fake.

Does that mean, I'm irredeemably in invariably cynical about everything? Well no. But I have to admit that I'm inclined to think that at least some level of cynicism is to be expected if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on in this world.

Just like I can shut off my introversion and socialize. But, regardless, more often than not, I will come away from social events, particularly those that involve lots of people and superficial conversations, exhausted, drained, and like the life has been sucked right out of me.

These are just two examples of things that make me less attractive in the eyes of others. But I genuinely do not see what I can reasonably do about them while still remaining true to myself.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> I am less sure than you about the strategy part. Just a couple of vignettes, because I'm not entirely sure how to explain what I mean.
> 
> One time, long ago, I was sitting in a cafe, reading a book, and beside me sat two women, both young-ish university students. One of them was telling the other her life plans (and of course I shamelessly eavesdropped): she was at school to obtain her Mrs. with some rich and successful guy; she had mapped out exactly where she would be in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. She'd practically picked out her retirement home and cemetery plot. I was flabbergasted. Of course, I hardly know what I'll be doing next week, so there's that difference, but I couldn't help but think, "what on earth is this poor woman going to do if a wrench is thrown into her works?" My sense was that she would not take it well.
> 
> Another story: A friend of mine was working on building a name for herself, and in so doing was very reliant on her husband's input. And one day, we were talking, and she was down on herself because her husband had been criticizing her latest plans, telling her they weren't logical, didn't make sense. And I turned to her and said: "I know he means well, and I know he's helped you a lot in the past, but you have to stop listening to him because he is dragging you down. *You* know your field better than him; time to fly on your own."
> 
> I risked the whole friendship on that statement. She was shocked, appalled, defensive, angry. Afraid. And worse, I really had no idea if I was doing the right thing, but I had to say it anyway.
> 
> And later she came back to me, and thanked me. She had heeded what I'd said, and achieved successes she had been fighting for before.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I just have a hard time with strategy. I can't even imagine, for example, being able to decide I want some guy and "bring him to his knees" as you described. Or to orchestrate some guy asking me out as Deejo's friend did. Indeed, I'm pretty sure I stand at pretty near to 100% rejection rate when it comes to mating and dating. And in other spheres too, my best laid plans often go awry. For me, gut instinct is much more powerful than strategy.


Totally track all of that...

My strategies come from not laying out my future plans so much as how I will react in certain circumstances. VERY different, so you and I are more on common ground than you realize.. 

For instance.. you have already strategically chosen to be yourself and not be a fake.. that is strategy.

When I strategize... it is to honor people. I strategize to be trustworthy, to be myself, to respect boundaries and know what boundaries I need to ask for based on who I am as a person. 

That's what I mean by those things. So authenticity is at the core of what I do, preserving my dignity and those who are around me. 


So, my M.O. is creating relationships based in trust, honor, dignity, ... it honors them and honors me when its accurate, intentional, respectful.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> No, authenticity isn't the same as cynicism, of course not. But cynicism comes very naturally and easily to me. Can I choose to look at the bright side of life? Why yes, but it can be hard, and feel very fake.
> 
> Does that mean, I'm irredeemably in invariably cynical about everything? Well no. But I have to admit that I'm inclined to think that at least some level of cynicism is to be expected if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on in this world.
> 
> Just like I can shut off my introversion and socialize. But, regardless, more often than not, I will come away from social events, particularly those that involve lots of people and superficial conversations, exhausted, drained, and like the life has been sucked right out of me.
> 
> These are just two examples of things that make me less attractive in the eyes of others. But I genuinely do not see what I can reasonably do about them while still remaining true to myself.


What I'm saying is to take a giant step back A_A and a long hard look at yourself.

Is being cynical what you want? Does it bring you happiness? If the answer is yes, keep doing it. If it is no, then take a look at that. The opposite of cynicism is what, innocence?

What are you missing if you see the world through the lens of cynicism? Are you missing what innocence can bring? 

There is a part of you that is innocence. We all have it. A sense of childish wonder, a sense of the new. A sense of possability. Is your cynicism overshadowing that? Are you missing out on possabilities because of it?

And, do you want to be alone? If so, keep doing what you are doing. If not, something's going to have to change.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? What's most attractive on a woman is what's most hobbling and constricting and painful.


Her smile? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is to take a giant step back A_A and a long hard look at yourself.


I dunno, marduk, I'm pretty sure my incessant navel-gazing is another one of those things that makes me unattractive...

Seriously, though, I appreciate where you're coming from and your insights. There are probably a few ways that I'm shooting myself in the foot. Deejo once said something about his ex-wife that really struck a chord with me. I'm totally paraphrasing, but it was something to the effect that she refused to see or acknowledge the depth of his commitment and caring. I honestly hope that I am not making that same mistake.

But at the same time, we also can't make people respond to us in the way we want them to. I have changed a lot over the years, I'm much less mouthy and obnoxious, I choose my battles more carefully, and I no longer have to be intimidating for a living, and so am generally much less argumentative (if you can believe that!). But none if it actually served to make me more attractive or less alone. The reactions I get are different, but not all that different.

Besides, isn't the need to change reality to suit us the ultimate narcissism of the small self? Isn't it sometimes about learning to accept what is, instead of trying to control it?


----------



## Marduk

You can doubt yourself all you want A_A. If you're happy, I'm happy that you're happy.

It's not narcissism. To deny the world the best of you is to take away from it.

And I don't doubt you for a second.


----------



## Deejo

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


----------



## soccermom2three

Deejo said:


> Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


Uh oh.


----------



## Deejo

I have a pretty good nose for these things by now.

We all know how utterly compelling and obsessive these things become.

Again, part of the reason I posted this in the first place. If a year ago, I were to look her in the eye and tell her she would have an affair with a married man, she would have been disgusted and told me I'm crazy.

Today?

She's the crazy one.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Oh no....


----------



## Marduk

What happened, Deejo?


----------



## Deejo

She decided her desire outweighed the consequences. Again, pretty much like most who make the choice.


----------



## jld

Oh, dear.

Expect more calls. And a wet shoulder, eventually.


----------



## Marduk

Addiction is what it is.

She's lucky to have you there Deejo.

Even if it's to hold her hair as she's puking into the toilet over what she did.


----------



## Deejo

She has shifted from feeling the pull, and thinking about doing it, but believing it's wrong, and reaching out to me ... and deciding to pull the plug.

To being fully engaged, taking it physical and now rationalizing her choice.


----------



## always_alone

I feel sorry for the guy's wife. Mind you, I felt sorry for her before Deejo's friend decided she cared more about her needs than anyone else's.

Somewhere between 3 wks and 3 mths, she'll probably come to realize that he's got no more to offer her.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> She has shifted from feeling the pull, and thinking about doing it, but believing it's wrong, and reaching out to me ... and deciding to pull the plug.
> 
> To being fully engaged, taking it physical and now rationalizing her choice.


They are consenting adults. You've done what you can.

Unless you're thinking of informing the wife, of course. Tricky bit, that.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I feel sorry for the guy's wife. Mind you, I felt sorry for her before Deejo's friend decided she cared more about her needs than anyone else's.
> 
> Somewhere between 3 wks and 3 mths, she'll probably come to realize that he's got no more to offer her.


100% agree A_A.

Funny how that timeline usually holds true, and roughly aligns with how long it takes to get pregnant...

We're animals with a neocortex. Not the other way around. To deny that is to get into trouble, I think.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Addiction is what it is.


No, not addiction. Desperation. But not overt desperation, rather desperation disguised as control and choice.


----------



## Deejo

I told my friend that to me the ultimate irony would be that her lover's wife is also having an affair, which if he knew about, he'd lose his mind over.

People are just funny that way.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> No, not addiction. Desperation. But not overt desperation, rather desperation disguised as control and choice.


I think we may be thinking the same thing.

To me, any time you are desperate and have only one option out that isn't a positive one...

Then that's really an addictive thing.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> I told my friend that to me the ultimate irony would be that her lover's wife is also having an affair, which if he knew about, he'd lose his mind over.
> 
> People are just funny that way.


My best buddy's wife has a girlfriend that did that very thing.

She cheated on her husband multiple times. He caught her in just one of her many ONS...

And didn't want to leave her. So he cheated on her back.

She caught him, and left him. Because... get this... (and I choked on my beer when this came out)...

She would "never stay married to a cheater."

She's cheated on him at least 6 times. That her best girlfriend knows about.

People are people.


----------



## Deejo

marduk said:


> They are consenting adults. You've done what you can.
> 
> Unless you're thinking of informing the wife, of course. Tricky bit, that.


In truth, I don't feel bad for the wife. She likes her life just fine, and she knows she's married to a serial cheater. They didn't fix the marriage, yet both chose to remain in it.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> No, not addiction. Desperation. But not overt desperation, rather desperation disguised as control and choice.


Right now? It's exactly like watching an addiction unfold.

Fog. Thick as pea soup.


----------



## Marduk

I wonder if she'd concent to you recording her justification diatribe so you can play it back to her when the crying is over. So she can learn from it?

No point in wasting a good personal crisis by not growing from it.


----------



## Deejo

I covered the wife angle.

Gave her my 'lies' speech, that I've used here dozens of times over the years:
The reason usually nothing good can come out of an affair is because it's built on lies. You are lying to your partners. You lie to each other, and you lie to yourself.

She said, "Feels like you're judging me."

I said, "Nope. That would be you judging you. Just feels like I'm doing it. I just don't want you to get hurt. Any you will. One way or another."


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> I covered the wife angle.
> 
> Gave her my 'lies' speech, that I've used here dozens of times over the years:
> The reason usually nothing good can come out of an affair is because it's built on lies. You are lying to your partners. You lie to each other, and you lie to yourself.
> 
> She said, "Feels like you're judging me."
> 
> I said, "Nope. That would be you judging you. Just feels like I'm doing it. I just don't want you to get hurt. Any you will. One way or another."


She feels judged because you just made her judge her own behaviour, and she didn't like what she saw there.

Likely, she'll just run away from that, and maybe resent you for it, at least for a time.


----------



## larry.gray

always_alone said:


> Somewhere between 3 wks and 3 mths, she'll probably come to realize that he's got no more to offer her.


Perhaps, but that is what she went into this looking for. She wants NSA sex, but can't bring herself to try the avenue of stranger hookups.

If she does fall for him then she'll be heartbroken when he won't go along with her. If she remains steadfast in the desire for it to only be NSA sex, she'll only have the business repercussions to deal with.


----------



## Marduk

larry.gray said:


> Perhaps, but that is what she went into this looking for. She wants NSA sex, but can't bring herself to try the avenue of stranger hookups.
> 
> If she does fall for him then she'll be heartbroken when he won't go along with her. If she remains steadfast in the desire for it to only be NSA sex, she'll only have the business repercussions to deal with.


I don't think that's it.

I think she probably felt herself above or beyond her baser instincts... age, place in life, career, whatever. 

And in so doing, ignored it, and then some guy came along and "inspired" those sexual feelings in her...

So, somewhere deep down, she connects having those sexual feelings that are exciting with him. Not with her sexuality.

Therefore, he's the gatekeeper of her sexuality, hence the addiction.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

what are her justifications?


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> what are her justifications?


They are both consenting. They are both lonely. 

She actually sees it as win/win. No longer believes that discovery is even a remote possibility.

This is actually the part that I always find interesting in these scenarios.

Everyone reading this thread will most certainly agree that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would justify their choice.
What they are doing is immoral and unethical.

Insert my friend into this conversation 6 months ago, and she would be agreeing and chiming in about how wrong it is.

And in their eyes, now ... they are justified.

They find each other attractive and desirable. Their sexual chemistry is 'intense'. And quite simply while caught up in that tempest of anticipation, flirtation, seduction and sex ... absolutely all bets are off.


Justifications don't matter. They don't care. Not now. Maybe not even if they are found out.

We aren't talking every day. I just followed up with her after not speaking for several days and she told me the truth.

She's not mine to save, and importantly, she doesn't want to be saved.


----------



## jld

Not much you can do at this point. And sometimes experience is the best teacher.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

oh man... this isn't going to end well.

Do you feel an obligation to the OMW?


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> In truth, I don't feel bad for the wife. She likes her life just fine, and she knows she's married to a serial cheater. They didn't fix the marriage, yet both chose to remain in it.


Blossom, he wrote this earlier.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, he wrote this earlier.


That's a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Marduk

I'm more concerned for Deejos friend. 

The other two people involved walked into this consciously and dispassionately. 

She's falling prey to the standard cheaters script, and although this can't be helped, it's painful to watch. 

Sorry, Deejo. I know you care for this woman.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> That's a lot of assumptions.


How so?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Right now? It's exactly like watching an addiction unfold.
> 
> Fog. Thick as pea soup.


Huh? Tell me, where's the fog?

She knows he's married, knows it isn't going anywhere, knows his wife is okay with being married to a serial cheater, knows it's just a good way to get some needs met for the moment, and doesn't seem to care what people think of her.

What in all of that is "foggy"?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> How so?



"In truth, I don't feel bad for the wife. *She likes her life just fine, and she knows she's married to a serial cheater*. They didn't fix the marriage, yet both chose to remain in it."

Is the bolded part known for sure Deejo? Especially the first part of it.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Huh? Tell me, where's the fog?
> 
> She knows he's married, knows it isn't going anywhere, knows his wife is okay with being married to a serial cheater, knows it's just a good way to get some needs met for the moment, and doesn't seem to care what people think of her.
> 
> What in all of that is "foggy"?


Have you ever seen someone do this close up?

Fog is an appropriate term. It's literally like they can't see their ow hand in front of their face, and they don't act like the person you may have known in decades.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> She's falling prey to the standard cheaters script, and although this can't be helped, it's painful to watch.


Well, I'm inclined to agree that the wife probably isn't okay with being married to a serial cheater (unless she is one too), but I can't see that Deejo's friend has fallen for anything.

Personally, I think the only real wrong here is to Buddy's wife. If *she* doesn't care, I can't imagine why any of us should.

Of course, if she does care, I think Deejo's friend is doing something very means and selfish.


----------



## jld

Well, I am looking right at the husband. He is the one who made vows to her.


----------



## always_alone

Blossom Leigh said:


> "In truth, I don't feel bad for the wife. *She likes her life just fine, and she knows she's married to a serial cheater*. They didn't fix the marriage, yet both chose to remain in it."
> 
> Is the bolded part known for sure Deejo? Especially the first part of it.


:iagree:. This! Big time assumption.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Have you ever seen someone do this close up?
> 
> Fog is an appropriate term. It's literally like they can't see their ow hand in front of their face, and they don't act like the person you may have known in decades.


Did I not spend a goodly part of this thread talking about a friend of mine who did something very similar?

There was nothing foggy there. She knew exactly what she was doing, and that it was wrong. And she did it anyway.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Well, I am looking right at the husband. He is the one who made vows to her.


Absolutely!! He is clearly the one in the wrong, and all in all, just ewww. 

But Deejo's friend is complicit, IMHO, caring more about her needs than anyone else's.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Did I not spend a goodly part of this thread talking about a friend of mine who did something very similar?
> 
> There was nothing foggy there. She knew exactly what she was doing, and that it was wrong. And she did it anyway.


What I'm trying to get at is why all the arguments didn't matter. 

She lost control of her sexuality pure and simple. And that is more powerful than she is. 

I'm not excusing. I'm not condoning. I'm saying that there is a state of mind engineered by your body to make this ok. 

Hint: I think it's to make babies.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> I had to prepay for the room in Montreal when I booked it 3 weeks ago, as it's Valentines weekend. It was a non-refundable rate ... and still topped out over 600 bucks.
> 
> Fortunately I got a very kind woman, who asked why I had to cancel, and I think she felt bad when I told her, she said, "I'm so sorry for asking, I just need to be able to note why. Well I see here Mr. Deejo that you're a Gold Rewards member so I'm going to go ahead and refund that for you."
> 
> So that was something good that happened yesterday
> 
> And yes, I'm fine, and your words will still very sweet. Even with that foot in there.


So you're up $600 then? ....put it to good use I say. That's several massage sessions right there. Props to the hotel woman for being service-minded and to you for obviously being the type of person that she was willing to give the refund to.

Do you _want_ a long-term relationship or is there any chance you're actually content with short term prospects? Anyway, not to be answered here perhaps. Maybe just a chance for me to lodge my foot further down while it's already there.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Ok, now that made me laugh.
> 
> In line with dark humor, I talked to my best friend today about what happened yesterday.
> 
> I said to him, "I don't know man, maybe this is life's way of telling me that I'm not built for long term relationships. I just can't seem to get beyond 6 months."


Two cents from someone who doesn't know you at all?

Deejo, I think the reason is that you're a lot like your friend. Not in the "I'm sleeping with a married man" kind of way, but in the keeping everything carefully managed, kind of way. All that PUA attitude around playing by your own rules, plenty of fish in the sea, don't get too attached, yada, yada, serves to attract certain types of women, and prevents (saves?) you from engaging in the messiness and complications of real connection.

Easy come, easy go. Right?

If you really do want that connection over the long term, it'll cost you some of that self-assuredness you worked so hard at.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

uh oh .... a_a might be poking the tiger


----------



## Marduk

Sorry, Deejo.

Onward and upward.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Two cents from someone who doesn't know you at all?
> 
> Deejo, I think the reason is that you're a lot like your friend. Not in the "I'm sleeping with a married man" kind of way, but in the keeping everything carefully managed, kind of way. All that PUA attitude around playing by your own rules, plenty of fish in the sea, don't get too attached, yada, yada, serves to attract certain types of women, and prevents (saves?) you from engaging in the messiness and complications of real connection.
> 
> Easy come, easy go. Right?
> 
> If you really do want that connection over the long term, it'll cost you some of that self-assuredness you worked so hard at.


Well given the kinds of discussions we have engaged in I can certainly understand how my statement could be read as me being my own worst enemy because I'm fundamentally doing it wrong.

I certainly try to be open to change and growth.

In some ways, I suppose you could be right. Truth is that I do find that fully invested, deep, relationships can be an absolute pain in the ass.

I've been single a good long time, and frankly I've become very accustomed to my lifestyle and being able to decide for myself how to spend my time.

For the _right_ woman, I don't really have an issue with giving of my time and my heart.

Fact is, the threshold to be the 'right' woman is pretty high. Just a handful have hit it since I've been single.

This particular case had nothing to do with the relationship between she and I. It had to do with the dynamics were we to remain together surrounding our children. I have a special needs child. Some folks struggle with that. They mean well, and they don't want it to matter, but after watching our kids interact ... all the good intentions in the world don't sway a parent's compelling need to do what is best for their child.

In all of my post divorce dating history, no one has accused me of not being myself, not being authentic or being a self-serving a-hole who is only trying to get into their pants.

I don't measure the success or failure of a relationship by the same criteria that maybe a lot of other folks do. I have had a number of great relationships, that simply ran their course, or our personal courses became obviously divergent.

I can be a bit cynical ... rather like you. I could easily have a string of dates set up by this weekend.

But that isn't where my head is at, or representative of what I want.

Despite my lamentation about not being able to maintain or build a solid long term relationship or commitment, it's only half a lamentation.

If I decided to invest myself in a wonderful woman with a few kids, and the next thing I know my weekends are compromised because I have to take her John to hockey on Saturday or her Jane to gymnastics on Sunday, and do even more of the same when we have my kids too ... I know I'm not going to be very happy about that. 

So yes, I certainly do, do some management. Such as, someone worth partner status can't want to have more kids ... because I patently don't. Don't want someone with 3 or more kids ... unless they are all grown up and moved out.

She can't have dogs or cats.

She can't be a smoker.

She can't be sexually repressed.

She has to have a sense of humor.

She can't be dumb as a box of rocks.

She can't be BSC.

If these things seem utterly unreasonable than maybe it is all on me. But from my perspective, my list of must haves, or can't haves isn't different than any others.


----------



## Marduk

Take some time, man. 

Play the field. For fun. It doesn't all have to be about finding LTRs.

Hell, some of my best dates were with women I had no intention of ever seeing again, or sleeping with. They were just fun and interesting and that was that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I know that is a painful choice to make for your child, though deeply right.

Sorry Deejo


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> So yes, I certainly do, do some management. Such as, someone worth partner status can't want to have more kids ... because I patently don't. Don't want someone with 3 or more kids ... unless they are all grown up and moved out.
> 
> She can't have dogs or cats.
> 
> She can't be a smoker.
> 
> She can't be sexually repressed.
> 
> She has to have a sense of humor.
> 
> She can't be dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> She can't be BSC.
> 
> If these things seem utterly unreasonable than maybe it is all on me. But from my perspective, my list of must haves, or can't haves isn't different than any others.


Deejo, just like any others, you get to put whatever you like on your checklist, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable. It could be as easy to find as "isn't serving time for serial killing", or as difficult as "has vacation property on a Martian outpost". Your life, your choice.

And if you genuinely don't want an intense, deep connection, then far be it for me to tell you otherwise. I'm not here to advocate for LTR. Indeed, I've learned absolutely that you can be just as alone and disconnected in a LTR as you can be when single. It is certainly no panacea.

I only said what I did because of your lament, one I have seen you express before.

What I would call a successful relationship is not defined by its length, but by its depth. And while shorter term ones can have depth, they often don't have much. Three to six months is typically still just the pre-packaged self. Truthful, sure; authentic, why not. But still the glossy surface of adventure, accomplishment, trials overcome, and not the messy underbelly that we often hide from ourselves, let alone reveal to others. It is a time when you simply don't have to deal with illness, hardship, someone else's child, or past, or demons.

Should you (one) have to deal with those things? No. Not unless you choose to. A friend of mine, for example, just had her husband leave her because she has bipolar disorder. I get it. She is very, very difficult to be around, and he doesn't have the emotional resources or willingness to cope. He had to save himself.

But a true connection isn't just a bit of time and some warm fuzzy feelings, IMHO. It requires giving a piece of yourself to another, and taking the risk that they won't stomp all over it, and perhaps give you a piece of themselves in return. 

And if that's too much of a PITA, well, I get it. But for relationships to ever go beyond just the short-term fun bits, it has to happen.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

always_alone said:


> Deejo, just like any others, you get to put whatever you like on your checklist, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable. It could be as easy to find as "isn't serving time for serial killing", or as difficult as "has vacation property on a Martian outpost". Your life, your choice.
> 
> And if you genuinely don't want an intense, deep connection, then far be it for me to tell you otherwise. I'm not here to advocate for LTR. Indeed, I've learned absolutely that you can be just as alone and disconnected in a LTR as you can be when single. It is certainly no panacea.
> 
> I only said what I did because of your lament, one I have seen you express before.
> 
> What I would call a successful relationship is not defined by its length, but by its depth. And while shorter term ones can have depth, they often don't have much. Three to six months is typically still just the pre-packaged self. Truthful, sure; authentic, why not. But still the glossy surface of adventure, accomplishment, trials overcome, and not the messy underbelly that we often hide from ourselves, let alone reveal to others. It is a time when you simply don't have to deal with illness, hardship, someone else's child, or past, or demons.
> 
> Should you (one) have to deal with those things? No. Not unless you choose to. A friend of mine, for example, just had her husband leave her because she has bipolar disorder. I get it. She is very, very difficult to be around, and he doesn't have the emotional resources or willingness to cope. He had to save himself.
> 
> But a true connection isn't just a bit of time and some warm fuzzy feelings, IMHO. It requires giving a piece of yourself to another, and taking the risk that they won't stomp all over it, and perhaps give you a piece of themselves in return.
> 
> And if that's too much of a PITA, well, I get it. But for relationships to ever go beyond just the short-term fun bits, it has to happen.


Brilliant post and deeply true... Its why those who travel to the other side of an affair authentically and with total transparency and integrity find such depth, richness in spite of what was done because now that underbelly is fully exposed and the conscious decision made to bare our depravity to each other and have the courage to allow someone to love you there. It truly is thr greatest risk AND the greatest reward. Its why I love the new song by Casting Crowns .. Broken Together.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> But a true connection isn't just a bit of time and some warm fuzzy feelings, IMHO. It requires giving a piece of yourself to another, and taking the risk that they won't stomp all over it, and perhaps give you a piece of themselves in return.
> 
> And if that's too much of a PITA, well, I get it. But for relationships to ever go beyond just the short-term fun bits, it has to happen.


I don't mean to sound dismissive at all, as usual, your point is clear and well made. But I know this.

Giving of myself isn't challenging for me at all. Being vulnerable ... not all that difficult. If anything I am far more calculated about when and to whom I choose to be vulnerable.

I don't agree that managing logistics for who needs to do what and be where at what time in order to make your life work is ANY indication of a deep connection.

Were that the case, I have intimate connections with most of my work colleagues.

I led a backseat, devoted, dedicated, and committed life to my wife and family for a decade. I cherished them.

I needed painful little back in return to feel that my investment was worthwhile and valued, to feel fulfilled. I slogged on with absolutely no acknowledgement for years. Because that it what you do. 'Do your job'.


Now? I still get to do my job and meet the needs of my children.

AND ... 

I get to fulfill my own.

And maybe it is shallow, suppose that is up to who is considering my position; but I have no intention of throwing my self upon the sacrificial altar of love again, with someone who doesn't want to join me there. 

To me, that is the deep connection. I want you. You want me. And we are both willing to work at and nurture that 'want'.

The logistics of running kids around, paying bills, making appointments getting the oil changed on cars or picking up toilet paper and maxi pads, is just that ... busy work. It fulfills one's obligations in the relationship, but I certainly don't think it nurtures it.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> The logistics of running kids around, paying bills, making appointments getting the oil changed on cars or picking up toilet paper and maxi pads, is just that ... busy work. It fulfills one's obligations in the relationship, but I certainly don't think it nurtures it.


Huh? :scratchhead:

I don't think you understood my post at all because I would never suggest that the logistics of playing chauffeur (or whatever) is deep connection. Indeed, I thing I said very explicitly that it takes more than just time (ie logistics) and warm fuzzies (aka heart) to build a successful relationship.

And I think I was about as explicit as possible that LTR is no guarantee or panacea? Indeed, didn't I say that success is defined more by depth than length?

I'm fine with you being dismissive, because what you are dismissing is not even close to what I said.

I absolutely would never say that you need to sacrifice yourself on the alter of love. What I'm saying is that your calculations and strategies of when and how much it's okay to be vulnerable, to be a "good partner" are your way of holding people at arm's length and maintaining control. Of not actually being at all vulnerable or really sharing yourself, but of parceling out pre-packaged tid-bits as part of your game. 

And it's absolutely your choice if that's what you want. Who can tell you otherwise? But it surely does help explain why you are experiencing this pattern of short-lived relationships that end once the going threatens to get a little bit tough.

Think of it this way: you are also drawing women who are thinking just like you. And so in the end it's a draw: no one really wants to give "too much".


----------



## heartsbeating

I ought to preface this that I'd like to think Deejo is old enough and ugly enough to know what's working, what's not, and why.

In saying that, always_alone, I love your posts. Train of thought actually ended up with me reflecting on a couple of work scenarios. One was when a woman put forward calendar dates for proposed meetings, to then say they would be difficult for her to attend. I scratched my head with the thought 'Why would she offer those dates then?' And the thought that she was unintentionally setting herself up to fail or reaffirm a belief of her place, was tricky to side-step. 

Another was when I took a job that I knew within the first week wasn't going to work out. I hung in there, had the conversations etc., until 6 months in, I called it quits. The lesson I learned from that was if you can call it - then call it. Sooner rather than later. And I most certainly could have called it sooner. Heck even the interview process ought to have told me something. 

Still..... it's all a learning, right?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Moral of the story... 

Be authentic

Speak your truth

Be courageous


----------



## Deejo

heartsbeating said:


> I ought to preface this that I'd like to think Deejo is old enough and ugly enough to know what's working, what's not, and why.
> 
> In saying that, always_alone, I love your posts. Train of thought actually ended up with me reflecting on a couple of work scenarios. One was when a woman put forward calendar dates for proposed meetings, to then say they would be difficult for her to attend. I scratched my head with the thought 'Why would she offer those dates then?' And the thought that she was unintentionally setting herself up to fail or reaffirm a belief of her place, was tricky to side-step.
> 
> Another was when I took a job that I knew within the first week wasn't going to work out. I hung in there, had the conversations etc., until 6 months in, I called it quits. The lesson I learned from that was if you can call it - then call it. Sooner rather than later. And I most certainly could have called it sooner. Heck even the interview process ought to have told me something.
> 
> Still..... it's all a learning, right?


To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.

Take my friend out of her vajayjay funk and make her an objective spectator of these events and I'm pretty sure she'd be horrified at listening to herself.

I will never, ever be one of those people that will say "It could never happen to me ..."
Because I believe virtually everyone is subject to SOME set of circumstances under which their morals or integrity can be compromised. And they usually believe that occurrence is impossible, right up until the point where it happens.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> I will never, ever be one of those people that will say "It could never happen to me ..."
> Because I believe virtually everyone is subject to SOME set of circumstances under which their morals or integrity can be compromised. And they usually believe that occurrence is impossible, right up until the point where it happens.


I agree completely but it's an unpopular opinion to voice. Anytime I express the same thought I expect a few would never, could never, have never responses.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.


All I was suggesting, perhaps poorly, is that we can place ourselves in scenarios to support some kind of belief or pattern of self... often subconsciously. And, that we're capable of ignoring the writing on the wall, despite seeing it.

To bring it back to the original post rather than shining the spotlight your way - the unfortunate thing is that your friend knows her actions are questionable which is why she went to you in the first place. Why she may not follow your advice is for her to know and discover.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo said:


> To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.
> 
> Take my friend out of her vajayjay funk and make her an objective spectator of these events and I'm pretty sure she'd be horrified at listening to herself.
> 
> I will never, ever be one of those people that will say "It could never happen to me ..."
> Because I believe virtually everyone is subject to SOME set of circumstances under which their morals or integrity can be compromised. And they usually believe that occurrence is impossible, right up until the point where it happens.


Yep, that is exactly the mindset I was in when I fell.


----------



## Deejo

heartsbeating said:


> All I was suggesting, perhaps poorly, is that we can place ourselves in scenarios to support some kind of belief or pattern of self... often subconsciously. And, that we're capable of ignoring the writing on the wall, despite seeing it.
> 
> To bring it back to the original post rather than shining the spotlight your way - the unfortunate thing is that your friend knows her actions are questionable which is why she went to you in the first place. Why she may not follow your advice is for her to know and discover.


Because she likes the dirty ...

And I don't mind the spotlight. I rather bask in it.

The context in which many here know me is my advocacy for middle aged men who couldn't find their ass with both hands coming out of a broken relationship, to relearn everything.

Because odds are good that the everything they thought they knew, about themselves, love, sex, marriage, dating and women is more than a little off-target.

I've engaged in the better man, alpha/beta, Nice Guy, and PUA discussions here. Notably I tend to stay out of the Anal, Threesome and penis size threads ...

So that tends to paint me in a certain light. I'm not alpha, I'm certainly not a pickup artist.

I'm a better partner, and a better man than I was over six years ago. 

All this is more directed at the viewing audience more so than you Hearts.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.
> 
> Take my friend out of her vajayjay funk and make her an objective spectator of these events and I'm pretty sure she'd be horrified at listening to herself.
> 
> I will never, ever be one of those people that will say "It could never happen to me ..."


Deejo, I don't understand you. Despite your explicit claims that you "are not judging" your friend, and that you "don't feel sorry" for the wife because she "accepts" she is married to a serial cheater, you seem hell-bent on judging your friend, calling her out on being crazy, in a "vajayjay" funk, and on and on. 

And then, even while you are acknowledging that this *could* happen to you too, you absolutely refuse to engage even remotely with the notion that your own logic and justifications aren't actually much different than hers. 

Don't get me wrong, Deejo. As hearts said, you're old enough and ugly enough to know what's going on, and on balance, you seem like a good guy. I just wish you'd sometimes turn your critical spotlight on the downsides of your own worldview.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> Because odds are good that the everything they thought they knew, about themselves, love, sex, marriage, dating and women is more than a little off-target.


hmm... I was listening to a podcast today, always feel a bit of a square when I listen to podcasts but apparently I can learn stuff so anyway, listening to podcast and discussion (not specifically about relationships but the theories can certainly intertwine) was around those who have been through experiences. Does it mean they got something 'wrong' due to a certain outcome? Not at all. If anything, there's the potential to make someone more equipped for having gone through it in the first place. 

It'd be a rare thing indeed for any of us to know answers without first having gone through some kind of experience. We can read about theories - and there's certainly a use for that - however it's really in the living of the thing, the actions, that we learn. Maybe it's not that what is known has been off-target as such, it's just that's all that was experienced up until that point. It's entirely possible we are expressing the same thing just with different words. And my words are somewhat sleep-deprived, which is to say, proceed with caution. I don't give refunds. 



Deejo said:


> Notably I tend to stay out of the Anal, Threesome and penis size threads ...


Whah?! Where's that party at?



Deejo said:


> I'm a better partner, and a better man than I was over six years ago.


Growth and recognizing what you've evolved from certainly deserves props. Does 'better' mean more congruent? Or is that simply my word of the week. 



Deejo said:


> All this is more directed at the viewing audience more so than you Hearts.


If I'd known there was an audience, I'd have done my hair. Because of the shift in perspective you have experienced in your own life, this is why you and many others here can offer so much.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Deejo, I don't understand you. Despite your explicit claims that you "are not judging" your friend, and that you "don't feel sorry" for the wife because she "accepts" she is married to a serial cheater, you seem hell-bent on judging your friend, calling her out on being crazy, in a "vajayjay" funk, and on and on.
> 
> And then, even while you are acknowledging that this *could* happen to you too, you absolutely refuse to engage even remotely with the notion that your own logic and justifications aren't actually much different than hers.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Deejo. As hearts said, you're old enough and ugly enough to know what's going on, and on balance, you seem like a good guy. I just wish you'd sometimes turn your critical spotlight on the downsides of your own worldview.


Which is in a way a lovely summary of the origin of the thread.

'It doesn't make sense.'

All I was trying to get across.

I'm not judging my friend. But you think I am . So who exactly is that on, you or me?

My point was, make this entire enterprise about someone else other than her, and ask her for her input and she would not think very highly of the circumstances or the people involved. Yet here she is. She believed she was above it.

If I were to call her a cheater, or ask her how her affair is going, she would be hurt ... and angry. 

I don't care that she is having an affair outside the scope of what happens to her.

I don't condone cheating. But I'm not out to pillory everyone who engages in it. That would make me a very busy, and frustrated man.

On a more positive Deejo note, GF reached out to me. We have spoken, and neither of us are ready to throw in the towel. She got perspective and insight from some people close to her, who basically told her that she over-reacted. That was pretty much exactly what she needed to hear, and importantly ... that message had to come from someone other than me. 

We are going to focus on the 'us' part of the relationship and assure that foundation is as strong as we both believe it is, before further co-mingling our families.

Not going to Montreal though. We're going to hunker down and ride out our latest blizzard/noreaster slated for this weekend.


----------



## Deejo

heartsbeating said:


> hmm... I was listening to a podcast today, always feel a bit of a square when I listen to podcasts but apparently I can learn stuff so anyway, listening to podcast and discussion (not specifically about relationships but the theories can certainly intertwine) was around those who have been through experiences. Does it mean they got something 'wrong' due to a certain outcome? Not at all. If anything, there's the potential to make someone more equipped for having gone through it in the first place.


Absolutely agree with this. That's why in the scheme of things, I'm not up in arms over the choice my friend has made, just surprised by it.

It's why despite my hyperbolic statement of "Maybe I'm just not cut out for long term relationships ..." I'm fine with the relationships that I have had, grateful in fact.

In my mind there is a pretty good benchmark for determining you are doing something right, and that is the fact that you know quite clearly what doing it wrong looks or feels like.



heartsbeating said:


> It'd be a rare thing indeed for any of us to know answers without first having gone through some kind of experience. We can read about theories - and there's certainly a use for that - however it's really in the living of the thing, the actions, that we learn. Maybe it's not that what is known has been off-target as such, it's just that's all that was experienced up until that point. It's entirely possible we are expressing the same thing just with different words. And my words are somewhat sleep-deprived, which is to say, proceed with caution. I don't give refunds.


Bad experiences have value. Although I'll qualify that by saying there is an entire degree of 'bad' that I don't think should have to happen to anyone, ever.

Congruent in my mind is a great way to describe being on-track, with a goal, achievement, one self or a relationship. In alignment with, clarity of and purpose in common.

Nice word that.

I'm primarily more congruent with myself. My boundaries, my code of conduct, my needs, my expectations. Which from my perspective makes it clearer for me, and a potential partner to experience and determine if we have congruence as a couple, or one of my favorite phrases to which props go to MEM; emotional symmetry.


----------



## meson

heartsbeating said:


> Originally Posted by Deejo
> To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I was suggesting, perhaps poorly, is that we can place ourselves in scenarios to support some kind of belief or pattern of self... often subconsciously. And, that we're capable of ignoring the writing on the wall, despite seeing it.
> 
> To bring it back to the original post rather than shining the spotlight your way - the unfortunate thing is that your friend knows her actions are questionable which is why she went to you in the first place. Why she may not follow your advice is for her to know and discover.
Click to expand...

The advice may have already sunk in but not yet manifested itself. 

It took a long time for me to recognize my EA. And even when I recognized it it took awhile for me to take steps to end it. And even after I told my wife it took a long time to finally withdraw. The point is that self discovery and acknowledgement to action takes time when you are addicted.

I remember on very popular TAM poster who was railing on their spouse in a validation type of thread. Shaggy and I called them out and said they were having an affair. There was no acknowledgment but only pages of ranting about supporting the spouse. However down the road after a few months in subsequent threads they DID acknowlege the role the OW had in an off hand way and how they needed to not be in the picture.

So Deejo, it may well be that your arguments have sunk in and are having an effect. It just may take her awhile to acknowledge it and act upon it. Now just let the info gestate and have its effect.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> In my mind there is a pretty good benchmark for determining you are doing something right, and that is the fact that you know quite clearly what doing it wrong looks or feels like.


Sometimes there is no right or wrong. It just is. What I failed to mention was the lessons from that experience is what matters. It's what we learn.... the 'school of life' stuff. 



Deejo said:


> Bad experiences have value. Although I'll qualify that by saying there is an entire degree of 'bad' that I don't think should have to happen to anyone, ever.


I was relating this to your mention of men you felt were off-target. In terms of lessons learned, we can also offer our experiences, want to help/teach/mentor another but if that other isn't ready to learn it, then they won't. 



Deejo said:


> Congruent in my mind is a great way to describe being on-track, with a goal, achievement, one self or a relationship. In alignment with, clarity of and purpose in common.
> 
> Nice word that.
> 
> I'm primarily more congruent with myself. My boundaries, my code of conduct, my needs, my expectations. Which from my perspective makes it clearer for me, and a potential partner to experience and determine if we have congruence as a couple, or one of my favorite phrases to which props go to MEM; emotional symmetry.


Good stuff.

I think we continue learning and changing. We're never 'done' but we can be mindful of living congruently. There's something Clay Christensen says that my husband and I were discussing the other day and it's this -

_'And I decided that if you set a standard it's easier to keep the standard 100% of the time than it is 98% of the time.'_


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> On a more positive Deejo note, GF reached out to me. We have spoken, and neither of us are ready to throw in the towel. She got perspective and insight from some people close to her, who basically told her that she over-reacted. That was pretty much exactly what she needed to hear, and importantly ... that message had to come from someone other than me.
> 
> We are going to focus on the 'us' part of the relationship and assure that foundation is as strong as we both believe it is, before further co-mingling our families.
> 
> Not going to Montreal though. We're going to hunker down and ride out our latest blizzard/noreaster slated for this weekend.


It was a bump in the road and she was ready to hear and listen to the advice given by her friends. Cool. It's still early days. Now you can put those funds towards getting massages together.


----------



## MEM2020

Deejo,

I'm seriously - deeply - wired for monogamy. I love that I've never cheated on M2. Love that she's a good enough wife that I don't feel that monogamy is a sacrifice. Commitment yes, sacrifice no. 

And yet - I've had a couple close calls. One with a friend of my daughters who relentlessly vibed me. She actually got a little ways into my head. Came over to the house one day to 'meet' my daughter - except my daughter never showed. 

All I can say is this. I would NOT want to be in close proximity to someone like that young woman for an extended period of time. 

Biology is powerful. 




Deejo said:


> To me, as evidenced by my friend in the OP, everything that you indicated above can go completely and utterly sideways when brain chemistry and naughty bits enter the field of play.
> 
> Take my friend out of her vajayjay funk and make her an objective spectator of these events and I'm pretty sure she'd be horrified at listening to herself.
> 
> I will never, ever be one of those people that will say "It could never happen to me ..."
> Because I believe virtually everyone is subject to SOME set of circumstances under which their morals or integrity can be compromised. And they usually believe that occurrence is impossible, right up until the point where it happens.


----------



## always_alone

intheory said:


> What I've gone through the past couple of years in my late 40's, has led me to believe that Nature is definitely attempting a last-ditch effort to get me pregnant.


I totally get the urgency that you speak of, but from a biological vantage point at any rate, it makes absolutely no sense at all for a woman of around 47 to be making a last ditch effort at baby making. The odds of pregnancy are greatly reduced, greatly, and tell chances of miscarriage are extremely high, as are the chances of a whole host of disorders and defects. 

So, while the hormones may be going a bit crazy around perimenopause, it makes no sense to me that it's actually about babies.


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> Biology is powerful.


That ain't biology; that's you being psychologically manipulated by girl game. 

Biology isn't what's powerful; it's the head games we play. IMHO.


----------



## Thundarr

MEM11363 said:


> And yet - I've had a couple close calls. One with a friend of my daughters who relentlessly vibed me. She actually got a little ways into my head. Came over to the house one day to 'meet' my daughter - except my daughter never showed.
> 
> All I can say is this. I would NOT want to be in close proximity to someone like that young woman for an extended period of time.
> 
> Biology is powerful.
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't biology; that's you being psychologically manipulated by girl game.
> 
> Biology isn't what's powerful; it's the head games we play. IMHO.
Click to expand...


All due respect AlwaysAlone but MEM11363's scenario is the very definition of biology. You can choose not to believe it or reword it to you satisfaction if that makes you happy though.


----------



## ConanHub

always_alone said:


> That ain't biology; that's you being psychologically manipulated by girl game.
> 
> Biology isn't what's powerful; it's the head games we play. IMHO.


Big smile....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

How is "Actually got a little into my head" biology? 

Don't all men filter out such encounters by default? If biology had it's way I should have hit on the dozens of women I saw in various stages of undress when I worked at the university hospital during my undergrad years... (Cardiac ultrasound lab, I was doing the computer programming part). 

Like I never had undergrads flirting for grades  when I was a grad student and TA? Or interns hoping for a full time job or great recommendation letters?

Or maybe the best approach is what Fred our former MSEE guy did... One of his daughter's friends did hit on him pretty openly, early and often. So Fred resolved it by having a long time PA with the girl's mother  

Biology schmbiology... The moment you're past adolescence your cells switch to grown up mode...


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> How is "Actually got a little into my head" biology?


Exactly!!! This!

I get it, people have urges, get hungry, want sex, biology does have a role. But a little sexy girl getting into a man's head? That's psychology.


----------



## always_alone

intheory said:


> Nature is a cruel b|tch.


IMHO, nature is not cruel but indifferent.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the individual is nothing, completely irrelevant. What matters is survival of the offspring to continue the reproductive cycle.

If the odds are that the offspring will be weak, infertile, incapable of raising offspring, then there is absolutely no point to the "last ditch" effort for a baby.

And while a healthy baby is possible, it is actually very, very unlikely, and largely due to the miracle of modern medicine, rather than the biological ability of the mom. They call women over 40 "geriatric moms" for a reason.

Hormones are hormones; they do not necessarily have intentions.


----------



## Thundarr

Now we're just playing with words so we can all disagree about what we're saying the same thing about anyway. Forums are awesome.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

Why are you responding as if DID something inappropriate? 





john117 said:


> How is "Actually got a little into my head" biology?
> 
> Don't all men filter out such encounters by default? If biology had it's way I should have hit on the dozens of women I saw in various stages of undress when I worked at the university hospital during my undergrad years... (Cardiac ultrasound lab, I was doing the computer programming part).
> 
> Like I never had undergrads flirting for grades  when I was a grad student and TA? Or interns hoping for a full time job or great recommendation letters?
> 
> Or maybe the best approach is what Fred our former MSEE guy did... One of his daughter's friends did hit on him pretty openly, early and often. So Fred resolved it by having a long time PA with the girl's mother
> 
> Biology schmbiology... The moment you're past adolescence your cells switch to grown up mode...


----------



## john117

I was merely providing cases where biology is overridden. We all abide by the rules and we learn early on to never let biology get in the way.


----------



## MEM2020

Is J2 included in this broadly inclusive (you use the term 'WE ALL') morally advanced group who abides by the rules?

I thought she was planning a high speed drop off into a 'care home' if the alternative was to sully her aristocratic hands taking care of you herself. 




john117 said:


> I was merely providing cases where biology is overridden. We all abide by the rules and we learn early on to never let biology get in the way.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I totally get the urgency that you speak of, but from a biological vantage point at any rate, it makes absolutely no sense at all for a woman of around 47 to be making a last ditch effort at baby making. The odds of pregnancy are greatly reduced, greatly, and tell chances of miscarriage are extremely high, as are the chances of a whole host of disorders and defects.
> 
> So, while the hormones may be going a bit crazy around perimenopause, it makes no sense to me that it's actually about babies.


Disagree.

When you're in the last seconds of the game, you start throwing hail mary's... even if you're in your own end zone doing it.

Because that's all you have left.

A slim chance is better than no chance, biologically. And that trend line can stack up pretty high in a population.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> That ain't biology; that's you being psychologically manipulated by girl game.
> 
> Biology isn't what's powerful; it's the head games we play. IMHO.


The point is that it's the two things together.

If she wasn't hot, the head games would have done nothing.

It was working because the biology made him open to it.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> Now we're just playing with words so we can all disagree about what we're saying the same thing about anyway. Forums are awesome.


I totally disagree with this whole thing.

This forum isn't awesome, it's fantastic.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> The point is that it's the two things together.
> 
> If she wasn't hot, the head games would have done nothing.
> 
> It was working because the biology made him open to it.


I'm not just quibbling about words here. There's quite a big difference between saying a response is biologically programmed and saying it is psychological. 

And while I've seen a ton of guys here argue that getting aroused is simply a physiological reaction to a hot body, things are immensely more complicated than this.

Just ask Pavlov.

For example, in some cultures, breasts are not sexualized at all, and men in those cultures do not experience that physiological reaction when they see them. Here you can't walk 10 ft without hypersexualized images of women's breasts plastered in ads, billboards, magazine covers. And men have been conditioned to respond to them in this way.

And to bring it back to the thread:. It's not biology that males you cheat. It's the stories you tell yourself.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> A slim chance is better than no chance, biologically. And that trend line can stack up pretty high in a population.


You are forgetting just how slim the odds are under the best of conditions. Even when the woman is young and very fertile, it takes a fair bit of copulation to produce a baby (statistically, at any rate, individual mileage will differ). After fertilization takes place, a huge number are lost to miscarriage. Indeed, miscarriage is so common, it isn't even considered a medical condition or problem.

And then if you do manage to get through the gestational period, babies can be lost, and indeed were in alarmingly frequent numbers before the days of modern medicine.

It's actually quite difficult for humans to produce offspring that will live long enough to reproduce themselves -- and that is what evolution is all about.

So this whole "slim chance is better than none" argument is just pointing to what will most typically be the weakest of the species, with absolutely the least chance of reproducing.

Again, to bring it back to the thread: Sex is about a lot more than just reproducing.


----------



## MEM2020

AA,

So when you say psychological you mean nurture?




QUOTE=always_alone;11819785]I'm not just quibbling about words here. There's quite a big difference between saying a response is biologically programmed and saying it is psychological. 

And while I've seen a ton of guys here argue that getting aroused is simply a physiological reaction to a hot body, things are immensely more complicated than this.

Just ask Pavlov.

For example, in some cultures, breasts are not sexualized at all, and men in those cultures do not experience that physiological reaction when they see them. Here you can't walk 10 ft without hypersexualized images of women's breasts plastered in ads, billboards, magazine covers. And men have been conditioned to respond to them in this way.

And to bring it back to the thread:. It's not biology that males you cheat. It's the stories you tell yourself.[/QUOTE]


----------



## always_alone

MEM11363 said:


> AA,
> 
> So when you say psychological you mean nurture?


Nurture is only one piece. To me psychology refers to all aspects of the mind, our emotions, thoughts, meaning-making activities, the lens through which we view the world. This is informed in part by our biology, of course, but also included are our socialization, our culture, our interpretations, our individual experiences, proclivities, desires, fears, etc.

For example, consider this scenario: your heart is racing, your palms are sweating. Tell me, are you frightened? Or feeling the thrill of anticipation?

The explanatory power of "biology" is quite limited when it comes to human behaviour.


----------



## john117

MEM11363 said:


> Is J2 included in this broadly inclusive (you use the term 'WE ALL') morally advanced group who abides by the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought she was planning a high speed drop off into a 'care home' if the alternative was to sully her aristocratic hands taking care of you herself.



Lolz. There are rules and there are rules.

J2's father pretty much left her mom to perish while he spent a ton of money for himself. But he never cheated on her. 

Think Maslow's pyramid turned upside down. 

We drove to see our older girl today and were talking about "the future". The numbers look spectacular if we stay together (and social security stays afloat)... We can live a wonderfully financed life out of pensions and SS. Without touching our 401k's and the sizable equity in the McMansion. Since I worked a few more years and made more money etc my totals are good... So I told her she has all the incentive to keep me around and alive 

Now... Let's see if this will change her mind... It's biology in her head vs a storybook retirement. I'm betting biology wins this one.


----------



## MEM2020

John,

We clearly have different value systems.

I have daughters. 

Given a choice that they marry men who treat them well - for a lifetime - and have the occasional affair

Or

Are 'sexually faithful' but divorce and ditch them in a crappy nursing home for some late in life frolicking....

It's obvious what I what choose for them.

Same goes for:
Spouse is a genuinely good partner but has an affair or two

Spouse goes sexless middle of the marriage but never cheats


It's interesting to me - how folks on TAM - make nasty and judgemental comments when someone even acknowledged FEELING desire for a non spouse. 

And yes John - you were both - nasty and judgemental. 



QUOTE=john117;11821705]Lolz. There are rules and there are rules.

J2's father pretty much left her mom to perish while he spent a ton of money for himself. But he never cheated on her. 

Think Maslow's pyramid turned upside down. 

We drove to see our older girl today and were talking about "the future". The numbers look spectacular if we stay together (and social security stays afloat)... We can live a wonderfully financed life out of pensions and SS. Without touching our 401k's and the sizable equity in the McMansion. Since I worked a few more years and made more money etc my totals are good... So I told her she has all the incentive to keep me around and alive 

Now... Let's see if this will change her mind... It's biology in her head vs a storybook retirement. I'm betting biology wins this one.[/QUOTE]


----------



## john117

MEM, the values part is specific for certain groups of non spouse people, say, certain groups, ages, types of relationships, etc. Not everyone.

It's also for certain types of actions. Not everything. Last year my last remaining uncle in our village decided it would be a great idea to, ehem, shrink our family plot and memorial at the village cemetery. He busted marble, etc, etc. All to usurp a foot of space. My sister in law sued and won and he was forced to restore the whole thing at great expense. The same guy could go to our village house and rob it blind. He did not. He goes to church every Sunday etc etc.

As you said, different value systems for different cases. Trying to make sense of them is futile. That's why it's good to define some arbitrary personal boundaries and not depend on others' values.

Having feelings for non spouses - not a problem. If the non spouse unit is a member of some, ehem, protected class - problem. Different value systems -> different protected classes. 

The bottom line is that biology is not quite the driving force we make it out to be. We can choose to be attracted / develop feelings / take action / take no action and biology has very little to do with it at the end.

Biology may be the starter's pistol firing the shot for the 1500 meter race but it does not determine if we will run in the race or not. That's up to us.


----------



## heartsbeating

MEM11363 said:


> Deejo,
> 
> I'm seriously - deeply - wired for monogamy. I love that I've never cheated on M2. Love that she's a good enough wife that I don't feel that monogamy is a sacrifice. Commitment yes, sacrifice no.
> 
> And yet - I've had a couple close calls. One with a friend of my daughters who relentlessly vibed me. She actually got a little ways into my head. Came over to the house one day to 'meet' my daughter - except my daughter never showed.
> 
> All I can say is this. I would NOT want to be in close proximity to someone like that young woman for an extended period of time.
> 
> Biology is powerful.


What I took from this wasn't your consideration to biology and whether it was related to that, or it was psychological, or a combination of the two; rather that you recognized the vibe and steered clear. You heard the robot voice declaring, _Danger, Will Robinson!_

MEM, you have awareness of your potential temptations and know how to best handle it for you and your marriage by deciding not be in close proximity for an extended period. In my eyes, you were able to take responsibility by seeing it for what it was and not entertaining it further. 

I'm sure most of us have been propositioned in some form or another during the marriage. I'm no expert but I'd imagine that because we're not robots, there's a host of factors that could allow the thought to be entertained whether related to mutual attraction, hormones, ego, unresolved issues, denial, fantasy, selfishness, loneliness, longing... but it's knowing yourself well enough to recognize whether a person or scenario is a potential temptation for you, perhaps even why, and what you can do about that. My point is to focus on MEM's honesty about feeling the vibe, because it does happen, and what he did about it.


----------



## MEM2020

Hearts,

Thank you - that was entirely the spirit of it. 

I do believe a lot of folks get in trouble because they keep telling themselves that nothing is happening right up to the moment that something DOES happen. 

Later they say: It just happened.

And I think - nonsense - you made a series of small incremental choices which brought you to the precipice - and then sharply nudged by your pursuer at just the right moment - you jumped.

M2 of course - did her magic. When I mentioned later that night about the surprise visit and our daughter not showing up - she just said: I don't want DaughtersFriend coming to the house when daughter isn't here. 

That's it. That single sentence. Calm. Firm. 

And I said: It won't happen again. 

And that was that. 





heartsbeating said:


> What I took from this wasn't your consideration to biology and whether it was related to that, or it was psychological, or a combination of the two; rather that you recognized the vibe and steered clear. You heard the robot voice declaring, _Danger, Will Robinson!_
> 
> MEM, you have awareness of your potential temptations and know how to best handle it for you and your marriage by deciding not be in close proximity for an extended period. In my eyes, you were able to take responsibility by seeing it for what it was and not entertaining it further.
> 
> I'm sure most of us have been propositioned in some form or another during the marriage. I'm no expert but I'd imagine that because we're not robots, there's a host of factors that could allow the thought to be entertained whether related to mutual attraction, hormones, ego, unresolved issues, denial, fantasy, selfishness, loneliness, longing... but it's knowing yourself well enough to recognize whether a person or scenario is a potential temptation for you, perhaps even why, and what you can do about that. My point is to focus on MEM's honesty about feeling the vibe, because it does happen, and what he did about it.


----------



## jld

MEM11363 said:


> I do believe a lot of folks get in trouble because they keep telling themselves that nothing is happening right up to the moment that something DOES happen.
> 
> Later they say: It just happened.
> 
> And I think - nonsense -* you made a series of small incremental choices which brought you to the precipice - and then sharply nudged by your pursuer at just the right moment - you jumped*.


:iagree:


----------



## john117

You seem to lump all "pursuers" into one group while I talked of "protected classes".

If a pursuer is a member of a protected class she can flirt all she wants and it's not going to work. You tune those advances out subconsciously... And if they persist you have a single decision to make, namely, is this person crazy enough to get me in trouble if she makes up a thing or three?

That was the dilemma Fred faced since the pursuer in question was - I'm not kidding - in a Girl Scout troup as a teenager and he was 3x her age. He wisely surmised that the girl came from a pretty fvcked up home and was looking for a father figure more than anything else. Thankfully he found a way out by hitting on her mom . He was never concerned about succumbing to biology, but big time concerned about false accusations that are near impossible to disprove.

He has had a long term open marriage and his wife is all too happy to play along...


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> You are forgetting just how slim the odds are under the best of conditions. Even when the woman is young and very fertile, it takes a fair bit of copulation to produce a baby (statistically, at any rate, individual mileage will differ).  After fertilization takes place, a huge number are lost to miscarriage. Indeed, miscarriage is so common, it isn't even considered a medical condition or problem.
> 
> And then if you do manage to get through the gestational period, babies can be lost, and indeed were in alarmingly frequent numbers before the days of modern medicine.
> 
> It's actually quite difficult for humans to produce offspring that will live long enough to reproduce themselves -- and that is what evolution is all about.
> 
> So this whole "slim chance is better than none" argument is just pointing to what will most typically be the weakest of the species, with absolutely the least chance of reproducing.
> 
> Again, to bring it back to the thread: Sex is about a lot more than just reproducing.


I don't dispute that last statement, but it doesn't make the stuff above it true.

Your sex drive doesn't care what is rational.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I'm not just quibbling about words here. There's quite a big difference between saying a response is biologically programmed and saying it is psychological.
> 
> And while I've seen a ton of guys here argue that getting aroused is simply a physiological reaction to a hot body, things are immensely more complicated than this.
> 
> Just ask Pavlov.
> 
> For example, in some cultures, breasts are not sexualized at all, and men in those cultures do not experience that physiological reaction when they see them. Here you can't walk 10 ft without hypersexualized images of women's breasts plastered in ads, billboards, magazine covers. And men have been conditioned to respond to them in this way.
> 
> And to bring it back to the thread:. It's not biology that males you cheat. It's the stories you tell yourself.


Actually, what people find attractive are surprisingly homogenous across cultures.
Females:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractiveness
Males: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Male_physical_attractiveness

Because what's attractive are healthy, strong traits. 

Nothing makes people cheat. People decide to cheat.

Biology makes us want to. And we can deny that or we can understand it. 

What I've experienced is folks that deny their animal underpinnings get themselves in all kinds of trouble and tied up in knots about it.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Nurture is only one piece. To me psychology refers to all aspects of the mind, our emotions, thoughts, meaning-making activities, the lens through which we view the world. This is informed in part by our biology, of course, but also included are our socialization, our culture, our interpretations, our individual experiences, proclivities, desires, fears, etc.
> 
> For example, consider this scenario: your heart is racing, your palms are sweating. Tell me, are you frightened? Or feeling the thrill of anticipation?
> 
> The explanatory power of "biology" is quite limited when it comes to human behaviour.


Our social structure, culture, proclivities, and interpretations are all at some point done by, and for, our meat.

Societies developed because it made individuals (and populations of individuals) more reproductively successful.

And, most emotions are actually felt in our meat... and your description of the emotional response is incomplete. Fear and anxiety are usually felt in the belly, not in the hands or the heart.

What you're describing is an adrenal response, which can be triggered by all kinds of things. All kinds of meat things.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> You seem to lump all "pursuers" into one group while I talked of "protected classes".
> 
> If a pursuer is a member of a protected class she can flirt all she wants and it's not going to work. You tune those advances out subconsciously... And if they persist you have a single decision to make, namely, is this person crazy enough to get me in trouble if she makes up a thing or three?
> 
> That was the dilemma Fred faced since the pursuer in question was - I'm not kidding - in a Girl Scout troup as a teenager and he was 3x her age. He wisely surmised that the girl came from a pretty fvcked up home and was looking for a father figure more than anything else. Thankfully he found a way out by hitting on her mom . He was never concerned about succumbing to biology, but big time concerned about false accusations that are near impossible to disprove.
> 
> He has had a long term open marriage and his wife is all too happy to play along...


You make a lot of sense there.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Actually, what people find attractive are surprisingly homogenous across cultures.
> Females:Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Males: Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Because what's attractive are healthy, strong traits.
> 
> Nothing makes people cheat. People decide to cheat.
> 
> Biology makes us want to. And we can deny that or we can understand it.
> 
> What I've experienced is folks that deny their animal underpinnings get themselves in all kinds of trouble and tied up in knots about it.


Yes, this is what I'm on about. These things have been shown pretty clearly to vary very widely cross-culturally, and the fact is biology offers little in the way of explanatory power.

People are weak because it serves their purposes to be so. 

Or not, in which case, "temptation" is barely that.


----------



## john117

I do make some sense because I have worked with "protected species" for decades. You simply tune them out or extricate yourself from the situation (or follow Fred's model :rofl. My team gets more female interns than any other team in the company (graphic or industrial design, ux, arts, psych, comp science) and we gotta be careful especially since many of those are co-ops we have for more than one time.

Not everyone does it tho. My MS Thesis advisor was notorious for hitting on good looking grad students... Since his focus was linguistics he had a near infinite supply of chicks - usually foreign born - to pick from... 

Would he get away with it today? Probably not.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> People are weak because it serves their purposes to be so.
> 
> Or not, in which case, "temptation" is barely that.


Nailed it.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Nurture is only one piece. To me psychology refers to all aspects of the mind, our emotions, thoughts, meaning-making activities, the lens through which we view the world. This is informed in part by our biology, of course, but also included are our socialization, our culture, our interpretations, our individual experiences, proclivities, desires, fears, etc.
> 
> For example, consider this scenario: your heart is racing, your palms are sweating. Tell me, are you frightened? Or feeling the thrill of anticipation?
> 
> The explanatory power of "biology" is quite limited when it comes to human behaviour.


I've watched this thread for a couple of pages knowing that I didn't understand the distinction being made between biological and psychological responses. Now I see and it. You and others are talking about the physical response to stimuli as biology and most everything else intellect related as psychological. My initial definition of biology would have encompassed more than that but at least now I have a context.

I guess I'm just happy to understand the distinction being used here but in addition to that; YES we can use our psychological knowledge to control our biology to a degree. I learned years ago that nervousness can become excitement just by telling myself it is. After all being nervous and anxious has the same biological symptoms as being excited.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, this is what I'm on about. These things have been shown pretty clearly to vary very widely cross-culturally, and the fact is biology offers little in the way of explanatory power.
> 
> People are weak because it serves their purposes to be so.
> 
> Or not, in which case, "temptation" is barely that.


What I'm saying is the opposite of your first statement, and that's what is referenced in the link. Generalities are in fact the rule of the game for _**** sapiens_.

Societies may find certain features in vogue (biceps, ass size, etc) but the generalities remain. There can be fashionable trends (hence your pavlovian comment) but these are in my opinion minor in the grand scheme of things.

Bottacelli's _The Birth of Venus_ is a beautiful woman, even though it was painted 500 years ago and half a world away, as an example. Or the bust of Cleopatra, more than two thousand years old -- shows a high degree of facial symmetry, female youth in both face and breast, and others.

We are hard wired to find certain traits attractive. I wouldn't be surprised if what women find attractive in men to vary slightly more than what men find attractive in women, but still... what stimulates our reproductive brainy parts, does.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> I've watched this thread for a couple of pages knowing that I didn't understand the distinction being made between biological and psychological responses. Now I see and it. You and others are talking about the physical response to stimuli as biology and most everything else intellect related as psychological. My initial definition of biology would have encompassed more than that but at least now I have a context.
> 
> I guess I'm just happy to understand the distinction being used here but in addition to that; YES we can use our psychological knowledge to control our biology to a degree. I learned years ago that nervousness can become excitement just by telling myself it is. After all being nervous and anxious has the same biological symptoms as being excited.


What I'm saying is that I've experienced in both myself and several others is when the biology is ignored and assumed to be under the control of the rational; quite often the opposite turns out to be true.

It's older, faster, and more important than your neocortex because it's job is to send your genes into the next generation. And if thousands of generations before you hadn't had this trait hardwired, you wouldn't be here to have angst about it.

So, if we're sitting on a few ounces of primal 'lizard' brain that has millions of years of evolutionary hardwiring that's directly linked into our hormonal system, the neocortex can decide to use it as it will... to become it's master and become a hell of a lot stronger and wiser because of it.

Or, you know, we can just pretend somehow because we have book learnin' it all doesn't apply to us educated folk.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> What I took from this wasn't your consideration to biology and whether it was related to that, or it was psychological, or a combination of the two; rather that you recognized the vibe and steered clear. You heard the robot voice declaring, _Danger, Will Robinson!_


Fair enough. I'm so used to reading biology this and hard-wired to spread seed that, I probably read more into the statement than what was there.

And TBH, I do find it a bit hard to relate. I kinda feel like I've heard it all already, and can't imagine being remotely impressed by some pretty boy vibing me, or some self-styled studly stud. Granted, it's pretty easy for me to avoid, but the last time someone hit on me, I just laughed at him and really can't imagine reacting in any other way.

My SO, on the other hand, gets tempted easily, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn he's cheated. It's how I know how replaceable/interchangeable I am.


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that I've experienced in both myself and several others is when the biology is ignored and assumed to be under the control of the rational; quite often the opposite turns out to be true.


Don't confuse me not understanding where AA and others are coming from to mean I didn't get your points right away. I vehemently agree with this particular point. To me not respecting biology (and psychology) bites us and humbles them. Smart people know that we are all fallible IMO.


----------



## john117

Whoa, people...

Don't attribute to biology what can better be attributed to lust...

I have a lot of single friends not in an LTR and not interested in one either. I don't think they're going ape trying to spread their genetic material planet wide. 

Biology controls basic physiological responses. But escalating to action.... That's not (a lot of) biology.

The basic human information processing model is perception -> cognition -> motor response. Perception is noticing the cute person across for you and taking in all she offers (low cut dress, the works). Cognition is integrating this new information with your existing mental framework and forming the response. Motor response is anything needed to carry out the response.

There's lots of biology that is involved at the perceptual stage and lots more at the motor response stage but the cognitive stage... Not quite as much. We could throw in a Maslow style pyramid but really, who's going to think reptilian "I haven't had sex in a furlong, let's bang the intern"... 

There's a bunch of choices and as always the mind will choose what it needs to choose. 

Are there cases where biology is the "driver"? We'd like to think there are but I doubt it.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> Whoa, people...
> 
> Don't attribute to biology what can better be attributed to lust...
> 
> I have a lot of single friends not in an LTR and not interested in one either. I don't think they're going ape trying to spread their genetic material planet wide.
> 
> Biology controls basic physiological responses. But escalating to action.... That's not (a lot of) biology.


I think you're using biology in a static context of bodily functions. That's fine except it's likely that the comments you're saying "Whoa people" to were using a broader definition of biology.


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> I think you're using biology in a static context of bodily functions. That's fine except it's likely that the comments you're saying "Whoa people" to were using a broader definition of biology.



Biology is mostly about "how" to do things, and the basic built in mental models we are born with - what we generally consider as instincts, fundamental behaviors, etc - is about "what" to do. But we can and do override those... For the most part.


----------



## Marduk

lust is a biological response.

There can be a bunch of stuff wrapped around it, of course. We can be attracted to many things with many layers.

But it's a biological response. It doesn't even require higher brain function to occur.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Biology is mostly about "how" to do things, and the basic built in mental models we are born with - what we generally consider as instincts, fundamental behaviors, etc - is about "what" to do. But we can and do override those... For the most part.


That's a small part of what biology is.

Biology is "The study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution."

And the brain you use to override your biology, is itself, biology in action.

It's turtles all the way down, baby.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> lust is a biological response.
> 
> There can be a bunch of stuff wrapped around it, of course. We can be attracted to many things with many layers.
> 
> But it's a biological response. It doesn't even require higher brain function to occur.



Yet we are able to override it, no?


----------



## MEM2020

This is painful to read - and sad.


UOTE=always_alone;11830881]Fair enough. I'm so used to reading biology this and hard-wired to spread seed that, I probably read more into the statement than what was there.

And TBH, I do find it a bit hard to relate. I kinda feel like I've heard it all already, and can't imagine being remotely impressed by some pretty boy vibing me, or some self-styled studly stud. Granted, it's pretty easy for me to avoid, but the last time someone hit on me, I just laughed at him and really can't imagine reacting in any other way.

My SO, on the other hand, gets tempted easily, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn he's cheated. It's how I know how replaceable/interchangeable I am.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Yet we are able to override it, no?


My point is that overriding it is a losing game.

Your limbic system is among the oldest, fundamental, parts of you. And it is hardwired into your hormonal response, which can and does color your conscious perception. If you think your hormones have nothing to do with your rational mind... well, I just don't know what to say.

Using it can be a winning game, however. Hacking your biology is different than pretending it doesn't effect us. As an example, did you know you can up your testosterone temporarily by changing your posture, thinking about sex, or lifting heavy weights?

And if you do that in combination with being around an appropriate amorous partner instead of an inappropriate one...

Well, you can let nature take it's course at that point. 

But asserting that you can override it is like saying an application can override the logic on the processor. It might be able to make it look that way for as long as that application is running and being allocated memory and processor time...

Which, of course, the OS and hardware will interrupt to keep the system running.

I think we function in similar ways. We can work with our hardware, or against it, or think that we're somehow separate and distinct, but at the end of the day our biology doesn't care what we think, as long as we survive long enough procreate more with reproductively successful offspring.


----------



## Marduk

A_A we are all replaceable. The world will keep turning and our spouses will find another special flower to replace us with if they have to, or they want to.

There are billions of people in this world. The key is to be the best we can, and let the chips fall where they may, I think.


----------



## john117

There are plenty of ways to overcome biology... 

But the problem is we are confusing things. The limbic system is indeed powerful, but its biology is mostly about how things work, not about what to do. To use the PC metaphor, those are the hardware components. 

The hardware only executes software, which is your friendly cognitive processes. That's why a monk will see a pretty girl and react the same way as if he's seeing a pretty tree while an Italian guy, well 

Overriding biology is not any different than loading a different program and convincing the person to use it. 

But we are talking about high level functions here. Emotions are founded at lower levels - all people love, hate, feel, etc - but they come to life at higher levels. That's why therapy works. If emotions were mostly lower level "hard wired" functions would therapy work?

We override biology with training:

When your car slides on ice your "instinct" is to slow down by using brakes. Nope. Try to steer instead, cut power, and avoid braking. 

When you're about to stall on a plane you want to push the nose up. Bad idea, push the nose down to gain speed. Counterintuitive...

And many other things like those. 

Biology is really about what we call simple responses. Human behavior is way more complex than that. Biology gives us the head start towards possible actions but ultimately we choose consciously to follow thru or not.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> There are plenty of ways to overcome biology...
> 
> But the problem is we are confusing things. The limbic system is indeed powerful, but its biology is mostly about how things work, not about what to do. To use the PC metaphor, those are the hardware components.
> 
> The hardware only executes software, which is your friendly cognitive processes. That's why a monk will see a pretty girl and react the same way as if he's seeing a pretty tree while an Italian guy, well
> 
> Overriding biology is not any different than loading a different program and convincing the person to use it.
> 
> But we are talking about high level functions here. Emotions are founded at lower levels - all people love, hate, feel, etc - but they come to life at higher levels. That's why therapy works. If emotions were mostly lower level "hard wired" functions would therapy work?
> 
> We override biology with training:
> 
> When your car slides on ice your "instinct" is to slow down by using brakes. Nope. Try to steer instead, cut power, and avoid braking.
> 
> When you're about to stall on a plane you want to push the nose up. Bad idea, push the nose down to gain speed. Counterintuitive...
> 
> And many other things like those.
> 
> Biology is really about what we call simple responses. Human behavior is way more complex than that. Biology gives us the head start towards possible actions but ultimately we choose consciously to follow thru or not.


This logic is founded on a rhetorical tautology.

You are overriding your biology with biology. So, how do you know that one layer of biology is overriding the other?

Again, my point is that you can use it, or spend your life fighting it. 

You're sitting on a 500hp engine John, if you would just get it out of first gear.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> This logic is founded on a rhetorical tautology.
> 
> 
> 
> You are overriding your biology with biology. So, how do you know that one layer of biology is overriding the other?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, my point is that you can use it, or spend your life fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're sitting on a 500hp engine John, if you would just get it out of first gear.



Ummm, I know because I spent a decade studying psychology? 

I spoke of higher level cognitive functions. Those we have full control of.

I also spoke of the lower level functions - some autonomous, some we can turn off, some we can't...

The lower level stuff is just that. Lower level. See bright light - adjust eyes; see threat - fight or flee; and so on. There's a big stretch to consider "see cute coworker - affair material" as a purely low level biological function. 

Some we can't override at all. Some we can. The army is very good at that. Some people tune out pain - the fire walkers or fakirs. 

To think of the computer analogy, the lower level stuff is the BIOS. The middleware general functions of the mind are the operating system and the circumstance specific responses to issues are your applications. 

When you see a pretty coed on campus your sensory perceptual routines will notice and provide a general characterization of what you're seeing - ah, blonde, miniskirt, wears Paducah State U. Spirit-wear, etc. Looks interesting.That's about where biology ends. Further up the hierarchy your mind may run additional processes that are situation specific. Am I late for class? Can I walk her way for a better look? Did I just split up with my GF? Etcetera. Then after a whole bunch of items have been matched you may be interested enough to run an application for, say, "pursuit". Your mind may retrieve tried and true pick up lines or come up with some new ones ("weren't you a cheerleader last year") or upon second thought call off the pursuit...

Biology may have caused this to "start" but what happens past the start line is pure thinking.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Ummm, I know because I spent a decade studying psychology?
> 
> I spoke of higher level cognitive functions. Those we have full control of.
> 
> I also spoke of the lower level functions - some autonomous, some we can turn off, some we can't...
> 
> The lower level stuff is just that. Lower level. See bright light - adjust eyes; see threat - fight or flee; and so on. There's a big stretch to consider "see cute coworker - affair material" as a purely low level biological function.
> 
> Some we can't override at all. Some we can. The army is very good at that. Some people tune out pain - the fire walkers or fakirs.
> 
> To think of the computer analogy, the lower level stuff is the BIOS. The middleware general functions of the mind are the operating system and the circumstance specific responses to issues are your applications.
> 
> When you see a pretty coed on campus your sensory perceptual routines will notice and provide a general characterization of what you're seeing - ah, blonde, miniskirt, wears Paducah State U. Spirit-wear, etc. Looks interesting.That's about where biology ends. Further up the hierarchy your mind may run additional processes that are situation specific. Am I late for class? Can I walk her way for a better look? Did I just split up with my GF? Etcetera. Then after a whole bunch of items have been matched you may be interested enough to run an application for, say, "pursuit". Your mind may retrieve tried and true pick up lines or come up with some new ones ("weren't you a cheerleader last year") or upon second thought call off the pursuit...
> 
> Biology may have caused this to "start" but what happens past the start line is pure thinking.


It doesn't change my point.

Your psychological narrative is mediated, created, sustained, and filtered by your biology. Not the other way around. The act of thinking _is_ biological. 

Show me a person who's rationality doesn't change depending on the stuff they eat, the condition of their body, and the thoughts they think and I'll show you unicorns with cigars coming out their rear end. If you've studied psychology you should know far better than I how easy it is to alter perceptions with chemistry, alter cognition with hormones, and how little self-control we have by that thing we identify with as 'I.'

You have *some* control over some systems. You do not have full control over your cognitive systems. Even zen monks do not -- this is the point of their training. And they don't seek to dominate their thoughts, they seek to let them be, to not be fussed by them. Not to control: to understand, use if desired, release if not.

We are not one thing. We are a collection of many things. There is no one part of your brain that is you and you alone, John. Some things we have some notion of control over, some things we think we are in control of and do not actually have that control.

Some things you can change with sustained effort -- the education of instinct is what a lot of martial arts is about.

To go back to your computer analogy, what happens during garbage collection? Lower level system calls to make the machine work? Or in meatspace, all the stuff that exists to send your genes into the next generation? A ton of that is abstracted away from the higher level userspace.

What I'm saying is that your cognitive systems can effectively filter out that girl in the miniskirt, but it doesn't stop a whole host of subsystems that can alter your mood, hormone levels, subconscious thoughts, and all kinds of stuff until you find yourself chatting her up and unable to think about anything else... and then you're in her bed and it all "just happened."

It may not happen to you, of course. You're too smart for that, too in control. You're impervious to your biology, right? Evolved past it?

How's that working out for you?


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> You are overriding your biology with biology. So, how do you know that one layer of biology is overriding the other?


:iagree:
Wanting to believe that biology has no control over us is part of our wiring (yes biology). And then look what happens when we can't get that feeling of control such as abuse victims and stockholm syndrome where all control has been taken away. That's our wired coping mechanisms which is also biology. I see this debate in general over biology and psychology as proof that we're biologically driven to believe what we want to.


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> :iagree:
> Wanting to believe that biology has no control over us is part of our wiring (yes biology). And then look what happens when we can't get that feeling of control such as abuse victims and stockholm syndrome where all control has been taken away. That's our wired coping mechanisms which is also biology. I see this debate in general over biology and psychology as proof that we're biologically driven to believe what we want to.


Let's define 'biology'. 

Biology is what we're born with. The 'nature' part of nature or nurture. There is some of that, obviously. Think of what we call 'reptilian brain' for example, it's all there in a sense. 

But most people get over those in a hurry. Yea, every once in a while some a-hole will pull a piece and blow away the guy who cut him off in traffic, but for the most part we control those. 

What you mention above in abuse, stockholm syndrome, and the like are complex high level functions. The fact that they don't happen to everyone is a pretty good indicator that most of it is not built in, i.e. biologically driven.

From a purist's perspective, biology in our discussion is little more than the electrochemical processes in our nervous system. The stuff my younger daughter is wasting my precious tuition money on I should add :scratchhead: since she's majoring in neurobiology... 

We can think of a lot of those lower level functions as 'unconscious behavior'. Those do exist, and are similar for a lot of people (fear of the dark, of spiders, and the like) but biology they're not. They're not instictual behaviors. Take two kids, one from the mountains like me and one that learned to swim before he learned how to walk. Which one is afraid of the water? 

It's a good discussion and I'm afraid I'm showing my bias. But the more we learn about this the more questions we are asking, and here we are even talking about cognitive biology and systems biology, areas that were pipe dreams 30 years ago. But give humanity some credit, the mind is a powerful force.


----------



## Thundarr

john117 said:


> From a purist's perspective, biology in our discussion is little more than the electrochemical processes in our nervous system. The stuff my younger daughter is wasting my precious tuition money on I should add :scratchhead: since she's majoring in neurobiology...


From a purist perspective, I agree with you John. It's just my nature to define biology in a broader scope. That's why I think a lot of debate on biology vs pyshcology is semantics.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Your psychological narrative is mediated, created, sustained, and filtered by your biology. Not the other way around. The act of thinking _is_ biological.


Of course it is. Just like my PC has a power supply that provides 3V, 5V, and 12V. That's how it works. Cognition requires some biology to run like the core i7 in my PC needs juice...



> Show me a person who's rationality doesn't change depending on the stuff they eat, the condition of their body, and the thoughts they think and I'll show you unicorns with cigars coming out their rear end. If you've studied psychology you should know far better than I how easy it is to alter perceptions with chemistry, alter cognition with hormones, and how little self-control we have by that thing we identify with as 'I.'


Yet it's easier to alter behavior in a controlled and predictable way via cognitive tools such as framing, brainwashing, stick and carrot, and the like. Chemistry in the brain is like napalm in a forest. It does work but it's not very selective. 



> You have *some* control over some systems. You do not have full control over your cognitive systems. Even zen monks do not -- this is the point of their training. And they don't seek to dominate their thoughts, they seek to let them be, to not be fussed by them. Not to control: to understand, use if desired, release if not.


Since neither of us is a monk I'll pass. But my view as a military brat is that soldier training is all about controlling. If you try to understand what your commander told you to do you'll never do it . What ever happened to "Mind Over Matter" anyway?

We are not one thing. We are a collection of many things. There is no one part of your brain that is you and you alone, John. Some things we have some notion of control over, some things we think we are in control of and do not actually have that control.



> Some things you can change with sustained effort -- the education of instinct is what a lot of martial arts is about.


Yet instincts have fallen out of favor in psychology...



> To go back to your computer analogy, what happens during garbage collection? Lower level system calls to make the machine work? Or in meatspace, all the stuff that exists to send your genes into the next generation? A ton of that is abstracted away from the higher level userspace.


Correct. Subconscious stuff. But these are for very basic functions, not 'see chick as for date'.



> What I'm saying is that your cognitive systems can effectively filter out that girl in the miniskirt, but it doesn't stop a whole host of subsystems that can alter your mood, hormone levels, subconscious thoughts, and all kinds of stuff until you find yourself chatting her up and unable to think about anything else... and then you're in her bed and it all "just happened."


If you have the choice of walking by her and never saying a word, then your subconscious is not running the show. You also have the choice of more sinister ways to get her to bed, but only a very small fraction of people do. Isn't that about the best indication that the big head is running the show, and not the small head?



> It may not happen to you, of course. You're too smart for that, too in control. You're impervious to your biology, right? Evolved past it?
> 
> How's that working out for you?


Pretty well actually.

I come from a country where fun, friends, family, and the good life are far more important than college degrees, money, patents, and so on. Most of my compatriots went back after college for this very reason. I stayed and got the degrees, the money, and the patents. I'm not going to say I'm better off than my friends who retired at 50, but I was able to overcome the centuries old behaviors baked into my kind.

But again, I'm biased


----------



## john117

Thundarr said:


> From a purist perspective, I agree with you John. It's just my nature to define biology in a broader scope. That's why I think a lot of debate on biology vs pyshcology is semantics.


In a few decades hopefully we'll know... Not today.


----------



## As'laDain

hormones produce emotions. external stimuli trigger the release of those hormones, which produce emotions that drive our behavior. we eat food, we fill full, our brains record that, and the next time we see food, we desire it. sex, food, environment, none of it would have any importance to us if we didnt have the emotions to implant those experiences and information into our memories.

so, in a sense, we are all controlled by our emotions. 

but, we have this lovely ability to think logically. we can even incite an emotion without the presence of the stimulus, if we really want to. all we have to do is remember the situation and the details that were present when we last experienced it, or when we experienced it the most profoundly. if just remembering it is not enough to invoke the emotions, recreating the situation will.


i think that ultimately, people fall into affairs because they trust the emotions they are feeling rather than the facts in front of them. personally, i dont trust mine. im constantly looking at myself and asking why i am feeling the way i feel. what stimulus triggered the emotion, and what did that trigger remind me of? when did i last feel that emotion? or when did i feel it most profoundly? do i really like this person or do they just have a few mannerisms that remind me of my first sexual interest? did my wife really do something so bad, or did she merely do something that reminds me of how i felt when i was a kid?

i have done it so often that i cant even help it anymore. and i dont want to help it... i have no problem diving into it and just experiencing the emotion if it is safe to do so, but not if it isnt safe. for instance, i caught myself really getting into an interesting conversation with a woman a while back. i felt good, asked myself why, remembered the conversation with the woman and her smile, and her obvious interest in what i was saying, and realized that i needed to stop talking with her. 

there was nothing wrong with what i had done or felt. i simply had an interesting discussion with a woman. it felt good to exchange ideas and to be listened to intently. nothing wrong there...

but to continue talking to her would be to increase her importance. to associate her with good feelings. and that is a slippery slope. 

there was nothing special about that woman. she just happen to hit on a few stimuli that bounced around in my brain and resurrected a feeling that i had felt many times with similar stimuli. anyone can hit on those same stimuli, including my wife. 


so, i would say that everyone on planet earth is CAPABLE of falling into an affair... but, i would say that not everyone is aware that they could. and some know they could be deep down, but try their damndest to deny it, even to themselves. 

if everyone openly admitted that they are capable of the exact thing that they are so appalled by, they would work to avoid putting themselves into positions where they would do it. or, they simply wouldn't be appalled by it. affairs dont "just happen". they happen because people let them happen. they start to feel good, so they go back for more. people may think they just happen because they believe that their emotions are who they are, but emotions are simply experiences. we are what we choose.


----------



## 2ntnuf

"so, i would say that everyone on planet earth is CAPABLE of falling into an affair... but, i would say that not everyone is aware that they could. and some know they could be deep down, but try their damndest to deny it, even to themselves. 

if everyone openly admitted that they are capable of the exact thing that they are so appalled by, they would work to avoid putting themselves into positions where they would do it. or, they simply wouldn't be appalled by it. affairs dont "just happen". they happen because people let them happen. they start to feel good, so they go back for more. people may think they just happen because they believe that their emotions are who they are, but emotions are simply experiences. we are what we choose."



I have to agree with the vast majority of that post. That really was a level of understanding that goes beyond the scientific and combines it with humanism and fideism.The only part I disagree with is what I have underlined. 

I don't think admitting anything publicly will help. I think folks just have different values for the same action. Some may think stealing a loaf of bread when they are hungry is what is expected by all, when others will have emotional turmoil over the thoughts. I think those are learned responses and have nothing to do with biology or science, but are in direct relation to consequences. I think there must be an understanding of the reason for the consequences and a belief they are "normal", even if they are manufactured, which most of them are. 

Even laws are manufactured so that the less fortunate won't be taken advantage of, but why have them if it's all just normal for folks to take advantage of being the fittest, most dominant, strongest in will and body? When actions harm the most dominant, they are changed. It takes time realize the negative ramifications, but things change when this happens. Once things swing back to being mundane, we forget what those reasons were that things were done a certain way and start all over. 

Opposing views:
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

I think they say the same thing. History doesn't repeat in exactly the same manner. It seems it does at a general level. We have an innate desire to learn for ourselves and not believe what we have been told or read. We aren't the first generation to reinvent the wheel. The trouble I see is, we burn all previous knowledge we don't accept, until we find out it was basically true. We have to rewrite it and save face, even though what we have written is basically the same as what we burned. We don't ride horses everyday, anymore. We drive cars. We still have issues with infidelity. Some things change, some don't.


----------



## As'laDain

i didnt really mean publicly... bad choice of words on my part. 

readily accepted would have been better.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Let's define 'biology'.
> 
> Biology is what we're born with. The 'nature' part of nature or nurture. There is some of that, obviously. Think of what we call 'reptilian brain' for example, it's all there in a sense.
> 
> But most people get over those in a hurry. Yea, every once in a while some a-hole will pull a piece and blow away the guy who cut him off in traffic, but for the most part we control those.
> 
> What you mention above in abuse, stockholm syndrome, and the like are complex high level functions. The fact that they don't happen to everyone is a pretty good indicator that most of it is not built in, i.e. biologically driven.
> 
> From a purist's perspective, biology in our discussion is little more than the electrochemical processes in our nervous system. The stuff my younger daughter is wasting my precious tuition money on I should add :scratchhead: since she's majoring in neurobiology...
> 
> We can think of a lot of those lower level functions as 'unconscious behavior'. Those do exist, and are similar for a lot of people (fear of the dark, of spiders, and the like) but biology they're not. They're not instictual behaviors. Take two kids, one from the mountains like me and one that learned to swim before he learned how to walk. Which one is afraid of the water?
> 
> It's a good discussion and I'm afraid I'm showing my bias. But the more we learn about this the more questions we are asking, and here we are even talking about cognitive biology and systems biology, areas that were pipe dreams 30 years ago. But give humanity some credit, the mind is a powerful force.


That isn't what biology is. It doesn't end at birth, and it doesn't end in your DNA.

We are biological creatures having a biological experience. 

You expose your dualism and spiritual essence, John.


----------



## Marduk

Have you ever been around someone at the beginning of an affair, John?

Do you understand what attracts or repels women from you?

Reason doesn't get a woman to want to sleep with you. 

Which is the problem in your marriage, no?


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Have you ever been around someone at the beginning of an affair, John?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what attracts or repels women from you?
> 
> 
> 
> Reason doesn't get a woman to want to sleep with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the problem in your marriage, no?



I've been around a few, Fred's being the most, ehem, eye opening one. Mostly because Fred and I are almost neighbors and long time friends. Saw it from beginning to present. 

I've seen a few in my country too. Very prevalent. A few at work. Not common.

You're simplifying things tho. If all I wanted was sex I would get on a plane, fly back to my village, and hook up with any of a dozen childhood chicks that are simple, honest, hard working, non entitled... Whose husbands died from lifestyle ailments or walked away to the city lights.

I don't care about that. I got 25 good years from the current version and even with the highest ranked EA/PA candidate I have in mind I doubt sex is going to be better. But the mind part will be, which is all I can hope for.

My marriage state of disrepair has little to do with sex or reason. You assume that the problem is me and that if anyone "better" uberMan walked into the McMansion, propped up his boots on the teak coffee table, and manned up a Courvoisier from Dr. J2 she'd tear off her Lululemons and Soma and make a run for him.

It ain't so... Maybe some women will fall for it but not everyone... She's had plenty of opportunity to go for it in her very male dominated field, best she ever did was to mention that some Mormon dude is good looking (pfeh 6 kids ).

With apologies for the E L James parody...


----------



## Marduk

And again we come full circle John.

Good thing it's all not your fault, and there's nothing you can do.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Is this paint dry yet?


----------



## ConanHub

Blossom Leigh said:


> Is this paint dry yet?


Sit down and find out 
&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

lol... where is the yawn emoticon.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> And again we come full circle John.
> 
> Good thing it's all not your fault, and there's nothing you can do.



Feel free to try overcoming BPD, a fvcked up family situation, growing up in a theocracy, living a highly stressed life, living in a culture that even after 3 decades you don't care for or understand, and a general aversion to closeness of any kind and then the paint will begin to dry.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

All I want to know is what color did y'all pick?


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> All I want to know is what color did y'all pick?


50 Shades of Grey?

Friend has made it clear to her AP that physical is no longer part of the equation.

She's trying to ween herself from the emotional part, but they remain in contact.

She doesn't like it when I tell her there is zero chance of a future with this guy, who also made it clear once again, that he has no intention of turning the lives of his family upside down with a divorce. 

At which point I told her, "Well then there you have it."

Her: "What?"

Me: He isn't looking for a relationship. He's looking for an affair. 

Her: You're saying he doesn't care about me?

Me: I'm saying he doesn't care about you enough.

She knows I'm a mod on a marriage forum, which again, she has little to no concept of.

But when I tell her about the 'script' and basically tell her what he is going to say and how he is going to behave before he does any of it, it really pisses her off to no end ... at me, ironically.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> But when I tell her about the 'script' and basically tell her what he is going to say and how he is going to behave before he does any of it, it really pisses her off to no end ... at me, ironically.


That's eerily like talking to someone under the influence of a cult....

--Maybe even a similar process mentally


----------



## jld

She thinks he cares about her. That to me is the saddest part of this.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I sure do hate she stepped into that. She will be hard on herself later. Hard lesson learned. It is good she has you to lay out the patterns and facts to her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Do you have a feel why she backed out of the physical so "fast?"

Makes me wonder if reality didn't measure up to fantasy..


----------



## Deejo

Blossom Leigh said:


> Do you have a feel why she backed out of the physical so "fast?"
> 
> Makes me wonder if reality didn't measure up to fantasy..


Her words: "I can't give myself to someone who goes home every night and crawls in bed with another woman."

I chose not to beat her up with the irony of her words. She sees. Just not clearly. Not yet.

When she told him that there would be no more sex, and her reason above, he declared that it actually made him respect her more.

She got very angry when I busted out laughing. Again the irony is she believes I'm the one being disrespectful of her. I keep insisting I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just so ... obvious to me. At which point she began to cry.

It remains an EA. I informed her that despite his declarations of admiration and respect, he will without doubt continue to 'work' her, subtly, back into a physical affair ... all under the pretext of being respectful of her feelings.

She hurts. I know her well. I'm convinced part of the reason she keeps wanting to talk to me is because I do challenge her thinking.


----------



## wmn1

I agree Deejo. Cheating is cheating. So many single guys, why does she have to be a marriage buster ? In the end, it takes 2 to tango and I have let friends go who screw around with married people. It's greedy and sometimes, people change over the course of time.

I hope your friend listens to you and heeds your advice. For the good of all.


----------



## jld

That man is a skilled user. I feel bad for your friend, Deejo.


----------



## wmn1

I feel bad for the guy's wife


----------



## Deejo

wmn1 said:


> I feel bad for the guy's wife


I don't.

They rug swept the first affair.

They are both in their marriage with eyes wide shut.

Both deserve whatever comes their way.

They don't have a marriage. They have a lifestyle and living arrangement.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> That man is a skilled user. I feel bad for your friend, Deejo.


Mixed bag for me, jld.

As I've said, she isn't some naive, babe in the woods. If she were to make the time and take the right steps to take care of herself and her needs, she would likely have a good man.

But she doesn't. She lives in a very tightly built and controlled bubble.

She thought she could control this.


----------



## jld

Well, maybe this will break through the bubble and her control issues.

Control issues in women usually just mean they are fearful of something.

Just can't help feeling compassion for her. She is going to learn the hard way.


----------



## jld

_"I have observed over many years of counseling that both men and women can be controlling, but they control for two different reasons. Men may have a self-oriented worldview, so control out of their love for power. If they are consumed with living for themselves, they will view their wife’s needs as incidental to their own. 

Women on the other hand, may also tend to control, but not for the sake of ego. They have an innate sense of their own vulnerability, so control to keep themselves safe and the family secure. They are motivated to get their way not so much by self-centered desires, but out of some kind of fear."_. --The Controlling Wife

http://www.ultimatehusband.com/main.htm


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Deejo said:


> Her words: "I can't give myself to someone who goes home every night and crawls in bed with another woman."
> 
> I chose not to beat her up with the irony of her words. She sees. Just not clearly. Not yet.
> 
> When she told him that there would be no more sex, and her reason above, he declared that it actually made him respect her more.
> 
> She got very angry when I busted out laughing. Again the irony is she believes I'm the one being disrespectful of her. I keep insisting I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just so ... obvious to me. At which point she began to cry.
> 
> It remains an EA. I informed her that despite his declarations of admiration and respect, he will without doubt continue to 'work' her, subtly, back into a physical affair ... all under the pretext of being respectful of her feelings.
> 
> She hurts. I know her well. I'm convinced part of the reason she keeps wanting to talk to me is because I do challenge her thinking.


Wow...


----------



## wmn1

If their marriage is that bad and he is stepping out on her, with or without your friend, the wife should file for divorce. It's bad enough being in a bad marriage but then to be cheated on takes the cake. 

Sorry that your friend can't see through the trees. "can't give self to someone who crawls into bed with another woman ?' It's HIS WIFE. Medic !!!

Sorry she is trying to turn around her own immorality and blame you for it Deejo. 

I know you would like to guide her back similar to the person you knew but until she steps back and looks at herself, she'll continue to be lost. At least you are honest with her


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Control issues in women usually just mean they are fearful of something.


Like what?


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Well, maybe this will break through the bubble and her control issues.
> 
> Control issues in women usually just mean they are fearful of something.
> 
> Just can't help feeling compassion for her. She is going to learn the hard way.


Doubtful.

She wants a relationship without the investment.
She isn't afraid of men, or commitment. Best I can think of is she is fearful of giving up the definition of herself that she has created.

I don't chalk that up to her issues. I chalk that up to her choices.

I feel compassion for her too. But I don't vacate her responsibility or poor decisions.


----------



## Marduk

TheOMThatWivesWant said:


> What about in _reverse_?
> Have you ever had women approach you in a social setting and do the same to you?


Similar, but not quite identical. I think girl game and boy game are along the same track but with different angles, if you get my meaning.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> When she told him that there would be no more sex, and her reason above, he declared that it actually made him respect her more.
> 
> She got very angry when I busted out laughing. Again the irony is she believes I'm the one being disrespectful of her. I keep insisting I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just so ... obvious to me. At which point she began to cry.
> 
> It remains an EA. I informed her that despite his declarations of admiration and respect, he will without doubt continue to 'work' her, subtly, back into a physical affair ... all under the pretext of being respectful of her feelings.
> 
> She hurts. I know her well. I'm convinced part of the reason she keeps wanting to talk to me is because I do challenge her thinking.


If I were to guess, what makes her cry is not so much what you said, but the hopelessness of it all. You say she doesn't see clearly. I'm not convinced.

You know the man game. It is so obvious to you because that's how it operates. 

She wishes the rules were different.


----------



## vellocet

Deejo said:


> Her words: "I can't give myself to someone who goes home every night and crawls in bed with another woman.".


:lol:

:rofl:

:crazy:


----------



## Blossom Leigh

It's dawning on me that she blameshifted....

Instead of saying "I changed my mind on the wisdom behind my choice to sleep with you, therefore I am backing out of this decision."

She put it off on him... and his decision to go home to his wife every night as her reason for getting out.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> Her words: "I can't give myself to someone who goes home every night and crawls in bed with another woman."
> 
> I chose not to beat her up with the irony of her words. She sees. Just not clearly. Not yet.
> 
> When she told him that there would be no more sex, and her reason above, he declared that it actually made him respect her more.
> 
> She got very angry when I busted out laughing. Again the irony is she believes I'm the one being disrespectful of her. I keep insisting I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just so ... obvious to me. At which point she began to cry.
> 
> It remains an EA. I informed her that despite his declarations of admiration and respect, he will without doubt continue to 'work' her, subtly, back into a physical affair ... all under the pretext of being respectful of her feelings.
> 
> She hurts. I know her well. I'm convinced part of the reason she keeps wanting to talk to me is because I do challenge her thinking.


Everyone tells themselves that their situation is different. In reality though it's creepy how scripted it is. Like we have hard coded wiring to rationalize mate at all cost. And of course you're right; it was and is a PA and will not end right away. She'll soon be telling you repeatedly how awful his wife his and how unhappy he is and how he's a good guy trapped. Of course you know this is coming as well I suspect.


----------



## Thundarr

Blossom Leigh said:


> It's dawning on me that she blameshifted....
> 
> Instead of saying "I changed my mind on the wisdom behind my choice to sleep with you, therefore I am backing out of this decision."
> 
> She put it off on him... and his decision to go home to his wife every night as her reason for getting out.


That's the thing. She's not trying to get out. She's trying to resolve her insecurities that he's using her and doesn't care about her in my opinion.


----------



## Deejo

Thundarr said:


> Everyone tells themselves that their situation is different. In reality though it's creepy how scripted it is. Like we have hard coded wiring to rationalize mate at all cost. And of course you're right; it was and is a PA and will not end right away. She'll soon be telling you repeatedly how awful his wife his and how unhappy he is and how he's a good guy trapped. Of course you know this is coming as well I suspect.


This is EXACTLY why I chose to post this entire scenario.

She's already bought into it being the wife's fault. She buttresses her rationale with the fact that she knows how painful a sexless marriage can be. She was in one. They had sex once in the last 3 years they were together. Her ex was a closet porn addict.

And to be clear, I'm not holding my friend up to be a punching bag. I truly feel for her. I don't like her choices, and I'm dumbfounded at the rationalizations and mental hoops she has jumped through ... but that's just it ... people do it, people we don't think will do it ... all of the time.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> If I were to guess, what makes her cry is not so much what you said, but the hopelessness of it all. You say she doesn't see clearly. I'm not convinced.
> 
> You know the man game. It is so obvious to you because that's how it operates.
> 
> She wishes the rules were different.


Sometimes, A_A I really want to just give you a hug.

Other times, I just really want to grab you by the shoulders and shake you.

I hope that makes sense, and is taken in the proper context, rather than the really awkward and creepy context.


----------



## tom67

Deejo said:


> This is EXACTLY why I chose to post this entire scenario.
> 
> She's already bought into it being the wife's fault. She buttresses her rationale with the fact that she knows how painful a sexless marriage can be. She was in one. They had sex once in the last 3 years they were together. Her ex was a closet porn addict.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not holding my friend up to be a punching bag. I truly feel for her. I don't like her choices, and I'm dumbfounded at the rationalizations and mental hoops she has jumped through ... but that's just it ... people do it, people we don't think will do it ... all of the time.


If everyone was the same it would be one boring place.


----------



## larry.gray

Keep this up Deejo and you're going to shatter that myth that all cheaters are evil, broken people. Well at least among those that choose to engage their brain.


----------



## 2ntnuf

larry.gray said:


> Keep this up Deejo and you're going to shatter that myth that all cheaters are evil, broken people. Well at least among those that choose to engage their brain.


As far as evil, it depends on what you believe. One is only evil if they believe in good and consequences for evil. This is a religious belief and if one is not a religious person with rules that can and are quite often broken by everyone, there is no evil in anything, only justification and acceptance. There is no need for forgiveness, remorse, guilt, sorrow. Those beliefs include the opportunity to be forgiven and be renewed in spirit and truth. All are called, but mostly the sinners. Isn't that every one of us?

The problem I see is that the case is being made that marriage, fidelity, and monogamy are obsolete. This is a sad time we live in. Those who do not agree may end up with nowhere to find peace. All because they believe it's wrong, no matter what the reasons, excuses, or justifications. What I see being done is to justify taking away any consequences for the actors. When that is done, there will be no reason to be faithful. There will only be reason to be unfaithful and few will be able to justify commitment. Commitment will change definitions and become something less than exemplary. It's very sad.


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> Keep this up Deejo and you're going to shatter that myth that all cheaters are evil, broken people. Well at least among those that choose to engage their brain.


:iagree:


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> And to be clear, I'm not holding my friend up to be a punching bag. I truly feel for her. I don't like her choices, and I'm dumbfounded at the rationalizations and mental hoops she has jumped through ... but that's just it ... people do it, people we don't think will do it ... all of the time.


Yes, we often use these big brains of ours to rationalize our behaviour. This is true for many things, from why we deserve to take a sick day even though we aren't sick to why we're entitled to collect on a life insurance policy instead of just divorcing the spouse that makes us unhappy.

We want what we want and we try to justify that to ourselves.

But I also see lots of equivocation on this thread. For example, you keep saying over and over again that you don't feel sorry for the wife, that she knows what she's married to, and has chosen her situation for whatever reasons. Then complain that your friend has "bought into" the "It's the wife's fault" line. 

Which is it? You can't have it both ways: either the wife really is being duped, had, betrayed, used or she is quite well aware of the sitch and chooses to turn a blind eye. 

And if it really is the latter (about which I still have my doubts), then your friend's rationalizations are a lot more in line with reality than you are giving her credit for.


----------



## Deejo

Of course I can have it both ways.

My friend is rationalizing.

He and his wife most certainly didn't address the issues in their marriage.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Of course I can have it both ways.
> 
> My friend is rationalizing.
> 
> He and his wife most certainly didn't address the issues in their marriage.


That's not having it both ways. That's acknowledging that the wife is indeed being betrayed, deceived, used. Maybe she was stupid enough to stay with this guy, but maybe he lies to her as much as he lies to your friend. Those scripts are pretty predictable too.

Of course, many will still say that the onus is on him, not your friend, to honour his commitments. After all, he is the one who made them.

But your friend's rationalizations show pretty clearly that her concern is for her own purposes, and she wants for him to be a "justified" cheater instead of simply a selfish a-hole. That way she doesn't have to examine her own participation or choices too closely.


----------



## jld

But she is going to be hurt by this. She's going to pay the price for this.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> What I'm saying is that your cognitive systems can effectively filter out that girl in the miniskirt, but it doesn't stop a whole host of subsystems that can alter your mood, hormone levels, subconscious thoughts, and all kinds of stuff until you find yourself chatting her up and unable to think about anything else... and then you're in her bed and it all "just happened."


As I see it, this is but a description of the spectacularly un-selfaware. These things don't "just happen".

I get what you are saying about control, in that we humans do not logically or consciously control our sub-systems. We breathe automatically, chemicals are released in our brains automatically, our bodies do a multitude of things we are not even aware of.

But at the same time, when we are talking about desire, we are *not* talking about things inaccessible to or uninformed by conscious thought. Indeed, quite the opposite. Desire is very much informed by what we are taught, how we are raised, how we interpret a given situation, the meanings that we ascribe, our visions of who we are and who we want to be, our aspirations, our dreams. 

Personally, I don't much like the computer analogy to characterize the difference between the biological and the psychological, as this too presumes that somehow the biological is primary, and is the driver. That, for example, meaning is nothing but the flotsam on a chemical ****tail.

But meaning is incredibly important. Even neurologists realize that the meanings we ascribe can alter brain structure and function. The monks you mention know this quite well; the purpose of meditation is not to simply dismiss the significance of conscious thought, but to fully realize its power and potential.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> But she is going to be hurt by this. She's going to pay the price for this.


They will all pay the price for it.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> They will all pay the price for it.


The man and his wife will still have their "marriage" and their money. She will end up bruised and alone.

I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> The man and his wife will still have their "marriage" and their money. She will end up bruised and alone.
> 
> I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.


Maybe


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> But she is going to be hurt by this. She's going to pay the price for this.





jld said:


> The man and his wife will still have their "marriage" and their money. She will end up bruised and alone.


According to Deejo, she said she doesn't have time for a relationship. So if she is just out for easy sex, she can just move on to the next conquest. So I don't think being alone is of much consequence to her. She isn't going to be hurt.

And if she is, its her own fault. She knows what she is doing. She doesn't care about what happens to the OM's wife. So excuse me that in the event she gets "hurt", tough s**t. Karma


----------



## Blossom Leigh

vellocet said:


> According to Deejo, she said she doesn't have time for a relationship. So if she is just out for easy sex, she can just move on to the next conquest. So I don't think being alone is of much consequence to her. She isn't going to be hurt.
> 
> And if she is, its her own fault. She knows what she is doing. She doesn't care about what happens to the OM's wife. So excuse me that in the event she gets "hurt", tough s**t. Karma


a_a and vellocet are both hitting on something here...

Either care for all of them or none if them

But to care for one over the others seems "off"

May just be me


----------



## KingwoodKev

So many people sell their integrity so cheaply. That's a shame.


----------



## Deejo

Not that I don't care about he and his wife, I'm simply indifferent. 

I still like the idea of good outcomes for everyone. 

Choosing an affair seldom leads to good outcomes for everyone.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> As I see it, this is but a description of the spectacularly un-selfaware. These things don't "just happen".
> 
> I get what you are saying about control, in that we humans do not logically or consciously control our sub-systems. We breathe automatically, chemicals are released in our brains automatically, our bodies do a multitude of things we are not even aware of.
> 
> But at the same time, when we are talking about desire, we are *not* talking about things inaccessible to or uninformed by conscious thought. Indeed, quite the opposite. Desire is very much informed by what we are taught, how we are raised, how we interpret a given situation, the meanings that we ascribe, our visions of who we are and who we want to be, our aspirations, our dreams.
> 
> Personally, I don't much like the computer analogy to characterize the difference between the biological and the psychological, as this too presumes that somehow the biological is primary, and is the driver. That, for example, meaning is nothing but the flotsam on a chemical ****tail.
> 
> But meaning is incredibly important. Even neurologists realize that the meanings we ascribe can alter brain structure and function. The monks you mention know this quite well; the purpose of meditation is not to simply dismiss the significance of conscious thought, but to fully realize its power and potential.


I totally agree with you. None of it means that the person that cheats, or wants to, is off the hook.

And many people I know, and have been married to, are remarkably un self-aware, and very good at masking that, and rationalizing their behaviour.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...I only read your first post...I will go back and catch up on what has happened to your friend since.

It really is astounding hearing the rationalizations people have though, wow. I know I have been quite self-deluded in the past, too. When experiencing it, I had not idea what I was doing either, of course. 

A close friend of mine who has been married to a sexless man for 14 years now and highly sexual and is close to literally losing her mind at this point....also this friend is highly moral and has very strict opinions of what conduct is ok or not...she also has a deep rooted family history of shamed cheaters which was drummed into her head all during her childhood ("don't turn out like your cheating wh*re grandmother!" type stuff)...well, the other day she reported that she put up a profile on AM!

Our other friends and I were just shocked. Truly...truly shocked. We encouraged some other way to find some on the side if she simply had to, but she went forth in telling us that AM was the best way for now. WTF?

Since I've seen this before I can recognize the full out fog for what it is...but damn. It still shocks you when you see someone else in such a deep state of self delusion.

Said friend did erase the profile after about 2 weeks, realizing we were right. 

She's not out of the woods though...because she's still stuck in the same place.


----------



## john117

Rationalization has served humanity for thousands of years despite the best efforts of moral absolutists in politics, religion, customs, and law.


----------



## Deejo

Thanks for sharing that FW. It is amazing to watch someone you believe you know quite well, do an ethical about face.

There are always choices. Betrayal is never a very good one.

I've always liked MEM ' S position. 

You can choose to be celibate. 
But you don't get to make that choice for me as well.


----------



## CincyBluesFan

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...I only read your first post...I will go back and catch up on what has happened to your friend since.
> 
> It really is astounding hearing the rationalizations people have though, wow. I know I have been quite self-deluded in the past, too. When experiencing it, I had not idea what I was doing either, of course.
> 
> A close friend of mine who has been married to a sexless man for 14 years now and highly sexual and is close to literally losing her mind at this point....also this friend is highly moral and has very strict opinions of what conduct is ok or not...she also has a deep rooted family history of shamed cheaters which was drummed into her head all during her childhood ("don't turn out like your cheating wh*re grandmother!" type stuff)...well, the other day she reported that she put up a profile on AM!
> 
> Our other friends and I were just shocked. Truly...truly shocked. We encouraged some other way to find some on the side if she simply had to, but she went forth in telling us that AM was the best way for now. WTF?
> 
> Since I've seen this before I can recognize the full out fog for what it is...but damn. It still shocks you when you see someone else in such a deep state of self delusion.
> 
> Said friend did erase the profile after about 2 weeks, realizing we were right.
> 
> She's not out of the woods though...because she's still stuck in the same place.


Hopefully she wises up. If she is a moral person than this type of behavior will destroy her from within. Only sociopaths feel no remorse for doing wrong. To save her integrity she needs to sit hubby down and say very firmly "I can not be in a sexless marriage. If this is going to be a sexless marriage then we need to calmly make plans to end it."

That brief conversation can save her so much grief and guilt.


----------



## Deejo

She has been divorced for over a decade.

She has ended the relationship, but they will of course, continue to see one another due to their business group.


----------

