7 Essential Vitamins and Irony: Heteros can control themselves

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

As you read the following comments imagine the topic of infidelity being substituted by homosexuality and imagine the shout-down one would be targetted for if you made such argumatns for homosexuality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8878472

lapislzi (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 06:03 PM
Original message
"Negotiated Infidelity" I call "bullshit."
 http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/03/negotiated.infidel...

This was sent to me by, of all people, my shrink (methinks I need a new shrink??)

I’m not sure what to think. Mostly, I think Ms. “Sugarbabe” is full of shit. It’s the same old moldy argument: men can’t help themselves and we women must be understanding and forgiving. Ms. Sugarbabe is a whore, pure and simple. A hetaera is still a whore, albeit a smart one.

Negotiate this: if you cheat on me, I will excise your balls through your ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon.

As if my man would be OK with me having an occasional quickie with the Rude Pundit…as long as I didn’t spoon with him. Yeah, I thought not.

What I mean is, if you and your partner decide that ****ing around is OK, that’s fine. That’s between you. But don’t hand me this crap that men somehow “require” multiple partners in order to be fulfilled and that women have to figure out a way to live with that fact. That is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And, if you are such a ****ing narcissist that you feel entitled to **** whoever you feel like ****ing, then you shouldn’t be in a relationship with a person who doesn’t feel the same way you do. And you should expect no quarter if such is the case. Don’t come crying to me when your neglected and cheated-on partner turns the tables on you. Or kicks your ass to the curb. Again, if you both agree, all well and good. No harm, no foul.

Monogamy, infidelity, cheating: these are all choices. We are not bound by our biology to do one or the other. Anybody who says otherwise is selling something—in this case, books.

I choose to be faithful to my partner. Fidelity is important to both of us. We have cheated, and we have been cheated upon. Therefore, I believe we are uniquely qualified to make that choice. While it is true that I at times may be attracted to another man (in either an abstract or concrete way), I have the power to say “no.” And I will say “no.” I promise you that. His feelings and trust are far more important to me than an ego massage.

Discuss?

lapislzi (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. She admitted it.
 I'm just calling her on it. If you wish to trade sexual services for material favors, I couldn't care. Hetaerae made a good living. I simply choose not to. I'm not judging her for her choices. I simply have a problem with her ridiculous and specious justification for them.

Kalyke  (1000+ posts)      Wed Aug-04-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. ++100000000000
 Men are putting themselves down with this excuse. They are equating their behavior to mere animals (and, in many cases, less than some animals who have no difficulty mating for life).

Men have a brain, right? Then if they are in a relationship in which the woman finds infidelity to be a deal-breaker, then they have the choice to either abide by her wishes or find a new "sugarbabe." They are not bound by any biology they cannot control.

I'm with you: and, metaphorically speaking, I DID excise my ex-husband's balls through his ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon. In other words, I got the house, the car, full custody and alimony for a year (I was a stay-at-home Mom at the time) because I filed for a FAULT divorce I knew I could prove in a heartbeat.

I'm in my second marriage and we also choose to be faithful to one another. It was one of the first things we talked about when we became exclusive. I told him how my ex's behavior had made me feel and that I would not tolerate cheating.

I couldn't get through the story without vomiting, but I have to ask: does she get to sleep around, too?

seabeyond  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. the problem i am having is not just men conditioned to buy this, but more and more hearing women
 buying into this and feeding the same bullshit. now they may say.... it is biological, spreading seed, but they can control it.

saying the same thing and as a society and cultural, we are creating this as a reality, when it isnt.

Kalyke  (1000+ posts)      Wed Aug-04-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. Thankfully, I'm not one of those women.
 

My reality is that people can control themselves short of addiction (and yes, there are those who are addicted to sex, but that's a different matter than a romp in the hay with someone other than your spouse because you just "feel like it.")

So homosexuals are free to act on their biological urges with state sanction and elementary school storytime but heteros that want a little extra nookie on the side because that is where their biological urges lead them are suppose to exert all control and are subject to scathing wrath.

Interesting.

[Carl]

Guess what DUmmies...it was your ilk that started the sexual revolution back in the 60s.
Simmer in the soup you made.

[dandi]

I was just about to bring this one over myself and for the same reason. The same arguments seabeyond makes refuting the whole "biological imperitive" that supposedly drives men to infidelity is the exact one moral conservatives make in arguing against the "it's natural, so it's good" claims of liberals regarding homosexuality.

And as Carl pointed out, liberals are the authors of the whole mess to begin with. Reap what you sow, DUmbasses.

[vesta111]

Guess what DUmmies...it was your ilk that started the sexual revolution back in the 60s.
Simmer in the soup you made.

If I remember correctly it was the Pill that started the revolution not the kids themselves. It was the Adults that gave a start to free sex.

Looking back in time, I remember Berkley in 1969, the kids were from family's that could afford to send them to College and just wanted them the Hell out of their house and would send them a check to keep them away.

The real hippies did not live on the streets or wear flea collars around their necks.

The real Hippies were adults that refused to grow up, the college professors that felt a need to socialise with their students on the students level.   

Big time for teachers to want their classes full with a waiting list.   Oh even today we still have some of these people teaching our kids that get all warm and fuzzy when they hear themselves called a real cool teacher.

So at times the Pill did not work, Abortion came in to help clear up a delicate problem.    It was not the kids that changed the law, it was the people that had invested half their liefs savings into their kids educations only to find that all was threatened by biology.

Any way one looks at it, Dr. Leary was no kid as he received permission from adults to travel the country giving out LSD on College campuses.

The kids to my thinking would not have rallied against the war had the Adults  not been teaching them to do so.  It could have gone the other way had the kids been taught to support the war but parents were throwing their sons into school to keep them from the front lines. It all begins on how children are taught, and how far their parents will go to justify sending their kid to Canada.-----Poor kids never had a chance to grow up or form their own opinions.

So a college student of 18 years old in 1964 would now be close to 60 years old.

For the love of God, these people are grand parents now.   

When do we stop blaming them on today's problems,  60 years from now will we still blame Bush.

Carl, what is done is done, we still have to make head way over the long departed that got us to this state.

What can be done today, dam ed if I know, I cannot do anything but vote and hope that vote is counted.

We who remember those days are now senior citizens AARP and all that garbage.  Some where we have to pass the torch on to the younger citizens as we have done our battles--lost and won but now it  is up to the younger generation to take the wheel of our great Ship of State.

[Vagabond]

If I remember correctly it was the Pill that started the revolution not the kids themselves. It was the Adults that gave a start to free sex.

Looking back in time, I remember Berkley in 1969, the kids were from family's that could afford to send them to College and just wanted them the Hell out of their house and would send them a check to keep them away.

The real hippies did not live on the streets or wear flea collars around their necks.

The real Hippies were adults that refused to grow up, the college professors that felt a need to socialise with their students on the students level.   

Big time for teachers to want their classes full with a waiting list.   Oh even today we still have some of these people teaching our kids that get all warm and fuzzy when they hear themselves called a real cool teacher.

So at times the Pill did not work, Abortion came in to help clear up a delicate problem.    It was not the kids that changed the law, it was the people that had invested half their liefs savings into their kids educations only to find that all was threatened by biology.

Any way one looks at it, Dr. Leary was no kid as he received permission from adults to travel the country giving out LSD on College campuses.

The kids to my thinking would not have rallied against the war had the Adults  not been teaching them to do so.  It could have gone the other way had the kids been taught to support the war but parents were throwing their sons into school to keep them from the front lines. It all begins on how children are taught, and how far their parents will go to justify sending their kid to Canada.-----Poor kids never had a chance to grow up or form their own opinions.

So a college student of 18 years old in 1964 would now be close to 60 years old.

For the love of God, these people are grand parents now.   

When do we stop blaming them on today's problems,  60 years from now will we still blame Bush.

Carl, what is done is done, we still have to make head way over the long departed that got us to this state.

What can be done today, dam ed if I know, I cannot do anything but vote and hope that vote is counted.

We who remember those days are now senior citizens AARP and all that garbage.  Some where we have to pass the torch on to the younger citizens as we have done our battles--lost and won but now it  is up to the younger generation to take the wheel of our great Ship of State.

Vesta, there is some truth in what you say, but it is also true that what we do today echoes in eternity.  A unnamed Sunday School Teacher in Philadelphia in the 1840s inspired one of her students to become a missionary.  The ministry he started is the organization that Billy Graham leads today.

The hippies and adults of the 1960s made choices.  The adults decided to provide bread ensnare the poor and disadvantaged voted for the party that promised them more and uninterrupted welfare dole.  The young chose to ignore the historical failures of societies that engaged in open promiscuity and licentiousness. They freely chose to engage in activities that have led only to one end in recorded human history.  They decided that if it feels good then it can't be bad or wrong.  They chose to pass it on to the two generations after them, sometimes aware of what they were doing.

After sixty years, what are their echoes?  The near total destruction of the black nuclear family unit.  Damage to the white nuclear family unit.  Neighborhoods that aren't even safe for police,  women that rely on the state as the husband and father figure, Schools that used to be the best in the world statistically failing in every important category, Rampant public debt, people who loudly proclaim that our country is not worth fighting and possibly dying for, and an incessant mewling for more and more ephemeris “rights”.

Yet in all that, the important question is not what their echoes are today.  It is, what will our echoes will be?

[TheSarge]

Wait...I thought Libs were the ones that abhorred things like "fidelety" and anything that was so black and white and didn't mesh with their million shades of gray if it feels good do it mentality?

I guess to them it's ONLY ok as long as it's happening in someone elses backyard and not theirs.

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8878472

Oh my.

lapislzi (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 02:03 PM
Original message
 
"Negotiated Infidelity" I call "bullshit."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/03/negotiated.infidel...

This was sent to me by, of all people, my shrink (methinks I need a new shrink??)

I’m not sure what to think. Mostly, I think Ms. “Sugarbabe” is full of shit. It’s the same old moldy argument: men can’t help themselves and we women must be understanding and forgiving. Ms. Sugarbabe is a whore, pure and simple. A hetaera is still a whore, albeit a smart one.

Negotiate this: if you cheat on me, I will excise your balls through your ear canal with a rusty grapefruit spoon.

As if my man would be OK with me having an occasional quickie with the Rude Pundit…as long as I didn’t spoon with him. Yeah, I thought not.

What I mean is, if you and your partner decide that ****ing around is OK, that’s fine. That’s between you. But don’t hand me this crap that men somehow “require” multiple partners in order to be fulfilled and that women have to figure out a way to live with that fact. That is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And, if you are such a ****ing narcissist that you feel entitled to **** whoever you feel like ****ing, then you shouldn’t be in a relationship with a person who doesn’t feel the same way you do. And you should expect no quarter if such is the case. Don’t come crying to me when your neglected and cheated-on partner turns the tables on you. Or kicks your ass to the curb. Again, if you both agree, all well and good. No harm, no foul.

Monogamy, infidelity, cheating: these are all choices. We are not bound by our biology to do one or the other. Anybody who says otherwise is selling something—in this case, books.

I choose to be faithful to my partner. Fidelity is important to both of us. We have cheated, and we have been cheated upon. Therefore, I believe we are uniquely qualified to make that choice. While it is true that I at times may be attracted to another man (in either an abstract or concrete way), I have the power to say “no.” And I will say “no.” I promise you that. His feelings and trust are far more important to me than an ego massage.

It's a really big campfire, lots and lots of primitives jostling for space near it.

Since there's so many primitive comments, I "cherry-picked," quoting only the PoP.

Warpy  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 02:07 PM
THE DEFROCKED WARPED PRIMITIVE, #09 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

1. Or "cheat on me and get used to condoms because you'll never get near me again without one as long as you live."

Whether or not to stay with a cheater is a complex decision and should not be second guessed by outsiders, especially when there are children. Protecting one's health should be paramount, though.

Sparkly  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 02:47 PM
THE WIFE OF THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

49. Whatever works.

I suppose different things work for different people, but I wouldn't want women to think there's something wrong with them if they DON'T accept infidelity, negotiated or not.

The main thing I bristled at was this old thing:

"Women need to remember the difference between why women and men have sex," she says. "Women tend to value intimacy. For men it's often the thrill of the chase, or the quick sex with a stranger. Men don't even have to know their lovers' names! It's often just a cheap thrill and has nothing to do with us as a loving girlfriend or wife. Once we understand that, it's much easier to let him go off."

Boys will be boys, girls will be sluts. The "norm" is supposedly that women are naturally monogamous and need intimacy, whereas men are naturally horny (too horny to control themselves) and just need sex. A lustful woman or a devoted man are somehow outside the norm, then. It'd be progress just to throw out that old canard.

Sparkly  (1000+ posts)        Wed Aug-04-10 03:43 PM
THE WIFE OF THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #69

72. Well, if they tell their mistress they're ignored at home, it MUST be true!

Name removed (0 posts)      Wed Aug-04-10 08:37 PM
#18 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ooops.

Despite all the primitives hovering around this campfire, yelling-and-screaming, jumping up and down getting red-white-and-blue in the face, wiggle-waggling their armpits in hostility at each other, there were only three PoP there; most of the primitives are the unterprimitiven, the faceless lynch mob, primitives of no prominence at all.

Sorry about raising everybody's expectations, but franksolich copies-and-pastes as he reads, and anticipated more antics than this,  Overanticipated.

[franksolich]

Ooops.

[BlueStateSaint]

Coach, it's entirely understandable (the bonfire didn't feature those you thought it would).  No worries.  It happens.