Thoughts on NoTalentHack's essay "Loving Loving Wives"

[pink_silk_glove]

I hope our audience of 0 has enjoyed the show tonight.

I just couldn't let the irony get past me here. You seem to be his biggest fan. That's an audience of at least one, no?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I just couldn't let the irony get past me here. You seem to be his biggest fan. That's an audience of at least one, no?

I couldn't believe the amount of energy Madeline spent rebutting the guy. Why would you bother, he seems like a fairly pointless individual.

 

[inka2222]

Sure. What if we keep this example and change one factor: the abuse claims made by the adulterous ex-wife are all 100% true with evidence to verify that they are. What else does that change for you and your morals? Should the father still have joint custody? Is the mother still breaking significant moral rules in your view if she isn't manipulating the children, but rather perceives herself to be protecting them, by keeping them away from their dad while they're still in their minority years?

Duh! If he really was abusive towards the kids, he shouldn't be around the kids unsupervised - or even at all (although I hope you also agree that if SHE was abusive SHE shouldn't be around the kids; full symmetry regardless of abuser's gender), so her denying him access is a morally valid thing to do, not a crime against him. When I stated my scenario, I very clearly pointed out that him being innocent of wrongdoing was a necessary precondition to be included. The fact that you needed me to spell this out means you constructed some weird psychopathic strawman you're trying to argue again, instead of reading what I actually wrote since it was in the original comment.

I'm a little on the fence in case he was abusive towards the wife but NOT the kids in reality - I simply don't have enough expertise to evaluate if that would translate into any risk for the kids or not, so I'll punt and say that morally correct thing to do in that scenario is what psychologists and criminologists would suggest (specifically, based on professional assessment of degree of risk to the kids from someone who abused the wife but not them). I don't think a spousal abused should be punished by means of custody, although obviously some punishment of another kind (fiscal or criminal) is morally required. The only criteria for custody/visitation should be "is he a danger to kids or not?"

And somewhat related to the topic - just to prove that as usual you're wrong about your assumptions about me, I gave 5 stars and a rave review to an LW story where a severely abused wife literally murdered (not in self defense) an abusive husband, since I felt she was morally justified, being at risk of death from him. Legally, she would have gotten murder 1 or similar (it was premeditated murder). Morally, she was in the right. I'm ALWAYS morally on the side of the victim and against the perpetrator, regardless of legalities.

 

[inka2222]

I honestly would prefer not to write in Loving Wives again. It’s too full of nonsense about cuckolding and punishment being required. Whatever happened to just enjoying sex?

A separate category for "Erotic" and a couple of others were created is what happened. Just enjoying sex seems to be exactly what that category is for, literally.

 

[inka2222]

Actually
- man discovers 'his' child is actually his wife's lover's.
- man divorces wife. Wife marries lover.
- man gets new girlfriend
- man sneaks (well more than sneaks) into a fertility clinic and replaces fertilized eggs with his and girl-friends'
- man lets them raise that child until the exact day hour minute and second that he found out and then goes 'ta-da'.

Sounds like an ideal Hammaburian BTB story. I mean, absolutely morally bankrupt and horrendous from the point of view of the children, but still...

Anyway, I don't write LW.

Fuck, if nobody steals that and writes a story based on it, it would be such a damned waste
And yes, this approach to BTB would be preferrable to pure violence, just to mess with all'y'all's incorrect assumptions about what my views are even more. I'm ALWAYS in favor of precise karmic justice, the more precise and balanced the better.

I agree that it is not morally OK as far as resulting children. But then we get into a more complex discussion of systems and moral hazards - are the children better off with an action that harms them to degree "X"; or living in the world that is a shitshow because the tradeoff for avoiding that degree "X" harm, introduces systematic issues and moral hazard risking them a LARGER future harm "Y". For example, lack of punishment for cheaters means those children in the future risk being victims of next generation of cheaters. Morality isn't all THAT simple once you start getting into more than a single point event. There are always second order effects, unanticipated incentives, etc... for every choice.

On a more "pedestrian" level, look at far less contrived (and typical for LW) situation. Spouse 1 cheats. Spouse 2 dumbly decides to "spare" the children by not letting them know that cheating was reason for divorce. On the surface to a lot of writers (or readers) it SEEMS like a "noble", moral choice. Except they ignore the consequences, at least 2 of which is that the cheater now has close connection to the kids and (perhaps inadvertently) grooms them into being as immoral and selfish as the cheater is; while spouse 2 instead LOSES influence on the kids (being the "optical" cause of divorce), and therefore fails to instill morals and ethics into them, due to lack of time together/trust/rapport. The downsides of those consequences FAR outweigh any risks or downsides of kids finding out Spouse 1 was a cheater. Those kids grown up and risk ruining other people's lives - and often their own, due to moral failings imprinted by Spouse 1.

 

[inka2222]

But as I've realized, many readers (even experienced authors) read other stories with their own prejudices and biases, and they read into the story with their own expectations. There are very few people who can read a story and just take it in as another life's experience. They frame it with their own life experiences as right or wrong.

Inka read my story about the "Hall Pass" and found the wife to be selfish. That's probably due to the wife getting fucked by another guy (old boyfriend). But it was all within the husband's rules and consensual. She even started that whole adventure by saying it was inappropriate, since she was married!

ow, this is nuclear level irony. you're accusing me of mis-reading something in your story which isn't supposedly there based on my supposed prejudices, which judgement is based on your LITERALLY misreading my comment by injecting your own biases and prejudices!

On the opposite, the fact that she wanted to fuck someone else is NOT the reason for me declaring her selfish. The fact that she refuses him an equivalent right (to fuck his ex gf) is what makes her selfish. She wants more benefits and rights in the relationship than he has, to benefit her. That's LITERALLY what selfishness is.

To double (or triple) the irony, not only was that exact point stated in story's comments which started the whole discussion about that story, but more importantly, your own characters agreed with my assessment, by a vote of 2:1!

> She's rather demanding and self-centered most of the time. ...
> "I remember her being self-centered," Ray said.

But inka finds any wife having sex with another guy to be offensive and immoral! So, he "read into" the story with his own assumptions. He created his own background story of the altruistic husband and the selfish wife!

Can you specifically point me to the text in my comment (and not in your impression of my psyche inside your head) where I found "having sex with another guy" to be offensive and immoral? Or actually ANY of my comments?

They are swingers. If there's no lying or coercion and full consent on both sides and things are mutually fair, it's neither offensive NOR immoral from my POV.

 

[Devinter]

@inka2222 ... For most women, cheating has causes beyond wanting to cause hurt. Something fundamentally wrong in a relationship for a normal woman to seek out comfort from someone other than her husband. While men often cheat for no other reason than a desire to bed as many women as possible. You act as if these husbands are totally blameless

I was with you as the one true voice of reason in this thread until this comment. This is not only sexist, but it's victim-blaming, Millie. Anyone that justifies a crime or horrible act in this way isn't fully thinking their argument through. If a woman get's taken advantage of, and someone goes "Well, she was wearing THIS or doing THAT", or "Men have reasons for doing >insert evil thing here< beyond wanting to cause hurt", you'd instantly call that out as the absolute bullshit that such a statement is. You're making the exact same argument here.

If a woman is unhappy in her relationship with her man - or vice versa - you have the option of breaking up and walking your separate ways instead of cheating and lying and betraying. Let's not pretend that isn't on the table, just because it might have certain complications involved. (Divorce, custody, etc.)

Whilst you have the freedom to hold any opinion that you want, I would urge you to take a second and really think this one through. I say that as someone who greatly respects you and what you bring to these forums.

 

[Devinter]

I believe you missed something. She mentioned, "For most women, cheating has causes beyond wanting to cause hurt."

She wasn't condoning cheating but rather explaining that it doesn't necessarily arise from a desire to hurt or humiliate the partner; it often comes from emotional distress and vulnerability.

Fair enough - maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Not a native English speaker. However, the statement " You act as if these husbands are totally blameless " just rubs me the wrong way. You can replace the word husbands with any other group of people that are - within the concept discussed; being in some ways abused, taken advantage of, mistreated, or victims of a crime. And it's still messed up. No?

Someone is mean to someone from the LGBTQ+ community. "You act as if these gay people are totally blameless".
Someone is abusive towards their wife. "You act as if the woman is totally blameless".
Someone is mistreating a child. "You act as if the kid is totally blameless".

It just doesn't add up in my head. But I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The whole point of reading a story is to find out what happens next and how it all resolves. The fun part is that when you start the story you don't know what will happen next nor how it will all resolve and in a good story you can't wait to find out.

Sometimes the villain is brought to justice. Sometimes the villain gets away with it. Sometimes the villain is honorable. Sometimes he is pure bile. Sometimes the hero is a saint. Sometimes the hero is complicit in his own predicament.

If the hero is always a saint and the villain is always brought to justice it's boring. If our heroine always 40E tits and our hero always has a 14" cock it's predictable. It's boring. If the girl always gets on her knees for the obligatory blowjob before the full shag it's predictable. It's boring. If the girl always cums and the man never cums until she does, it's predictable. It's boring.

If one insists that stories must end a certain way then what is the point of reading the story? There is no fun in that. This is a site for writing and reading. I can't imagine myself being that miserable that I spent my evening searching only for the endings of stories that I agree with morally or politically. That would be such a fucking waste of my time. Why would someone want to be here if they don't want to read?

All God's creatures I guess. (shrug)

 

[Lifestyle66]

ow, this is nuclear level irony. you're accusing me of mis-reading something in your story which isn't supposedly there based on my supposed prejudices, which judgement is based on your LITERALLY misreading my comment by injecting your own biases and prejudices!

On the opposite, the fact that she wanted to fuck someone else is NOT the reason for me declaring her selfish. The fact that she refuses him an equivalent right (to fuck his ex gf) is what makes her selfish. She wants more benefits and rights in the relationship than he has, to benefit her. That's LITERALLY what selfishness is.

To double (or triple) the irony, not only was that exact point stated in story's comments which started the whole discussion about that story, but more importantly, your own characters agreed with my assessment, by a vote of 2:1!

> She's rather demanding and self-centered most of the time. ...
> "I remember her being self-centered," Ray said.



Can you specifically point me to the text in my comment (and not in your impression of my psyche inside your head) where I found "having sex with another guy" to be offensive and immoral? Or actually ANY of my comments?

They are swingers. If there's no lying or coercion and full consent on both sides and things are mutually fair, it's neither offensive NOR immoral from my POV.

The exchange in that story "Hall Pass" has the wife saying:
*****
my wife said, "I had a voice message on my phone today. It was from my old boyfriend, Ray. He said he's here in town for business and staying at the hotel about five miles from here. He wanted to know if I'd be interested in getting together with him for dinner on Friday. But I can't go."

"Why can't you go?" I asked, realizing with the way she phrased it, she hadn't yet contacted him to say 'No', and she was fishing for my reaction. "We don't have any plans on the calendar.

"Because you and I are married," Jan said with a definite hint of concern.
*****

Thru the rest of their back & forth over the issue, she DID NOT deny him an equivalent hall pass! You read into that!

HE stated that if she could go out with an old boyfriend, then he should be allowed to go out with his old girlfriend, Brenda. and the wife says "No", and not because she doesn't trust her husband. She states:
*****
"But you don't have a problem with me fucking him," Jan said sternly. "I DO have a problem with you fucking her. She's single now."

"Okay... " I said, drawing out that one word. "You don't trust me with her."

"I don't trust HER!" Jan said, raising her voice.
*****


The wife states her concern over the possibility of her husband seeing a specific individual, and was willing to forego seeing her own former boyfriend because of her concerns. She doesn't trust the other woman she sees as a greater threat to their marriage.

If you see that as her being selfish, then we have a fundamental problem with POV and definitions.

And without common definitions of the words, ... As the Warden says in the movie "Cool Hand Luke": "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

EDIT: If anyone has followed my series on my main characters, you'd find the wife has a problem specifically with his former girlfriend, Brenda, because Brenda was into gangbangs when he dated her (without his knowledge) and she gave him VD.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Significant Others.

Fair enough - maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Not a native English speaker. However, the statement " You act as if these husbands are totally blameless " just rubs me the wrong way. You can replace the word husbands with any other group of people that are - within the concept discussed; being in some ways abused, taken advantage of, mistreated, or victims of a crime. And it's still messed up. No?

Someone is mean to someone from the LGBTQ+ community. "You act as if these gay people are totally blameless".
Someone is abusive towards their wife. "You act as if the woman is totally blameless".
Someone is mistreating a child. "You act as if the kid is totally blameless".

It just doesn't add up in my head. But I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[inka2222]

The wife states her concern over the possibility of her husband seeing a specific individual, and was willing to forego seeing her own former boyfriend because of her concerns. She doesn't trust the other woman she sees as a greater threat to their marriage.

If you see that as her being selfish, then we have a fundamental problem with POV and definitions.

1. Your quotes explain her refusal to let him have sex with ex (Brenda). However, it does NOT explain why she (1) refused his proposed alternative, Carol - of course she had an excuse for "no Carol" as well - and I expect would have found an excuse for ANY woman he proposed; (2) AFTER that, she didn't offer him some other candidate for fairness, (3) didn't offer the guy's wife as alternative since Ray said they have open marriage and (4) didn't just offer to postpone sleeping with Ray until they agree on a woman for him. If you look at the WHOLE picture, she was selfish. Yes, if he ONLY wanted to have sex with that one ex, I would have maybe bought this line of thinking as evidence she wasn't being fully unfair. But all these points combined, show that she was.

2. The end solution (so-called "compromise") only really benefitted her, he was compromising she wasn't. She didn't lose out anything in that compromise at all. Yes the husband was OK with it (so she was just selfish, not a shithead), but he didn't get anything JUST FOR HIM out of the threesome. He's not bi. He wasn't dreaming of a MMF threesome as a must have experience (story mentions it happened before).

3. Moreover, you didn't in ANY WAY address canonical, in-universe (in-story) fact that both the husband AND the ex bf BOTH explicitly said she was selfish. So it's not just my impression as a reader, its a canon fact in-universe even. You as the author set that up You COULD have had the husband reply she's not selfish and give examples of why not.

 

[Lifestyle66]

1. Your quotes explain her refusal to let him have sex with ex (Brenda). However, it does NOT explain why she (1) refused his proposed alternative, Carol - of course she had an excuse for "no Carol" as well - and I expect would have found an excuse for ANY woman he proposed; (2) AFTER that, she didn't offer him some other candidate for fairness, (3) didn't offer the guy's wife as alternative since Ray said they have open marriage and (4) didn't just offer to postpone sleeping with Ray until they agree on a woman for him. If you look at the WHOLE picture, she was selfish. Yes, if he ONLY wanted to have sex with that one ex, I would have maybe bought this line of thinking as evidence she wasn't being fully unfair. But all these points combined, show that she was.

2. The end solution (so-called "compromise") only really benefitted her, he was compromising she wasn't. She didn't lose out anything in that compromise at all. Yes the husband was OK with it (so she was just selfish, not a shithead), but he didn't get anything JUST FOR HIM out of the threesome. He's not bi. He wasn't dreaming of a MMF threesome as a must have experience (story mentions it happened before).

3. Moreover, you didn't in ANY WAY address canonical, in-universe (in-story) fact that both the husband AND the ex bf BOTH explicitly said she was selfish. So it's not just my impression as a reader, its a canon fact in-universe even. You as the author set that up You COULD have had the husband reply she's not selfish and give examples of why not.

Yes, in my stories the characters often call her selfish. But her actions also show otherwise.

You said she didn't offer Ray's wife as an alternative. But before Ray left, she did tell Ray to bring his wife the next time, because she wanted to see her husband get with Ray's wife.

And when her husband returned home after driving her boyfriend to the hotel, she gave him a special blowjob as her way of saying "thanks", knowing that's what her husband really likes from her. She didn't need to do that after she got what she wanted with her boyfriend. But it's the whole context of the characters interacting throughout the story which paints the picture.

Too often, readers over-react to one scene from something which triggers them. Many male readers are shouting "selfish whore" when she's taking her boyfriend's cock in her ass during the DP when riding her husband. And feminists scream "Misogynist!" when later the wife is on her knees as her husband shoots his cum into her open mouth. But in that first case, the husband set her up in that position and nodded to the BF to do it. And in the BJ, that was the wife's choice and her way of balancing the scale with her husband. She even thinks to ask her husband "So, are we even now for me getting together with Ray? No Brenda, right?" And her husband replies "We're okay."

Those are not the actions of selfish people. I try to paint the picture of a loving couple, who look out for each other, and try to balance things out between them by the end of the story. Any particular snapshot story has its ups and down in the balance between them. That's how we write stories: set up a conflict, then show the resolution. If you want to see an extreme example of the scales tipping, I wrote the story "A Hard Lesson" about humiliation, when this wife lashes out at her husband from a misunderstanding. But by the end of the story, they're grudgingly okay again.

EDIT: BTW, I did write one of my stories about this same couple throwing her under the bus as blatantly "selfish", and the consequences in "What Were You Thinking?" as my version of a burn-the-bitch. Maybe that story would be more to your liking. (They finally reconcile in the sequel "What Were You Thinking? - Therapy" when they go to marriage counseling.