Are women really as cold-blooded IRL as represented in Loving Wives?

[waltdee]

First, I object, as a woman, to your use of the word slut in that context, when you accuse them of behaving like men.
Second, 99% of what I've read in Loving wives is male fantasy. Or indulging male fantasy. It's not reportage, it's fiction.

I apologize, I didn't mean all women who have relationships whether cheating or not. meant it from the perspective of the wronged husband whose wife has just told him that she was unilaterally deciding to break their wedding vows.

It's okay in my mind if she approaches the husband and he approves or encourages or participates, but my question was more geared to a wife that says she's going to have sex with someone other that her husband and that she doesn't care for how he feels about it.

I'd imagine that out of the millions or billions of married couples out there there might be a small percentage who would be that cruel to their husband. I just have trouble understanding how anyone, male or female, could carelessly and cruelly say that they're going to cheat and "you'd better get used to it" to someone they supposedly love.

Again, sorry if I was out of line.

 

[waltdee]

Not all of the LW stories are BTB or revenge.

Read mine. I'll continue to fight the curve.

Following, thanks

 

[waltdee]

I know two women whose husbands are impotent due to health issues, and the women find occasional relief with other men.

There's nothing wrong with their relationships.

Interesting, do their husbands know and approve? Did they know ahead of time? Just curious.

 

[waltdee]

First, I object, as a woman, to your use of the word slut in that context, when you accuse them of behaving like men.
Second, 99% of what I've read in Loving wives is male fantasy. Or indulging male fantasy. It's not reportage, it's fiction.

I guess I have my answer then. It's mostly fiction.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I guess I have my answer then. It's mostly fiction.

Nearly all writing on LE is fiction, no matter the category. As I have noted before, the saddest thing here is that there are those readers who can't separate fiction from fact.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

BTB and RAAC obsessives display a level of hatred towards women that’s truly horrifying.

OP asked what proportion of women are like the characters in these stories. But if we’re talking about statistics in relation to much of what you’ll find in the LW category, to me, the most important one is that women everywhere in the world are more likely to be assaulted or killed by their romantic partner than anyone else, by a significant margin. Reading those stories, and the comments, it’s easy to understand why.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Interesting, do their husbands know and approve? Did they know ahead of time? Just curious.

At least one of the husbands knows, because I've talked to him.

 

[MrPixel]

...I read stories of wives running off with football stars for a wild weekend without as much as a peep to their husbands...

My first wife was like that, except it was Hollywood types; one B-list actor I can name and a fair number of behind-the-scenes types I can't. She was really good at gaslighting, to say the least. I didn't put 2+2 together until after we went our separate ways.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Too bad there is no one in either party worth my voting for nowadays.

Sometimes I wonder if there ever was a person worth voting for. (The fact that there are only two parties in an issue in itself.) This probably goes back to at least when the Roman Empire was a republic, maybe even back to Greece.

Elections in the Roman Republic

 

[Lifestyle66]

I didn't put 2+2 together until after we went our separate ways.

We are often blinded by acceptance and trust in our past decisions, and miss the clues which says to us "What the fuck were you thinking?"

But I have three kids out of it, whom I still love as a part of my life.

 

[gunhilltrain]

If you're a cis man, do not use gendered slurs like "slut". Of course, no one should be using slurs like that in this context, but it adds another element of evil when coming from a cis man.

Can't I just be a regular man? Or just a human; that will do.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

Can't I just be a regular man? Or just a human; that will do.

And this is exactly why the term “cis” needs to exist. Straight white men have been the default norm - or as you put it, “regular” - in this society for so long. When you see the word “man” in print, the image that will come to mind for most people is a conventional looking straight, white, cis man, because that’s what social conditioning has taught people to see as the default.

Meanwhile, everyone else gets rejoinders or descriptors to classify their deviation from the norm: trans man, black man, gay man, disabled man. Multiple descriptors - gay, black, disabled man - serve as a social code to further define how far that person is from what is assumed to be the default.

So, when you have a kneejerk reaction against being identified as cis, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect on why you have such a strong reaction when such a descriptor is applied to you.

 

[ElectricBlue]

So, when you have a kneejerk reaction against being identified as cis, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect on why you have such a strong reaction when such a descriptor is applied to you.

I don't have a problem with the 21st century label cis male, but will point out that for three-quarters of my life I just thought I was a hetero male. It's only been the last fifteen years or so that I discovered there was another badge I could wear (except I don't wear badges, and I don't think anyone really needs to).

 

[TheRedChamber]

And this is exactly why the term “cis” needs to exist. Straight white men have been the default norm - or as you put it, “regular” - in this society for so long. When you see the word “man” in print, the image that will come to mind for most people is a conventional looking straight, white, cis man, because that’s what social conditioning has taught people to see as the default.

Meanwhile, everyone else gets rejoinders or descriptors to classify their deviation from the norm: trans man, black man, gay man, disabled man. Multiple descriptors - gay, black, disabled man - serve as a social code to further define how far that person is from what is assumed to be the default.

So, when you have a kneejerk reaction against being identified as cis, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect on why you have such a strong reaction when such a descriptor is applied to you.

The term cis is useful and necessary in general. In this case, it wasn't necessary and is misleading. A trans man is a man. They should no more be calling a woman a slut than a cis man.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

The term cis is useful and necessary in general. In this case, it wasn't necessary and is misleading. A trans man is a man. They should no more be calling a woman a slut than a cis man.

I’d say that there can be a context difference. Trans men were socialized as girls/women, so they’ll have a different relationship with the word than cis men. In the context in which it was used here, I agree, it’s a slur regardless of who says it, but I can imagine a scenario where a straight cis woman, a gay cis man, and a trans man of any orientation are joking around with each other and the word “slut” comes out jokingly.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

I don't have a problem with the 21st century label cis male, but will point out that for three-quarters of my life I just thought I was a hetero male. It's only been the last fifteen years or so that I discovered there was another badge I could wear (except I don't wear badges, and I don't think anyone really needs to).

The issue with badges is that, in the world we live in, there’s a spectrum on which people sit, where some have more choice than others about whether they are going to wear a badge. It’s nice to think that nobody should have to wear a badge, but until the playing field is level, it’s something we should all try to navigate consciously.

 

[XerXesXu]

The issue with badges is that, in the world we live in, there’s a spectrum on which people sit, where some have more choice than others about whether they are going to wear a badge. It’s nice to think that nobody should have to wear a badge, but until the playing field is level, it’s something we should all try to navigate consciously.

I live in a culture which is accepting and inclusive of all sexualities and abilities.

Bakla v Dwarves.

This takes place as part of the Gay Festival, in the Barangay Closed Court - the centre of barangay social activity.

Is this how you imagine it?

 

[Ingenue844]

I just have trouble understanding how anyone, male or female, could carelessly and cruelly say that they're going to cheat and "you'd better get used to it" to someone they supposedly love.

There’s myriad reasons why this could occur. A neglected spouse who feels they’re owed something. A spouse who wants the ego boost of a new conquest. Falling in love with someone new (I believe it’s possible to love more than one person simultaneously). The cheater feels like they’re missing something and may pursue it regardless of the feelings of the person they love.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I’d say that there can be a context difference. Trans men were socialized as girls/women, so they’ll have a different relationship with the word than cis men. In the context in which it was used here, I agree, it’s a slur regardless of who says it, but I can imagine a scenario where a straight cis woman, a gay cis man, and a trans man of any orientation are joking around with each other and the word “slut” comes out jokingly.

I know what you mean and I personally think 'slut' can be a genderless insult or even a genderless term of endearment - and, given appropriately close relationship, it can be said by anyone to anyone (but as a cis man have to be very careful with it)

However, the most important message the trans community is trying to get out there at the moment is that 'trans men are men' or 'trans women are women' and so I think it's contradictory to suggest they get a pass for certain things because of their socialization history - it suggests they still exist in a space somewhere between male and female and that waters down the message.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

I know what you mean and I personally think 'slut' can be a genderless insult or even a genderless term of endearment - and, given appropriately close relationship, it can be said by anyone to anyone (but as a cis man have to be very careful with it)

However, the most important message the trans community is trying to get out there at the moment is that 'trans men are men' or 'trans women are women' and so I think it's contradictory to suggest they get a pass for certain things because of their socialization history - it suggests they still exist in a space somewhere between male and female and that waters down the message.

Or there could be a more nuanced interpretation, which is that what it means to be a man or a woman isn’t monolithic, and that “trans men are men” can be interpreted as “both trans men and cis men are both equally men.”

 

[TheRedChamber]

Or there could be a more nuanced interpretation, which is that what it means to be a man or a woman isn’t monolithic, and that “trans men are men” can be interpreted as “both trans men and cis men are both equally men.”

Nuance can be great in a personal philosophy, but there are some big issues where you want to avoid it - abortion and a woman's right to choose, 'no means no',racial equality and so on. Bigots love nuance, either they wrap you up in knots asking for more and more clarification or they start to add their own shades of nuance to the argument, which inevitably you won't like. We're now at "Both trans men and cis men are both equally men, but trans men can use the word 'slut' but cis men can't", so as devil's advocate the next thing you're going to be asked is what the other differences are and why and before you know it they're hanging up one sign on the bathroom that says 'cis men' and another that says 'cis women and trans men' because trans men were socialized as women and women feel more comfortable around them so why not? (Yes we know why not, but the conversation has just become a lot more painful than it needed to be). Essentially, 'equal but different' is something you want to minimize as much as possible.

Put it another way.

You're in a bar and you overhear two people you don't know talking.

Woman: I slept with Leslie last night.
Man: On your first date. God, you're such a slut.
Woman: I know right. It was fantastic.

or alternatively


Woman: I slept with Leslie last night.
Man: On your first date. God, you're such a slut.
Woman: Fuck you. [dumps drink over his head and leaves]

Should your view of either converstation really hinge on whether the man is cis/trans, or is that fact that the woman was comfortable with the language in the first conversation and clearly not in the second converstation?

 

[Defluer]

Can I commend everyone here, for the most part this stayed pretty damn civil.

I know what you mean and I personally think 'slut' can be a genderless insult or even a genderless term of endearment - and, given appropriately close relationship, it can be said by anyone to anyone (but as a cis man have to be very careful with it)

I totally agree. Anybody can be a slut, regardless of gender. And it can be good or bad. Usually if it's good I say it with the tone higher on the T than the S. Because if somebody is getting theirs I'm happy for them. As long as they're not getting theirs and hurting a spouse or spouses while doing it. Then that gets a slut where you hit the S really hard.

To the OP, it's 99% make believe here. The numbers are not real. This stuff does happen, for sure, but not in the quantity. If you look at the I/T category you can't believe that that much is going on.

 

[jsmiam]

… it because I cannot believe there are women out their so delusional, so cruel as to pull something like this and come back thinking everything would be like it was. Please tell me this is just fantasy, a trope, a McGuffin, please?

At the @OP: To be fair, at least you seek other sources of info.

If you’re mired in a world of bitter angry people who hate women, you have more hope than those who don’t seek more knowledge.

My personal belief is that the internet makes it possible for people to easily seek out, find, and listen to only one type or source of info. To be lured into not seeing other views of the world.

To answer your question. Women are free too. They’re allowed to do what they want. Yes, the stories are fantasies (hint: this doesn’t mean either bad or good. It means “not necessarily real”.) The general bitter angry tone of loving wives is a trope. And it’s a mcguffin and a sausage-fest McMuffin.

Keep that mind open. Keep seeking knowledge from multiple sources. And remember, in good humor, chicks dig guys who aren’t bitter, angry, and full of hate.

 

[gunhilltrain]

And this is exactly why the term “cis” needs to exist. Straight white men have been the default norm - or as you put it, “regular” - in this society for so long. When you see the word “man” in print, the image that will come to mind for most people is a conventional looking straight, white, cis man, because that’s what social conditioning has taught people to see as the default.

Meanwhile, everyone else gets rejoinders or descriptors to classify their deviation from the norm: trans man, black man, gay man, disabled man. Multiple descriptors - gay, black, disabled man - serve as a social code to further define how far that person is from what is assumed to be the default.

So, when you have a kneejerk reaction against being identified as cis, it might be worth taking a moment to reflect on why you have such a strong reaction when such a descriptor is applied to you.

I was being tongue-in-cheek - I guess I should have made it clearer than I was trying to make, not quite a joke, but to get a chuckle out of it. But since you brought it up, I am disabled with two different conditions, one long-standing, the other more recent. Fortunately, both could be worse, but I qualified for Social Security disability benefits a number of years ago. Got on first try, in fact, which is often not easy. (Technically, that has mutated into retirement benefits a couple of years ago - that was automatic because I was already in the program.)

Do I identify with being disabled? Not sure; I'm aware of it, but most of the time I work around it. For the second condition (over two years, now), it is quite, well beneficial to have the ADA-mandated elevators in el and subway stations. Of course, many of them don't have those yet. If I really have to, I can navigate staircases but only if there is no other option. (It's actually more tricky to go down than go up.)

 

[ElectricBlue]

(It's actually more tricky to go down than go up.)

Why? Falling down is easy!