Another WTF? moment

[shereads]

If things are that bad, leave.

There's more than one way to betray a spouse, rg. One way is to demand non-stop togetherness while denying physical affection, until you have her half-believing there's something wrong with her for wanting to touch and be touched.

Another way is to meet and connect with an adult who reminds one of what it means to give and receive grown-up affection, maybe even enjoy time together talking and never once see him reach for the TV remote. Once that happens, there's no going back. There's likely to be a long, lonely inner battle that pits the "good girl" she thought she was against the prospect of remaining in a sick marriage.

Leaving might not happen all at once, but in increments. First, the tart-to-be has to get used to the idea of abandoning someone she cares for, who may have spent years convincing himself and her that he's incapable of being on his own. She has to embrace the likelihood of financial ruin, if she was too naive to protect herself. If there are children...Well, I thank God every day that there weren't.

Hint for brides-to-be: don't be fooled by tales that the first two or three wives didn't understand him. You won't understand him, either.

Edited to add: any man or woman who loses interest in sex and expects a marital partner to just live with your decision, should assume that there's an unfaithful spouse in the bed beside you. It doesn't mean you have the right to feel wounded; it might mean he or she cares enough to stay, despite the pain of rejection.

If you were the one who lost interest in sex and didn't seek a solution, you were the one who abandoned the marriage. The rest is just paperwork and guilt.

 

[rgraham666]

That's true enough shereads.

But I think we're talking two different things here, cheating in a relationship that has problems (or not) versus one that has failed utterly and is only operating through inertia.

I believe, and I could be wrong, most cheating takes place in the former category. And as I said, I think it's better to work at the relationship than cheat.

In the latter category, if someone looks outside, I say more power to them.

 

[shereads]

I think marriage is for the sake of children, and that it otherwise makes little sense. Marriage, especially between young people who have only glimpsed the menu of possibilities, denies the likelihood that two people will grow and change at difference paces and find themselves wanting different things out of life. It was originally a way of bringing tribes together, uniting dynasties, both of which were about birth and children. The romantic notion of two souls united for all enternity is nice, but I haven't seen it work out yet. Show me a 20-year-old who knows what she wants the next five years to be like, much less eternity.

 

[impressive]

The romantic notion of two souls united for all enternity is nice, but I haven't seen it work out yet.

I think it COULD, though. I think I know someone who, if we'd met 20 years ago, could still be "all that" to me.

My marriage, however, is indeed a child-rearing partnership held together by inertia. There is no ill will, but there is no real passion, either. The sex is good, which makes it bearable ... but love? Nope. Just not there.

 

[shereads]

I think it COULD, though. I think I know someone who, if we'd met 20 years ago, could still be "all that" to me.

My marriage, however, is indeed a child-rearing partnership held together by inertia. There is no ill-will, but there is no real passion, either. The sex is good, which makes it bearable ... but love? Nope. Just not there.

You have children and good sex. That's not a bad foundation for a life.

Don't get me wrong; I envied my parents the bond they shared in their old age. A relationship doesn't have to be wildly passionate to be worth having.

I just think monogamy is an unrealistic thing to expect at the age when most people marry. In my ideal world, "open marriage" would be the norm; no one partner would be expected to meet every need of the other.

 

[impressive]

You have children and good sex. That's not a bad foundation for a life.

I have that grass-IS-greener syndrome.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The romantic notion of two souls united for all enternity is nice, but I haven't seen it work out yet. Show me a 20-year-old who knows what she wants the next five years to be like, much less eternity.

Met 'em.

Seen what true love looks like.

Seen life-long devotion to one woman out of love.

No one gives a fuck about that though. Platitudes and denial are easier to swallow.

 

[shereads]

If only the world recongized the need of most aduls to have more than one kind of relationship. A marriage that's evolved into a friendship shouldn't be something to fear; it is, only because we aren't supposed to seek an outlet beyond the marriage for "unfriendly" urges like crazy-new passion.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm thinking of Robert A. Heinlein. In one of his books, people were effectively immortal. Unless your brain got vapourised somehow, they could fix you up.

Most people lived until about 800 or so, then simply got bored with living and stopped fixing themselves up.

As a result people only got married to have kids. And when those children were grown and the couple decided to have no more, the people usually went their separate ways. Makes sense to me. People do change and there's no sense in staying with someone where your feelings have changed.

Marriage is something left over from our early stage of evolution and culture. Being married for life once meant for twenty years at most before something ate you. I don't think we're designed for 50 year marriages. They happen, but we're not designed for them.

However, better to be honest with your partner about it. Deceit isn't good for a relationship, of any type.

 

[impressive]

If only the world recongized the need of most aduls to have more than one kind of relationship. A marriage that's evolved into a friendship shouldn't be something to fear; it is, only because we aren't supposed to seek an outlet beyond the marriage for "unfriendly" urges like crazy-new passion.

YES! I could totally handle an "open" marriage at this point -- without fear, without jealousy.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hrrrrmmm. I will say this. Relationships take time and energy - and money. No one has a limitless supply of these things. That which is spent outside the marriage, can't be spent inside it. Just a thought.

 

[impressive]

That which is spent outside the marriage, can't be spent inside it. Just a thought.

Very true. However, if that energy is NOT being spent inside -- it's just potential energy in search of release. Eventually, it will become caustic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I just thought I'd mention that my parents were married for 61 years until my father died. My older brother was 20 and his bride was 16 when they married, almost 47 years ago. They have five offspring, numerous grandchildren and a great-grandchild. I think you could call those "lasting marriages".

 

[shereads]

Met 'em.

Seen what true love looks like.

Seen life-long devotion to one woman out of love.

No one gives a fuck about that though. Platitudes and denial are easier to swallow.

Pardon me, satanic one, what I meant was not to deny that love can be forever, but to acknowledge that it's possible to feel different kinds of love for different partners. My parents' love for each other was never more evident than when they were old and he was dying, and it was beautiful, enviable. But you can't assume that a relationship that begins as a passionate sexual partnership will turn into that kind of love, the kind that shines when "bed" means sick-bed and bed-pan. I believe in love, but see it as many different thngs, not all of which can be met in one person.

Marriage is a social construct that insists on there being one kind of love. Its a false construct, created to impose order on love, which is the least orderly thing in creation. Good luck with that.

Throughout most of history, no one even pretended that marriage was intended to limit men's sexual partners; a faithful wife was necessary so there wouldn't be any doubt about her children's paternity and their right to inherit. She couldn't own or bestow property; even what had belonged to her before they married became her husband's upon marriage, so it was essential that her children be accepted unequivocally as his, or he owed them nothing. Marriage was a contract that asked one partner to give up sex outside the marriage and the other partner to pay her by supporting her and their offspring. Religion dressed it up a lot, but what else did it mean?

Its practical purpose is to provide a stable family for children, and some legal protections for committed couples, and that's as it should be. I just wish there were an "honorable" way for society to accommodate the needs of both partners to explore other facets of themselves - romantic, sexual, intellectual - and that it could be done without blame and without the assumption that there's some terrible character flaw at work. The fact that marital infedility is commonplace, and increasingly so among women, says at least as much about marriage as it does about our character.

 

[shereads]

I just thought I'd mention that my parents were married for 61 years until my father died. My older brother was 20 and his bride was 16 when they married, almost 47 years ago. They have five offspring, numerous grandchildren and a great-grandchild. I think you could call those "lasting marriages".

Until divorce lost its social stigma, all marriages lasted. Some because there was a genuine bond, and some because there were no other choices. A lasting marriage and a sexually exclusive marriage aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[shereads]

The letter "A" is a bitch to embroider, and I'm all out of red thread.



Will someone else take over as this evenng's official Woman of Loose Morals?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Will someone else take over as this evenng's official Woman of Loose Morals?

I'm here, babe. You can take a break now.

~lucky

 

[cantdog]

A lasting marriage and a sexually exclusive marriage aren't necessarily the same thing.

That is precisely why I had a more open arrangement in mind. My heart is bigger than the assumptions marriage makes about it. I can love a great many people, each in a different way. But she was more limited, and still is, although we both have changed rather dramatically in many ways over the years since 1972.

There have been moments when it looked pretty bleak, but like Box's family, mine and hers were both families which did not divorce, and for that reason her assumption and mine was the same about the institution, that it represented a permanent bond. We were disposed rather to improving it than to abandoning it. Perhaps we were actually wrong. The situation was pretty lousy at one time. But things have improved, now, to a point where the marriage is once again joyful and affectionate.

To dissolve it now would be silly, it's too good; but ever since our child was born in '77 there has been enough inextricable property and other investments of a joint nature that both of us would be poorer if we split it up. That has only become more marked, of course, except for the fact that the daughter is a grown woman and not involved in the problem any longer. And there is always the chance that it could go really very sour and cost much more in lawyers' fees and by agency of the vindictive ruinous gestures of the kind divorcing people frequently make.

But the decisions we made are not really much to do with "fidelity" or any other such idea. I'm not much of a believer in marriage, even. She says that she will certainly never do it again, if she becomes free to. She's said that for twenty years. I don't have as doctrinaire an approach to that question. I can see that events might make it a good plan, but I can also see that it might never seem sensible again.

 

[shereads]

I'm here, babe. You can take a break now.

~lucky

Slut.

I knew I could count on you.

 

[Belegon]

So many crazy thoughts. I stayed single until 31. When I became involved with the wonderful woman who became my wife, every longterm friend I had, including at least one ex-girlfriend, crossed their fingers and prayed hard that Belegon would not "screw this one up".

The problem is that I never felt that way. Yes, I had some real twisted and painful relationships. I also had some major joy.

I love my wife. I always will. I also love that ex I just mentioned. I always will. I love my best friend, who I would be involved in a sexual relationship with if it were possible without us hurting our significant others. I always will. I love the woman I spent three and 1/2 yrs with in the late 80's who all but destroyed my life. I always will.

Why do people always feel there are limits on love? Shouldn't it be the last place we put limits?

I think that jealousy and posessiveness are not allies of love but deadly enemies. I think that sexual exclusivity is an outdated concept and will become more so as our life spans increase. I also know I made a promise. I intend to keep it. But damn, sometimes it is hard!

I was a sexual adventurer who settled down. Sometimes it is hard to remember why.

 

[cantdog]

I love your loose morals, shereads. Don't ever change.

 

[shereads]

RG makes an excellent point about our longevity. Committing to a lifelong relationship meant a couple of decades, for wives who survived childbirth. For the same reason we now worry about things like Alzheimers disease and menopause, we're also now facing the consequences of being healthy, physically active and too darn cute for our own good (did I say that out loud?) at an age when, historically, we're supposed to be dead or otherwise incapacitated.

I remember how delighted I was with the pair of new baby love-birds I brought home one day, on impulse - until I found out that lovebirds live to be, oh, 15 or 16 years old.

Oops, I thought. That's a long time to own birds whose cage needs cleaning every single day. And that shrill shrieking noise they make in the morning; do they outgrow that? No? It just gets louder as they get bigger. Okay. That's a good thing, right?

Marriage lasts even longer than pet lovebirds, and its cage is messier.

 

[shereads]

I love your loose morals, shereads. Don't ever change.

Sirrah, if I still had a husband I would demand that he turn off the television and call you out for that insult.

My morals have become more fluid as I have grown in wisdom and cuteness, but I am far more loyal than loose.

I used the term in jest, after which Lucky was kind enough to assume the title. The little slut.

 

[cantdog]

Of course you are; I was being ironic. Not very obviously, I guess, however. If you're immoral, we'll have to redefine the word. No, I was simply continuing the jest. But if I have offended, I do most humbly beg to be forgiven.

I seem to need that from you a lot, lately. I guess I'm slipping.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Pardon me, satanic one, what I meant was not to deny that love can be forever, but to acknowledge that it's possible to feel different kinds of love for different partners. My parents' love for each other was never more evident than when they were old and he was dying, and it was beautiful, enviable. But you can't assume that a relationship that begins as a passionate sexual partnership will turn into that kind of love, the kind that shines when "bed" means sick-bed and bed-pan. I believe in love, but see it as many different thngs, not all of which can be met in one person.

I agree 100%. There is love, as in the love we think about and admire, the eternal love. That is true love.

Then there is a whole mess of other levels of not-so-hardcore shit. Much like the levels in the drug kingdom. There is kiss-your-mortal-senses-goodbye and then there is tylenol or worse well-meaning-placebo. There are also poisons masquerading as love and slowly the metaphor breaks down to the pathetic and frankly disturbing level.

My point is this. There is true love that can weather all and there are others that can't and/or require massive effort to weather the changes. Just because many only see the second, doesn't mean we should abandon the first to myth and insist like I have seen many people do that every single person should become promiscuous to become knowledgable. Each partner will always be different, sexually and emotionally. For some promiscuity may aid self-knowledge, for others it may hinder. It's up to the person, not society to make these demands. To yell at a person for a stable relationship (as I have seen people do) for not being open to the possibilities and encourage infidelity is stupid.

Or something like that anyway. I think I lost everyone when I compared love to heroin, oh well.