Homewreckers

[gbxx]

...

.....

 

[Sheana_V]

Yes... I really try to suppress this part of me, and it's a recipe for trouble.

 

[mikendel]

I love pleasing married men that need a good fucking. I don't search them out, they find me. I could say no but I don't.

 

[chitrashi]

I'm indifferent to the marital status of the man. His equation with his wife is his own business, none of mine. All the men in my life have been considerably older than me - stands to reason, they would have wives and children (quite often, the children have been older than me).

Yes, it is a thrill to know that I've given my man the pleasures he has been missing. The constant teasing each other in public when others are around, the hurried making out when his control snaps and he can't keep his hands off me, but wants to be done before someone catches us in the act.

 

[screwher]

My wife the homewreaker?

Personally I'm not to fond of this expression. It places the blame on the other woman and not where it should be focused. Namely the husband who allowed this other woman to enter the picture. The first other man to have sex with my wife was married. When I found out about it, I went ballistic. At that point I did not approve of her screwing other men. But I was angry and hurt by my wife's actions, not his. What he did didn't even enter my mind. It was a one time thing with him because I found out before they could get together again and she stopped all communication with him. So I don't know the ramifications my wife had on his marriage.

But now, times change, people change, and I want my wife to take another lover. I'd actually prefer him to be married. That way I know he's just interested in my wife for the pussy and not looking to mess with my marriage.

 

[chargergirl]

Further off topic posts will be removed.

Thanks!

 

[Green_Knight]

No, I've never been the other woman (for obvious reasons) but I have been the other man.

I never regarded my role as being a homewrecker. In fact I know that I helped to keep her marriage intact - a marriage that had previously been heading for the rocks - by making it tolerable for her.

If being the other man/woman means that your married lover is the only one in your life, it's not a situation I would recommend. It gets extremely difficult when married person cancels out on a planned meet at the last moment because something has cropped up at home, when married lover and spouse go off on holiday together (a luxury you've never had), and you have days or even weeks at a time to imagine what might be going on between them at home.

 

[twister947]

No, I've never been the other woman (for obvious reasons) but I have been the other man.

I never regarded my role as being a homewrecker. In fact I know that I helped to keep her marriage intact - a marriage that had previously been heading for the rocks - by making it tolerable for her.

If being the other man/woman means that your married lover is the only one in your life, it's not a situation I would recommend. It gets extremely difficult when married person cancels out on a planned meet at the last moment because something has cropped up at home, when married lover and spouse go off on holiday together (a luxury you've never had), and you have days or even weeks at a time to imagine what might be going on between them at home.

True. All, true.

 

[screwher]

No, I've never been the other woman (for obvious reasons) but I have been the other man.

I never regarded my role as being a homewrecker. In fact I know that I helped to keep her marriage intact - a marriage that had previously been heading for the rocks - by making it tolerable for her.

If being the other man/woman means that your married lover is the only one in your life, it's not a situation I would recommend. It gets extremely difficult when married person cancels out on a planned meet at the last moment because something has cropped up at home, when married lover and spouse go off on holiday together (a luxury you've never had), and you have days or even weeks at a time to imagine what might be going on between them at home.

Definitely.

A word of advice to any "other women" out there. Trust me, no matter what he says, your married lover is also having sex with his wife. I've never cheated on my wife. But if I were to I'd be double dipping for sure.

 

[BAD BOY BILL]

Home Wrecking Bitch..

In my case it was another woman who was the home wrecker..a beautiful big breasted bitch who seduced my wife..or was it the other way around?

Raven haired Connie was our new neighbor..Big store bought boobs and single..I guess her and my wife Bev were made for each other..always showing off at the Safeway supermarket..dressing very hot and showing their great cougar bodies..

I came home from work early one afternoon and there was Bev and Connie in the dining-room.. Bev is sitting on the oak table smoking a cigarette while Connie's beautiful face was buried in her bald cunt..

"She's so good at this.." smirked Bev taking a pull off her cigarette and looking straight at me..." You can stay and watch me cum or you can go to the hardware store.."

I knew Beverly liked women..and I guess I, knew she and Connie would get together eventually, so I stayed and masturbated as my beautiful blonde wife moaned cumming on the Connie's long wet tongue..

A few months later Bev and Connie went to San Dieago and never came back.. Those two bitches sure left me with a house and no pussy..

 

[CindyCD478]

As I have said before on other threads, there is a difference between "making love" and "sex for fun". If you enter into a committed, love making relationship with someone other than your partner I can see how it could wreck a marriage, but a little (or a lot) of sex for fun with anyone other than your partner is just that "sex for fun" and shouldn't be a problem for either party.

 

[Green_Knight]

As I have said before on other threads, there is a difference between "making love" and "sex for fun". If you enter into a committed, love making relationship with someone other than your partner I can see how it could wreck a marriage, but a little (or a lot) of sex for fun with anyone other than your partner is just that "sex for fun" and shouldn't be a problem for either party.

The divorce statistics for adultery suggest that it is a problem. Just because sex for fun wouldn't bother you doesn't mean that everyone shares your view. Everyone's different.

 

[Hans101]

The term homewrecker is inaccurate.

A man who won't be faithful to his wife is the homewrecker, not the woman he cheats with.

 

[Missingout]

The term homewrecker is inaccurate.

A man who won't be faithful to his wife is the homewrecker, not the woman he cheats with.

The woman is still an accessory if she knows about the situation.

 

[SlutAddicted]

The woman is still an accessory if she knows about the situation.

I suppose that is true but what does "knows about the situation" mean in any given circumstance. While I hesitate to say there are good reasons for cheating, relationships can be complicated and these things are frequently not black and white.

In most cases I think the starting point for why a person cheats is inside their own marriage and individual perspective. The spouses are the ones with obligations to one another. Maybe the other woman acted unethically but it is a stretch to start from that assumption (unless one is trying to avoid reality).

 

[Missingout]

If I were to have sex with someone else I personally wouldn't want to mess with a married woman. If she's separated that's one thing but to screw around knowing she's in a committed relationship is just wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter what shape their relationship is in. The sneaking behind the others back bothers me with either sex.

 

[CindyCD478]

The divorce statistics for adultery suggest that it is a problem. Just because sex for fun wouldn't bother you doesn't mean that everyone shares your view. Everyone's different.

That is why you both have to agree to having sex with others outside of your marriage for it to work.

 

[Green_Knight]

If I were to have sex with someone else I personally wouldn't want to mess with a married woman. If she's separated that's one thing but to screw around knowing she's in a committed relationship is just wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter what shape their relationship is in. The sneaking behind the others back bothers me with either sex.

To play devil's advocate:

For some people, of course, such as those who want a no strings attached relationship, a married woman (or man as appropriate) who seeks sexual variety but who doesn't want to end their marriage is ideal.

I know of a couple of people whose spouses have suffered from major disabilities or severe long-term illnesses that rule out sex. There is no question of them leaving their spouses but they do want a sexual relationship. A married person who also wants an NSA arrangement is ideal in such circumstances.

That, of course, is an extreme example, perhaps, but there are many people who, for one reason or another, do not want an attached relationship but prefer to have their own lives, while, at the same time, enjoying female company. A married person is much less likely to become proprietorial, expect me to act as 'partner', or suggest that they want to move in with me. And if I don't believe in marriage, is there any reason why I should be bound by its mores?

 

[policywank]

To play devil's advocate:

For some people, of course, such as those who want a no strings attached relationship, a married woman (or man as appropriate) who seeks sexual variety but who doesn't want to end their marriage is ideal.

I know of a couple of people whose spouses have suffered from major disabilities or severe long-term illnesses that rule out sex. There is no question of them leaving their spouses but they do want a sexual relationship. A married person who also wants an NSA arrangement is ideal in such circumstances.

That, of course, is an extreme example, perhaps, but there are many people who, for one reason or another, do not want an attached relationship but prefer to have their own lives, while, at the same time, enjoying female company. A married person is much less likely to become proprietorial, expect me to act as 'partner', or suggest that they want to move in with me. And if I don't believe in marriage, is there any reason why I should be bound by its mores?

As to your last sentence I would say the key isn't whether or not you believe in marriage but whether you believe a person should keep their commitments. What you think of the commitments they should or shouldn't make with other people is irrelevant. But in the broader sense the answer is no IMO. You aren't bound by the mores of someone else's marriage commitment because you aren't a party to that agreement and did not agree to be bound by it.

Personally I believe that it is not difficult to imagine why a woman wants or is willing to be the other woman (including the ones you note). I have been her. To the extent I want to but choose not to it may be because I don't want to inadvertently cause harm but I still don't believe that I owe the wife anything.

So the choice comes down to circumstance. It is too simplistic in my mind to have a complete prohibition on married men. What about the husband who is lonely or sexually neglected or is married to a cheating wife? Easy examples to be sure but things are rarely black and white.

And yes I can get a charge out of being the desirable other woman. The woman for whom a man will risk his marriage. It's flattering. I wouldn't do it for that reason alone without regard to any other, but where the line gets drawn is personal and circumstantial.

 

[Green_Knight]

As to your last sentence I would say the key isn't whether or not you believe in marriage but whether you believe a person should keep their commitments...

That is not, in my view, a matter for me, only the person concerned. It is irrelevant what I believe or not. Only the person concerned can judge what is right and it is none of my business to do their thinking or believing for them.

Having said that, I did once turn down an opportunity to be the other man because I knew the boyfriend involved (always a bad idea) and he and she had only just entered into major financial commitments. All and sundry would have been screwed if it had gone pear-shaped. I don't think you were talking about that sort of commitment though.

 

[chitrashi]

I feel it is absolutely hypocritical to blame a third person for your crumbling relationship. Most often, the wife gets away with playing the victim card, and the husband behaves as though he's the poor sod who got led astray by an evil temptress, and now he's repentant - and the "other woman" gets all the blame.

Hello you two are the ones who swore to be faithful to each other, you are the ones who swore to forsake all others. Keep to your vows. If there are issues in your marriage, solve them - don't blame others for it. If your marriage was strong and loving, your husband wouldn't be straying. The same holds true when it is the wife who cheats - if she's getting everything she needs from her husband, she wouldn't look outside the marriage.

So where "Honewreckers" are concerned - in my dictionary the title belongs to the two people who failed to build a strong home. Remember 3 Little Pigs? The first 2 pigs built houses of straw, it's not the fault of the wolf that their houses fell down.

As for me, yes I prefer married men. They come with less emotional drama, do not want any commitment, understand when you say that all you are interested in is a booty call. Though to be honest I never ask anyone about their personal life - married/single; republican/democrat; religion etc. How does that matter. What I do want to see is a doctor's certificate that you are not carrying any STDs.

 

[policywank]

That is not, in my view, a matter for me, only the person concerned. It is irrelevant what I believe or not. Only the person concerned can judge what is right and it is none of my business to do their thinking or believing for them.

Having said that, I did once turn down an opportunity to be the other man because I knew the boyfriend involved (always a bad idea) and he and she had only just entered into major financial commitments. All and sundry would have been screwed if it had gone pear-shaped. I don't think you were talking about that sort of commitment though.

Agreed. It is not a matter for you to decide. I was responding to your point where you said "if I don't believe in marriage, why should I be bound by its mores." And my point was that the fact that you aren't the one who made the commitment is the relevant point - not whether or not you believe in marriage.

I have declined to be with a married man on multiple occasions and the fact that he was married was part of that decision. But as I think we are both saying it wasn't because I owed it to the wife. Sometimes it was a situation that was too close for comfort and likely to go south. Others were situations where I knew the marital situation to some degree and pereceived the man's conduct to be slimy and therefore unattractive to me - it wasn't for me to judge him but if the way in which he behaved was a turn off then that is no different than any other man who doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Green_Knight]

Agreed. It is not a matter for you to decide. I was responding to your point where you said "if I don't believe in marriage, why should I be bound by its mores." And my point was that the fact that you aren't the one who made the commitment is the relevant point - not whether or not you believe in marriage...

I think we're both coming to the same destination even if our routes are a bit different.

My twin points, I think, are that, firstly, I didn't make the commitment and therefore I don't feel bound by it and, secondly, I'm not going to regard a marriage commitment as binding in the same way as I would if I believed in marriage. The same applies in so many fields. If I'm not religious, will I regard someone's commitment to pray or go to mass twice a day as important? To me it's no more important than a commitment to have at least one egg for breakfast but it's up to the person concerned to decide.

People, being human beings, frequently make commitments that they find they cannot keep for one reason or another. The sub-prime mortgage crash of 2008 and its global effects are a case in point and it is at least arguable that the costs of that in human misery have far outweighed any comparable breach of marriage commitments.

 

[policywank]

I think we're both coming to the same destination even if our routes are a bit different.

My twin points, I think, are that, firstly, I didn't make the commitment and therefore I don't feel bound by it and, secondly, I'm not going to regard a marriage commitment as binding in the same way as I would if I believed in marriage. The same applies in so many fields. If I'm not religious, will I regard someone's commitment to pray or go to mass twice a day as important? To me it's no more important than a commitment to have at least one egg for breakfast but it's up to the person concerned to decide.

People, being human beings, frequently make commitments that they find they cannot keep for one reason or another. The sub-prime mortgage crash of 2008 and its global effects are a case in point and it is at least arguable that the costs of that in human misery have far outweighed any comparable breach of marriage commitments.

I am with you on the first point.

Not sure about the second. Suppose I have a friend who is contemplating cheating on her husband and she asks me what I think. I am going to tell her to look at her situation in the context of how serious she and her SO regard their marital commitment - not how I regard marital commitments.

I am not party to that commitment so it doesn't affect my actions. But I would not hold it in lower regard because it isn't a commitment I would have made.