Not Every Day.

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think I'm tired of being the other guy. There's something wholly unsatisfying about it. It doesn't even have a cool name... women get "mistress", but guys don't get anything.

I don't think she's likely to leave him, either.

 

[LadyJeanne]

It IS much nicer when ALL her kisses are just for you.

 

[English Lady]

That must hurt Joe. I really don't think being the other man/woman can ever really be 100% satisfying.

But if you love her, as I know you do; what is the other option?

Well it's not really one you want to consider is it? it's the whole "something is better than nothing" thing.

 

[minsue]

That must hurt Joe. I really don't think being the other man/woman can ever really be 100% satisfying.

But if you love her, as I know you do; what is the other option?

Well it's not really one you want to consider is it? it's the whole "something is better than nothing" thing.

I must disagree here. Yes, there are many things that we'll do for love and in some cases something is better than nothing, but not when you're a party to destroying a marriage. Joe, you were not the one to make those vows, but do you really want to be the one to assist her in breaking them regularly? I may disagree with you often, but I think you're better than that.

 

[scheherazade_79]

You deserve to have someone's love and attention 100%, Joe. Start believing it, then move on and see if you can find that.

 

[English Lady]

minsue..I was sort of saying it form the point of view of someone in that position.

They love someone but the other person is with someone else BUT this person does get together with you and at those times she/he does love you.

It's not an easy decision to make -to have her/him momentarily, partially, every now and then or

to not have them at all.

Not a position I'd like to be in for sure.

 

[minsue]

That much I understood, EL, and it is a terribly lonely position to be in. That said, I have trouble looking at the situation from that point of view alone.

 

[Edward Teach]

I think I'm tired of being the other guy. There's something wholly unsatisfying about it. It doesn't even have a cool name... women get "mistress", but guys don't get anything.

I don't think she's likely to leave him, either.

Obviously you have decided you want her and thought through all the positives and negatives. That being the case, I don't see but three real choices, Joe, and none of them are really very good.

1. Carry on as is and hope for the best.

2. Give her an ultimatum but know what you are going to do for any response.

3. Leave.


Ed

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think she'd take it well if I jumped ship. I dunno. Its complicated.

We would love to say "love conquers all" and all that, around here, and talk about how tradition is pond-scum and how enlightened and advanced we are above all the peons in normal society... oh, how dumb and scared they all are, poor things. But I do have certain ethical problems with both adultery and still have respect for the sancity of marriage.

Ugh, I'm not in a good mood about it, today.

 

[English Lady]

*smiles* of course it's complicated. You need to think things through Joe and work out why your not in a good mood about it...and then see if something can be done.

try and work the complicated questions down into smaller simpler ones and see where that goes from there...

 

[cynter]

it is sad

this is when traditional relationships really suck. when monogamy becomes a cross to bear. major reason i think traditional relationships like heterosexual marriage for life will eventually become extinct. its just not realistic. why limit your heart to one true love? or why limit your life experiences to one person? i think we can accomadate so much more if we're willing to try. course it does take an emotional maturity and open mindedness this culture is lacking. heh...if it ever will 'grow up' enough to get past the dependencies on adolescent fantasies like sex equals love. at any rate i wish you luck in coming to terms with this situation. its a shame it could'nt be less traditional...like being the 'other man'. but then i'm assuming its a little late in the game to be negotiating an open arrangement.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: it is sad

this is when traditional relationships really suck. when monogamy becomes a cross to bear. major reason i think traditional relationships like heterosexual marriage for life will eventually become extinct. its just not realistic. why limit your heart to one true love? or why limit your life experiences to one person? i think we can accomadate so much more if we're willing to try. course it does take an emotional maturity and open mindedness this culture is lacking.

*shrug* I've said it before, but then I am always willing to repeat myself to the point of tedium - ask anyone. It's not emotional maturity and tolerance most people are lacking, it's time and resources. Those are finite in any person's life. The more people you spread them between, the less there is for each person. Unless you're in a very neatly balanced mutual situation - something where all parties involved contribute to the emotional, financial, and physical upkeep of all relations between all members - then more people = less time and energy for each person. Given that real relationships require time and energy, increasing one's partners decreases the chances of sustaining any supportive or meaningful relationship. That's not a moral position; it's an argument that relationships take work, and no person has infinite amounts of work to offer.

Joe, for what it's worth, watch the movie about Queen Elizabeth I that came out a few years back - I misremember the title. Her reply to Wessex when he pleads with her to be his mistress I think rather sums it up. He argues that he loves her; I believe the line is "so you love me so much that you'll make me your whore?"

Harsh, but food for thought.

Shanglan

 

[cynter]

Re: Re: it is sad

*shrug* I've said it before, but then I am always willing to repeat myself to the point of tedium - ask anyone. It's not emotional maturity and tolerance most people are lacking, it's time and resources. Those are finite in any person's life. The more people you spread them between, the less there is for each person. Unless you're in a very neatly balanced mutual situation - something where all parties involved contribute to the emotional, financial, and physical upkeep of all relations between all members - then more people = less time and energy for each person. Given that real relationships require time and energy, increasing one's partners decreases the chances of sustaining any supportive or meaningful relationship. That's not a moral position; it's an argument that relationships take work, and no person has infinite amounts of work to offer.

Joe, for what it's worth, watch the movie about Queen Elizabeth I that came out a few years back - I misremember the title. Her reply to Wessex when he pleads with her to be his mistress I think rather sums it up. He argues that he loves her; I believe the line is "so you love me so much that you'll make me your whore?"

Harsh, but food for thought.

Shanglan

uh, yeah if you fall in love with a football team simultaneously.
i get your point about the practicalities but i was more going for the emotional aspects than the mechanics. i dunno, its been a tiring day so forgive me if this doesn't make sense but the first thing that came to mind when i read your first paragraph....a large family. do the parents love the last child any less than the first child? love is not finite. your time spent making love maybe but the emotional/spiritual aspects i really don't think are...the more you love the more you are capable of love. again, i plead fatigue. hell...maybe i'm closeted idealistic romantic...heh.
cyn

 

[LadyJeanne]

Re: Re: Re: it is sad

hell...maybe i'm closeted idealistic romantic...heh.
cyn

I think our Joe is a bit of a romantic himself and is a bit bruised for it.

I get the feeling he'd like to be her shining knight and carry her away to his hideaway in the forest today...he wants to claim his princess, but is foiled by the presence of the king.

Joe, I'm hoping you meet a fair maid who'll shriek and lift her skirts for you as you chase her 'round the well.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: Re: Re: it is sad

uh, yeah if you fall in love with a football team simultaneously.
i get your point about the practicalities but i was more going for the emotional aspects than the mechanics.

I don't consider the two to be capable of seperation in the current physical world. In a metaphysical, beyond-material-concerns sense, I think this possible, but life is lived in a real world full of real limitations. Nothing kills joy and spontaneous affection like having to do two people's worth of housecleaning while someone is off enjoying the company of another. I don't think it takes the football team either; that is, if we're talking in fact about what I would term "love" - an emotionally supportive and intellectual connection rather than a swift physical relationship - life often makes it difficult to keep up with even one partner. The presence of another, I would argue, would have to be felt, at the very least in small but persistant daily neglects and absences.

i dunno, its been a tiring day so forgive me if this doesn't make sense but the first thing that came to mind when i read your first paragraph....a large family. do the parents love the last child any less than the first child?

My sympathies for your tiring day, and do forgive me for pulling about at your argument - please do feel free to dress me down for any errors at a later date, when I promise I shall take my punishment humbly and like a horse.

I do like your affectionate nature and your love of love itself, and I actually agree that the "large family" model is a pleasant ideal. That is actually when I meant when I referred to "something where all parties involved contribute to the emotional, financial, and physical upkeep of all relations between all members." That is, if the relationship involves three people, but they all love and care for all people involved, and all work toward the mutual good of everyone, including not only romantic elements but the nagging daily chores and burdens, then I think in theory it might well work. I only meant that most examples I have seen in real life have been more of the "spouse A gets a 'night off' with alternate person of choice now and then" model rather than the "three mutual lovers live and work communally and supportively" model.

love is not finite. your time spent making love maybe but the emotional/spiritual aspects i really don't think are...the more you love the more you are capable of love. again, i plead fatigue. hell...maybe i'm closeted idealistic romantic...heh.

I mean not merely the time spent making love, but the thousand daily little chores and sacrifices that make up the world that love inhabits. Someone has to clean the house, feed the pets, wash the clothing, cook the meals, pay the bills, think of amusements for the weekend, plan pleasant outings, keep up with friends and parents, etc. All of these things, in an ideal relationship, become gestures of affection; they are things we do for each other because love compels us to aid and support each other. It's difficult even for two people to give each other that level of support; if a third person is to be involved in the relationship, then merely taking a sexual role takes time away from those supportive actions that form the real basis of mutal care and intimacy. While the theoretical ability to love might be inifinite, the practical ability to help and support is not, and I would argue that that is a very significant part of any relationship. If the additional party was to become part of this supportive daily life, then I think it's possible for love to expand and grow, but if s/he merely distracts one partner from that daily life, then all relationships will suffer. None will have the time and support they need.

Shanglan