The age old question: men with girlfriends and porn : please help

[searock]

I don't think its about taking the easier or the harder way out but rather not wanting to lose the partner they chose to spend the rest of their life with.

Their mistake was at the beginning though - they knew that the person they chose to spend their life with at the time was a monogamist and they chose to be with them anyway... it doesn't make sense. Even taking into account the fact that they may have realized they needed more sexual variety only after years they were committed to that one person, they still should have realized at the beginning that getting into a relationship with someone who is strictly monogamous meant "sacrificing" those needs for sexual variety for the rest of their lives. It was simply part of the initial arrangement. To cheat down the road means to break the initial arrangement, which isn't reasonable at all IMO.

Serial Monogamy seems to becoming more and more popular where they do exactly what you suggest and throw away a relationship soon after that excitement of new relationship engergy starts to wane. Like your thinking that you "love" someone but you're no longer "in love with them." *grinz*

It's not the same thing (when I talk about "being in love" I don't mean the initial phase of infatuation and honeymoon period, I mean the feeling you get after you know a person really well and even after years together you still love them deeply and romantically) but I get what you're saying: you are talking about people who are in constant search of the "rush" that comes from the initial phase of infatuation. In such case I still think it's more reasonable for a person like that to be a serial monogamist, or to find a person that is ok with open relationships or polyamory, rather than to be with only one monogamous person and to systematically cheat on that person.

The dude in the article is trying to change the part where one must lie and instead help others to perhaps view sex as less important in the entire scheme of life partnerships.

This is true until the last sentence, in which he says "IF the situation doesn't admit sex outside of the relationship without having to lie, then it's reasonable to cheat"... when in fact the reasonable thing to do would be to break up with the monogamous person, and find a non-monogamous person.

He does not condone cheating though.. he just talks about the various dynamic of it and what usually happens (how cheaters operate if you will) when sex is being had, for the sake of it, outside the union.

He chose his words poorly then - he should have said something like "If the situation doesn't admit sex outside of the relationship without having to lie, what most people do is resort to cheating." Saying it's a "reasonable solution" is giving an opinion about it, and a positive one too.

[michelle23]

The main issue I have with these articles is that they imply that ALL men want variety which is not true. There basically telling women "give your man permission to cheat" so you dont lose him" and yes I found another article by the same guy saying that. That is what his book is about. So a woman reading this could become very insecure and assume that is what he wants so then tell him to go and do it and then he is confused thinking "I don't want to... wait a minute.. does that mean she wants to... crap i cant trust her.. break up" And at the same time she doesn't want that either so becomes even more insecure and resentment builds up.

Yes I know in a perfect world this couple would communicate and resolve it but IRL that doesn't always happen. Many couples don't communicate which is the number one reason for cheating and breakups in the first place

When you pile the whole human race into one box and tell them all "this is the way it is, this is how it should be and this is what you should do" its just gonna create more problems. Why cant theses so called "experts" stfu and let people make up their own minds about what they want/don't want. Its just another form of classical conditioning IMO

[horndog]

Michelle,

Is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAf72UkQluU

[michelle23]

very funny dog. twat

[Wakeup]

When you pile the whole human race into one box

What like you do Americans. O.O

I know I'm arguing with a wall but he is not lumping the whole human race into one box. It's you that reads it that way though.

BTW: @ Sea: he didn't say it was a "reasonable solution" he said it was a reasonable action." Big difference.

Bottomline: He's not condoning cheating. He's explaining the (sometimes) dynamics of it.

[Valixy]

That's a fascinating tale but that's all it is, a tale. There is no proof that Atlantis ever even existed and there is less than no proof that it's giving off some kind of energy for ancient societies.

And if Atlantis ever was real then it's final fate wasn't it's inhabitants fukking each other to the point of mass suicide, it was their island sinking into the ocean never to be discovered again.

Yes, science is still in its infancy. Intuition can guide one where science hasn't reached yet, even if the different levels of intuition that may be experienced, from the lowest to the highest, they all remain subjective until science can prove them valid.

Besides, even if I give your tale the benefit of the doubt it still leaves the concept and definition of "sexual excesses" in a limbo of arbitrary bias.

There is always an interior guide for everyone, it's just a question of recognising it and be willing to listen

[searock]

he didn't say it was a "reasonable solution" he said it was a reasonable action." Big difference.

Not with what I'm focusing on... emphasis is on "reasonable", not on "action" vs "solution". Saying that cheating in situations in which you can't have sex outside of the relationship without having to lie is something "reasonable" to do is giving a positive opinion about it... it's like saying that it's logical, it makes sense, like it really is the only option. It's a positive opinion, it's different from simply saying that "cheating is what happens in those situations and the reason is that the cheaters see no other option, apart from breaking up, which is something they aren't willing to do".

[Wakeup]

Sea: you're spinning it. What you're saying he said, (or implied) he did not. If he wanted to say it the way you're saying he "should" have said it, then he would have. To argue this without taking the entire article into consideration is as futile as the study he did on 120 boys who are young and full of cum.

[michelle23]

Its the same with you WU. Talking to a wall. From the way me and Sea read it, we both picked up that he was implying that cheating is okay. It doesnt really matter whether that is what he is trying to say or not coz we read it that way originally. You cant argue with that. If we picked it up that way-then many others would too. And it is a biased article which is why I refuse to even take into account what the author is trying to say. This study should have been done on 30 year old males and it should have been done on at least 1000 of them for it to be taken seriously. Of course a bunch of frat boys who are always on the hunt are not gonna think monogamy is the way to go. There are plenty of college boys though who have no interest in sleeping around. Again the author implies that all men want to bang as many as possible and we already know that is not true

[Wakeup]

Whatever, michelle. I'll argue this with Sea because she has the ability to see logic. You, you have tunnel vision on anything to do with cheating so Its like talking to a wall with you about that subject or anything relating to it. Poinint out where you are misguided only allows you to backtrack and cause annoyace so I'll not bother replying to the content of your last post at all.

[michelle23]

Searock is basically saying the same as me but you will debate with her but not me.. okay then.. you are always right of course

[Wakeup]

The difference is I enjoy debating with Sea. I'm right about what I said about you, yes.

[searock]

Sea: you're spinning it. What you're saying he said, (or implied) he did not. If he wanted to say it the way you're saying he "should" have said it, then he would have. To argue this without taking the entire article into consideration is as futile as the study he did on 120 boys who are young and full of cum.

I have to admit I haven't read the whole article, just the part that was quoted earlier. Maybe by putting that paragraph in the context of the complete article it becomes evident that the "reasonable" comment is just a way of saying that "cheating is what happens in those situations, and it makes sense for the people that do it because they won't take breaking up as an option".

Taken out of context though, it does seem like he's saying it's logical to cheat if you can't have sex outside of the relationship without lying, which is IMO like saying that cheating is understandable and expectable in such a situation. It's like he is entirely ruling out the option of breaking up, which is IMO the reasonable thing to do in those cases. Context is key I guess. In any case, had he chosen his wording differently, there would be no misunderstandings.

I enjoying debating with you too, Wakeup :-).

[horndog]

Michelle,

I can see why WU is so frustrated with you, you are a contradicting buffoon. In post 59 you said:

"This article proves nothing though. It was done on 120 young men in college whjch makes the whole thing biased and done just to prove HIS agenda. And much of it does imply that cheating is okay. He also implies that men crave variety due to watching porn."

You basically discounted your own source based upon what I had pointed out earlier regarding the pool surveyed as biased and agenda serving, yet you keep arguing the merits of the article that you just discredited. Nice work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAf72UkQluU

[michelle23]

Im not giving this article any merits dog. If you read my post correctly you would see i said this article is LOL worthy. I am not giving this author any credit whatsoever. I was giving WU an example of articles that i have read that i DISAGREE with.