There's always Skype.
Also, on a more humorous note, my work frequently requires travel too, but my SO is a very good shot. ;)
RPG Superstar 2013
|
For both of you: I gave an opinion. It is not less judgmental to opffer my opinion about amrriage and what makes it good, than for you to respond my opinion by asking how I can conclude thusly. I am amazed at your capacities to look for reasons to take offense.
For example, I am not on anyone's wife's case. I was asked an opinion. THen someone offered their opinion and I disagreed. I feel a marriage is a commitment. I feel attempts to say that one person's type of commitment is different from another's is rationalization. You are either committed to someone or you are not. I didn't pass any laws that say you have to agree.
This is social dialogue these days: if someone disagrees with you, their offense is grounds to take it personally or put words in your mouth.
I believe open marriages aren't commitments. Some of you disagree. Everyone gets it. No reason for any of us to (a) get upset with each other, or (b) take it personally,as if my comments about marriage have at all been directed at anyone personally.
I see the open relationship approach has already been addressed and not overtly derided.
Then again, it works in my relationship, and everyone handles boundaries, possessiveness, and control differently.
Your mileage may vary.
For me personally, staying true to my wife has never been an issue. I've always lived by the addage, it's ok to window shop, but NEVER, EVER TOUCH THE MERCHANDISE!!HAHA! I like this. :P
As a colleague of me once put it: It is ok to whet your appetite, but you eat at home. (I wanted to say something about eating out, but this might have been a double entendre.)
As long as you are only looking (and to be honest, most men can´t help but look at every attractive woman), everything is fine. "Head cinema" is all right, I guess.
Stefan
If you solemnly vow to forsake all others before witnesses, till death do you part... what kind of person does it make you if you then chase after others? I am not talking about loyalty, I am not even talking about how much you hurt someone, I am talking about failing to live up to what you yourself set up.
It would have been more understandable if people married only for economic reasons. This was the norm for a very long time in western civilization, and indeed extramarital affairs were a part of life. It would even be somewhat understandable if you had no right to divorce your spouse, after all, people change, and what was right at 20 might not be close to right after 45. But divorce is hardly uncommon these days. Marrying someone is something you do because you WANT to be with that person.
The end result is that if you break that promise to yourself, you would then know that you are a person that should never be trusted. If people knew about it, you should not expect them to take your word for anything, want to risk working with you, and so on.
Of course, not every marriage sets limits, and some might be okay with that. Just expect problems in the marriage to become far, far worse if they come. Also, different people have different concepts of infidelity. Is watching pr0n being unfaithful? Is hugging? Is kissing? Is sex? Is secrecy, i.e. meeting another woman/man personally without the spouse knowing? My point is just that no matter what your interpretation is, you yourself will know when you have crossed the line.
|
For both of you: I gave an opinion. It is not less judgmental to opffer my opinion about amrriage and what makes it good, than for you to respond my opinion by asking how I can conclude thusly. I am amazed at your capacities to look for reasons to take offense.
For example, I am not on anyone's wife's case. I was asked an opinion. THen someone offered their opinion and I disagreed. I feel a marriage is a commitment. I feel attempts to say that one person's type of commitment is different from another's is rationalization. You are either committed to someone or you are not. I didn't pass any laws that say you have to agree.
This is social dialogue these days: if someone disagrees with you, their offense is grounds to take it personally or put words in your mouth.
I believe open marriages aren't commitments. Some of you disagree. Everyone gets it. No reason for any of us to (a) get upset with each other, or (b) take it personally,as if my comments about marriage have at all been directed at anyone personally.
When someone says that our marriage isn't real, then yes we take offense. Same as you would, without having to go looking for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Again, sir. I gave an opinion on marriage. I didn't say "your marriage isn't real". If I say Keynes was a pseudointellectual hypocrite, I don't necesarily mean all Keynesians are pseudointellectual hypocrites.
I suppose I could just not take up the position of moral objectivism. Maybe all who disagree with you ought not voice their opinions just in case you choose to personalize the remarks and make the conversation about you. To refute your claim about how I'd respond, if you say monogamy is counter to species development, I can argue without assuming that you said "Steve's marriage is un-natural and hurtw the gene pool."
I'm not a stranger on here. Someone asks aboutmarriage, I am going to respond with a Biblical perspective. I am going to acknowledge up front that if I am not in the minority, I will certainly not be voicing the ony perspective. So, I respectfully ask in the future you just assume my opinion is not a personal attack on anyone in specific. WHen I feel the need to single someone out, I promise to be very clear about it. : }
Let's leave John Maynard Keynes out of this, shall we?
|
|
And once again I tell you why it was taken offensively. If I were to say to you, "In my opinion your marriage is a joke." that would be taken by you as insulting. I'm not picking a fight here, just pointing out why it was taken as so. And trust me, when I want to lash out at someone, I'll be more than clear on the matter.
|
Personally, and I know this is a relatively unpopular opinion, I believe that monogamy has a higher tendency to failure due to its contention with human biology. I would not enter into a relationship that is purely monogamous, as I believe that a person who is willing to do so is, at their core, lying to themselves about their feelings and desires.
I was going to reply to this thread, but I was happy to see this viewpoint expressed, which intersects precisely with my own.
The fact that temptation is experienced by pretty much all people should go a long way toward indicating that monogamy is not the "default setting" for human beings.
Personally, I have chosen to get married, and honor my vows. But with that said, I fully recognize that in so doing I am fighting tooth and nail against my own biology. I admire the viewpoint that says that doing so is intellectually dishonest (although I'd hope for similar respect from people in the other camp on the grounds of my own position being a relatively herculean task, which it is).
Personally, and I know this is a relatively unpopular opinion, I believe that monogamy has a higher tendency to failure due to its contention with human biology. I would not enter into a relationship that is purely monogamous, as I believe that a person who is willing to do so is, at their core, lying to themselves about their feelings and desires.I was going to reply to this thread, but I was happy to see this viewpoint expressed, which intersects precisely with my own.
The fact that temptation is experienced by pretty much all people should go a long way toward indicating that monogamy is not the "default setting" for human beings.
Personally, I have chosen to get married, and honor my vows. But with that said, I fully recognize that in so doing I am fighting tooth and nail against my own biology. I admire the viewpoint that says that doing so is intellectually dishonest (although I'd hope for similar respect from people in the other camp on the grounds of my own position being a relatively herculean task, which it is).
Thats why some of us are confirmed bachelors. I couldn't remain "faithful" with a gun to my head.
When you give your word and make your vow then honor it but for folks like me no ring = no cheating.
|
|
When you give your word and make your vow then honor it but for folks like me no ring = no cheating.Funny, but I get A LOT more looks/flirting from women when they see the ring on my finger - even moreso than when I was single, younger, and in much better shape. Go figure.
This is certainly true. It's also true that when you have a shared moment with someone who is also wearing a ring, there's a sort of shared misery in that moment that actually makes it harder to resist the temptation. All of which goes further to my statement that monogamy is not our default setting.
fear of castration. ;)
Personally, I have chosen to get married, and honor my vows. But with that said, I fully recognize that in so doing I am fighting tooth and nail against my own biology. I admire the viewpoint that says that doing so is intellectually dishonest (although I'd hope for similar respect from people in the other camp on the grounds of my own position being a relatively herculean task, which it is).
Hmmm...You actually make a very good point, and make me see that my initial statement was too harsh. Considering that you acknowledge it, I would say that you are not dishonest.
What really sets me off is the idea that being in a committed relationship means that you should not have feelings for anyone else, and that if you do, you don't actually love the person you're with.
To give a kind of off-kilter example, House season 1 episode 7 "Fidelity". That episode makes me rage. I appreciate that the writers of the show don't take the "monogamy is good no matter what" line. (For those not familiar: dude finds out dying wife cheated on him due to what medicine worked and left her while she was still in the hospital.)
I understand that some people will choose to fight their own biology to be with someone who desires monogamy. But if you don't understand that it *will* be a fight, then...at best, you're going to have a rough time of it.
When you give your word and make your vow then honor it but for folks like me no ring = no cheating.Funny, but I get A LOT more looks/flirting from women when they see the ring on my finger - even moreso than when I was single, younger, and in much better shape. Go figure.
There is a lot of that going around. I've known single guys who wear a wedding band clubbing because it works for them.
There is a lot of that going around. I've known single guys who wear a wedding band clubbing because it works for them.When you give your word and make your vow then honor it but for folks like me no ring = no cheating.Funny, but I get A LOT more looks/flirting from women when they see the ring on my finger - even moreso than when I was single, younger, and in much better shape. Go figure.
One reason for that is that a man who was viewed as being fit for marriage by one woman is probably good "material" for any kind of relationship, and thus, not entirely unattractive to other women.
On a purely biological level, men try to spread their genes as far as possible, while women look for a "provider". A married man is probably a better provider than a single. I know full well that human beings don´t function on a purely biological level, but it is IMO a stronger force than commonly acknowledged.Stefan
Blah blah blah. Yes, men and women have different psychological tendencies, based in biology. However: Modern society, including good birth control, has given women far more options than earlier generations might have had. The consequences of this are obvious in every modern woman's life: You can have a rich and varied sex life without risking pregnancy and disease, and you no longer need to be tied down in monogamy to have sex.
Ideas of "the provider" are today only male fantasies, and at heart it is a pretty rotten one. Is the limit of your aspirations to have people depending on you for their livelihood?
The truth is rather simpler: One woman has already quality controlled this man. This means that he is likely not dangerous to be around. Otherwise, this is always a concern. Another point in favour is that the man has everything to lose. If a woman starts a relationship with a married man, a simple phone call can destroy much of his life.
fear of castration. ;)
Please do not take this as a personal attack, but if one is in a relationship and has a fear of castration, one is already well and truly emasculated already. :D
fear of castration. ;)
thats funny, My dad never had any fear of my mom hurting him when any of his women got uppity because he knew she needed his paycheck.
She would beat the crap outta any of his women that dared come to the house and once she even drew down on one with a loaded 30/30 but she never took it out on dad.
Like she told me when I asked her about why she didn't leave him. "those dumb heffers are doing all the work and I get the house,you kids and security" It was a strange relationship my parents had but it worked for over 35 years.
I have heard of women beating on their men like what willie nelsons wife did by wrapping him up in his bedsheets while he was passed out drunk and clobbering him with a baseball bat, and of course the infamous bobbits but women actually being violent to their men just seems stange.
fear of castration. ;)Please do not take this as a personal attack, but if one is in a relationship and has a fear of castration, one is already well and truly emasculated already. :D
Oh very true, I was just interjecting some humor in to a thread that had seemed to get a bit too serious of late. :D
+1 to that. My Mom had breast cancer, but she was lucky enough to have it caught early. My Step mom died from throat cancer that had spread. I for one wish you the best. My thoughts and prayers are with you.No apologies needed, or warranted. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.I can say, from being on the other end of a question on an "open" marriage, that you need to be very careful how you broach the subject. I know it works for others, but it was obvious when my husband was asking me that it would just be for him.
As you can imagine that didn't go over well.
Marriage is tough, without a doubt, but we make a promise to care for each other in "sickness and health." I know I'm not the same person he married, but ongoing cancer treatment (probably permanent -- I'm one of the "lucky" ones) means that I'm not as sexual as I was. And I can't help that!
(sigh) I apologize for the bitterness....
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.+1 to that. My Mom had breast cancer, but she was lucky enough to have it caught early. My Step mom died from throat cancer that had spread. I for one wish you the best. My thoughts and prayers are with you.No apologies needed, or warranted. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.I can say, from being on the other end of a question on an "open" marriage, that you need to be very careful how you broach the subject. I know it works for others, but it was obvious when my husband was asking me that it would just be for him.
As you can imagine that didn't go over well.
Marriage is tough, without a doubt, but we make a promise to care for each other in "sickness and health." I know I'm not the same person he married, but ongoing cancer treatment (probably permanent -- I'm one of the "lucky" ones) means that I'm not as sexual as I was. And I can't help that!
(sigh) I apologize for the bitterness....
You're quite welcome, and welcome to the Paizo boards.
Blah blah blah. [...]
Ideas of "the provider" are today only male fantasies, and at heart it is a pretty rotten one. Is the limit of your aspirations to have people depending on you for their livelihood?
Wow. How you get the idea that I´m a classical macho is beyond me. Nice wording to boot. I did put the quotes there for a reason and thought I put it clearly that I do know that human beings are not as simple as that. For the record, if my wife would depend on me as a provider, I would not have married her. I love how you make assumptions about my aspirations based on a few words.
The truth is rather simpler: One woman has already quality controlled this man. This means that he is likely not dangerous to be around. Otherwise, this is always a concern. Another point in favour is that the man has everything to lose. If a woman starts a relationship with a married man, a simple phone call can destroy much of his life.
Do you generally think that all men are potentially dangerous? If so, what makes you think so? And quality control? I don´t think this is an fitting expression concerning human beings.
Stefan
Because superglue is always on sale and I have to sleep sometime. ~grins and winks~
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.+1 to that. My Mom had breast cancer, but she was lucky enough to have it caught early. My Step mom died from throat cancer that had spread. I for one wish you the best. My thoughts and prayers are with you.No apologies needed, or warranted. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.I can say, from being on the other end of a question on an "open" marriage, that you need to be very careful how you broach the subject. I know it works for others, but it was obvious when my husband was asking me that it would just be for him.
As you can imagine that didn't go over well.
Marriage is tough, without a doubt, but we make a promise to care for each other in "sickness and health." I know I'm not the same person he married, but ongoing cancer treatment (probably permanent -- I'm one of the "lucky" ones) means that I'm not as sexual as I was. And I can't help that!
(sigh) I apologize for the bitterness....
Anytime. Cancer is nasty and even more so without any support.
You're quite welcome, and welcome to the Paizo boards.
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.
You're quite welcome, and welcome to the Paizo boards.
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.
Dohp!
I saw 25 posts, and I wanted to be hospitable.
No offense intended.
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up on my faux pas Uri.
Because superglue is always on sale and I have to sleep sometime. ~grins and winks~
thats just a plain ol' mean thing to do to a guy.
You're quite welcome, and welcome to the Paizo boards.
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.Dohp!
I saw 25 posts, and I wanted to be hospitable.
No offense intended.
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up on my faux pas Uri.
Ninja, I suspect. :p
You're quite welcome, and welcome to the Paizo boards.
Thank you both Sharoth and Bitter Thorn for your kind thoughts!! It really does mean a lot.Dohp!
I saw 25 posts, and I wanted to be hospitable.
No offense intended.
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up on my faux pas Uri.
None taken, I assure you. :) I lurk A LOT and post very little.
Which reminds me, I have a lot of questions on CotCT that I should post...
My dad cheated when I was 8. It was the recession of the late 80s, Mom and Dad were saddled with an unexpected 3rd child, my little sister was doing very poorly in school, and Mom was making our clothes to save money so we could eat. I was eight, my sister was 5, my brother was 2.
Mom asked us, flat out, whom we would want to go with if mommy and daddy got a divorce. Remember those ages up there.
Because Dad was at work all day and stressed whenever he was at home and Mom was always around we did the stupid thing every young kid does. We all said we wanted to go with mommy.
That's why my parents didn't split up. They decided to move halfway across the country and start over. Made arrangements, looked at houses, secured jobs, decided on Columbine, Colorado. (I was class of 2000, funny that.) And then we didn't move.
Dad's retired and stays with Mom out of habit and for the antidepressants. Mom was addicted to vicodin for a bit and now takes things out on her students.
Even when things turn out fine, they still suck. If monogamy is for you, stick with it. If monogamy isn't for you, don't pretend. Pretending ruins lives, even if it's just your own.
You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s~@~. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s&!&. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
Well, for as many bad men there are out there, there are just as many bad women too. Just be careful as to what comments you make. The fact that you said that comment speaks volumes about what you think of men. Not all of us are like that.
|
|
Well, for as many bad men there are out there, there are just as many bad women too. Just be careful as to what comments you make. The fact that you said that comment speaks volumes about what you think of men. Not all of us are like that.You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s&!&. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
I was going to comment as well. I didn't find someone until I was nearly 30 and it wasn't for lack of trying. And I can't even count the number of times I heard "you're such a good friend". I even had some women tell me afterward that they didn't know how to handle a guy actually being nice to them. And seeing who they ended up with explains that.
I travel a LOT on business, but so far it's been ridiculously easy for me not to cheat.
1. I've seen a lot of people set themselves up with excuses in advance, so that they can rationalize doing it later. You know, "men are weak" and all that kind of crap. I don't do that.
2. I'm not rich or powerful or charming or well-connected or particularly brilliant. I'm not even very tall. But I keep my word. That's pretty much what I've got in this life, and I don't aim to trade it in cheaply.
You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s&!@. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
Well, if your opinion of men generally is on that level, I can only feel sorry for you. I have no idea of your background or past experiences, but be assured, calling somebody s##& is no way to endear you to anyone, even on a messageboard. This saying is demeaning, and I take offense at that. You know, you reap what you sow. If you think that all men are dirty pigs bent on demeaning women, you will of course find tons of proof and blind yourself to any evidence to the contrary.
And still, quality control applies to items, not persons.
Stefan
Well, for as many bad men there are out there, there are just as many bad women too. Just be careful as to what comments you make. The fact that you said that comment speaks volumes about what you think of men. Not all of us are like that.You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s&!&. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
I was going to comment as well. I didn't find someone until I was nearly 30 and it wasn't for lack of trying. And I can't even count the number of times I heard "you're such a good friend". I even had some women tell me afterward that they didn't know how to handle a guy actually being nice to them. And seeing who they ended up with explains that.
+ 1 to the line, "you're such a good friend"...I now charge a dollar when some tart of mine is saying that.
36 and still unmarried.
|
You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s~&*. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
Let me ask you a question if you removed the qualifier men and changed it to women. Would you find that offensive?
We all make mistakes in life but I think you comments are out of line and perhaps made because of personal experiences and you should think on that before judging others.
Well, for as many bad men there are out there, there are just as many bad women too. Just be careful as to what comments you make. The fact that you said that comment speaks volumes about what you think of men. Not all of us are like that.You know, there is a saying: Men are like toilets, either taken or full of s&!&. Now ask yourself, which of those categories would you want to search for a prospective affair?
Yeah, quality control IS a relevant concept.
+1
Before I got married most of my close friends were female, so I know exactly how scandalous women can be. Men do not have a monopoly on being unfaithful or selfish or just all around bad partners.
|
|
joela (OP),
There is lots of good advice on this thread, particularly on the first page. Being away from your partner for either long periods, or frequent shorter periods, can be tough.
I don't travel for my job much, but my wife has been in Japan for over a month visiting relatives with my 6-month old son. I'm alone at home with an empty bed every night. How do I do it? I have pre-arranged call nights for either the telephone or Skype. OMG, how I love Skype! Just seeing her face, and my son's face, makes all the difference. What else do I do? I masturbate. Now, if you're religious this may be against your code. Then I would suggest prayer, confession, or whatever spiritual outlet you can find. Faith can be wonderful for so many different things.
I do not have any marriage vows or oaths. I got married in a city hall, writing my name on a piece of paper. Hmm, now I can't think why I wrote that. Well, oaths work for many people. While I don't have an oath, I have my integrity and my love.
One of the best pieces of advice on this thread is: Think about how you would feel if your partner cheated/had sex with another on you. If you have a closed relationship, this works. If you have an open relationship, this works. Put yourself in their shoes and soul search.
Good luck, and I hope to hear from you again. I'd like to know if this is helping.
Cheers!
Oh very true, I was just interjecting some humor in to a thread that had seemed to get a bit too serious of late. :Dfear of castration. ;)Please do not take this as a personal attack, but if one is in a relationship and has a fear of castration, one is already well and truly emasculated already. :D
Just wanted to make sure - Poe's law has been kicking my butt lately.
Plus, I work with a rather sizable number of individuals who live under a lash. I'm by no means a hypocrite on such matters - my wife and I are equally free to have fun with whom we choose, with the primary requisite of not bringing anything bad home. By the same token, however, we tend to be more likely to play with people who work for u both. Not everyone can work with that, and I can respect that.
My main thing is people who set themselves up for what is, essentially, unnecessary misery. If you want mutual exclusivity, then make sure you're happy with the concept. If such is not optimal for one's lifestyle, then there shouldn't be any dismissive attitudes towards those who can make things work for them.
It bothers me nearly as much as multiple-divorcees screaming about the 'sanctity' of marriage, and denying it to others, but that's a derail for another time.
As to the comment about men earlier, I just want to point out that I never once said or implied that women were one whit better. And if you changed my comment from men to women, I would say that's probably true. However, women have more to fear from the truly bad men when flirting, than men have to fear from bad women in the same situation - usually. Something like, you know, physical strength and all that.
I understand that you don't like that comment, but that doesn't change the fact that a man that has been accepted by a woman for marriage most likely is less dangerous than one who hasn't, purely on average. Like it or not, that is quality control. If you object to this process and reasoning, please tell me how you think women should screen away the bad apples when flirting.
Oh, and as regards "let's just be friends", well, that is a pretty bad thing to say. Once romantic interest has come into a friendship, and been stated, there can no longer be a friendship there. Most women feel bad for making that clear, thus, "let's just be friends".
|
|
Firstof all, I think generalizations about a gender are as dangerous as generalizations about a skin colour, a religion or a nationality. But this:
I understand that you don't like that comment, but that doesn't change the fact that a man that has been accepted by a woman for marriage most likely is less dangerous than one who hasn't, purely on average. Like it or not, that is quality control. If you object to this process and reasoning, please tell me how you think women should screen away the bad apples when flirting.
isn't even remotly true. Just a fair warning: Do not live by that philosophy, you might get hurt, and I don't mean by the wives or ex-wives in question. Almost everyone I know who's working in the field of victim protection is sure that there are more cases of sexual assault and physical assult within relationships than not.
Many cases of child abuse originate from the parents, usually the father.Women's shelters in germany are unable to cope withe the number of women trying to get out of abusive relationships since the late 70's.
As far as I know of about 10% of american and european households are known to the police for domestic violence, social workers assume that these cases make up for only abou 40% of the actual cases.
Sorry, but just because another woman picked the apple that doesn't mean it is less rotten.
As to the comment about men earlier, I just want to point out that I never once said or implied that women were one whit better. And if you changed my comment from men to women, I would say that's probably true. However, women have more to fear from the truly bad men when flirting, than men have to fear from bad women in the same situation - usually. Something like, you know, physical strength and all that.
I understand that you don't like that comment, but that doesn't change the fact that a man that has been accepted by a woman for marriage most likely is less dangerous than one who hasn't, purely on average. Like it or not, that is quality control. If you object to this process and reasoning, please tell me how you think women should screen away the bad apples when flirting.
Oh, and as regards "let's just be friends", well, that is a pretty bad thing to say. Once romantic interest has come into a friendship, and been stated, there can no longer be a friendship there. Most women feel bad for making that clear, thus, "let's just be friends".
gah...which is why most of the phone calls with said tarts is usually when they are at their end of the rope. "I have no one else to turn to."
makes you feel good about yourself for saying every bit of the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes everything.
Just because most man-woman violence happens within relationships does not mean men suddenly get more violent for getting married. =) Chatting up someone you don't know is a severe risk situation.
Personally, I don't do sex with married men even so. If it's one thing you can be sure of, it's that they are untrustworthy. I am perhaps more sensitive about that than some.
And no, I do not generalize about a certain sex; I believe equally little of both.
|
Firstof all, I think generalizations about a gender are as dangerous as generalizations about a skin colour, a religion or a nationality. But this:
I understand that you don't like that comment, but that doesn't change the fact that a man that has been accepted by a woman for marriage most likely is less dangerous than one who hasn't, purely on average. Like it or not, that is quality control. If you object to this process and reasoning, please tell me how you think women should screen away the bad apples when flirting.
isn't even remotly true. Just a fair warning: Do not live by that philosophy, you might get hurt, and I don't mean by the wives or ex-wives in question. Almost everyone I know who's working in the field of victim protection is sure that there are more cases of sexual assault and physical assult within relationships than not.
Many cases of child abuse originate from the parents, usually the father.Women's shelters in germany are unable to cope withe the number of women trying to get out of abusive relationships since the late 70's.
As far as I know of about 10% of american and european households are known to the police for domestic violence, social workers assume that these cases make up for only abou 40% of the actual cases.
Sorry, but just because another woman picked the apple that doesn't mean it is less rotten.
Generally the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is the time period after a break up. Most murders / rapes / and extremely violent assaults occur then. A ring isn't much of a vetting process.
|
Just because most man-woman violence happens within relationships does not mean men suddenly get more violent for getting married. =) Chatting up someone you don't know is a severe risk situation.
It doesn't mean they get less violent when they get married either.
I knew your 'quality control' statement rang false for some reason. The flaw is, there is no guarantee that the wife has quality standards. She could be a bag of issues herself, unable to pick a decent, caring husband.
So having an affair with a married man is hardly any safer on average than with any other guy at a singles bar. You don't know them, or how they may behave.
And saying the married man has more to lose, and the woman can ruin him, is a good way to end up dead if the man decides he can't run the risk of her ever telling.