Cheating Hurt by Infidelity
Betrayal Wayward Donations lying
Welcome

Forums

Guidelines

Find a Local Counselor

The Healing Library

Media

Contact Us
lies
cover
In Association with Amazon.com
Support
Infidelity -
-
like us on facebook
You are not logged in. Login here or register.
[Register]
Newest Member: Clorissa (44728)

General Post Reply     Print Topic    
User Topic: T/J from Recon forum about monogamy
Williesmom
♀ Member
Member # 22870
Default  Posted: 3:11 PM, June 16th (Sunday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Now that I'm single, I guess you would say that I'm an ethical slut also ( thanks, sister for the definition!)

I blame my wxh's A's on our current society. Hungry? Go to McDonald's. thirsty? Drive thru beer distributor. Need to call someone? Whip out your cell phone. Need a plunger at 2am? Walmart.

We are conditioned to expect instant gratification. My wxh didn't want to work for anything-he expected instant personal happiness-no matter the cost or expense to me. Because he deserves to be happy.

FTG


You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister. -George Costanza
There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. - Madeleine Albright

Posts: 7564 | Registered: Feb 2009 | From: Western PA
SisterMilkshake
♀ Member
Member # 30024
Default  Posted: 3:17 PM, June 16th (Sunday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

You're welcome, Williesmom. There is a book out called "The Ethical Slut" which talks more about polyamory, open relationships and such. That is not the way I use the term "ethical slut" at all.


BW (me) 50ish FWH 50ish
Married 34 years, 3 children
d-day 3/10 LTA (4 yrs./fucking & flirting)

"Oh, why do my actions have consequences?" ~ Homer Simpson
"She knew my one weakness: That I'm weak!" ~ Homer Simpson


Posts: 9543 | Registered: Nov 2010 | From: The Great White North USA
StillGoing
♂ Member
Member # 28571
Default  Posted: 3:40 PM, June 16th (Sunday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Actually, physics very much explains cars crashing into telephone poles. In fact, it's the very demonstration of it. The driver's condition is absolutely a factor but the laws are in play every where in that example.

No, it's not a valid demonstration since the driver needs to meet the necessary conditions to personally create the situation. Otherwise physics doesn't care, because physics is just there.

Artificial selection for promiscuity or blue eyes doesn't cement its place as morally acceptable simply for existing, either, but the evidence for blue eyes as an inherited trait is readily available where the concepts of promiscuity and monogamy are not so easily laid out in the same way.

eta:

wrt research saying there are 80% of marriages affected by infidelity, I would immediately question the methodology of that research, and while the population of SI is near 100% (not 100%), that's an excellent demonstration of sampling bias.

[This message edited by StillGoing at 3:42 PM, June 16th (Sunday)]


“Fate is a fickle bitch who dotes on irony.”

Posts: 7431 | Registered: May 2010 | From: USA
20WrongsVs1
♀ Member
Member # 39000
Default  Posted: 8:10 PM, June 16th (Sunday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

How does looking at an epidemic to suss through common themes and identify weak areas assigning blame?

UO, this is why:

I blame my wxh's A's on our current society


fWW: 42
BH: 52
Sweet DS & fierce DD, under 10
"Between stimulus and response there’s a space, in that space lies our power to choose our response, in our response lies our growth and our freedom." V. Frankl

Posts: 1111 | Registered: Apr 2013 | From: Redneck land
716dayslost
♂ Member
Member # 11536
Default  Posted: 9:55 PM, June 16th (Sunday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

IMHO...
We as human beings have primal characteristics in out nature.
Whether you belive in faith or science exclusively, one thing is absolute. We choose our actions. Other than bodily functions such as breathing, heart pumping blood, etc, our actions are by choice.
Any type of voluntary sexuality performed by humans is by choice. To claim otherwise is a cop out. We also choose to enter into agreements, contracts, covanents, etc. If you have a physical affair that violates your M, you chose that action.
To me it is a total cop out to claim otherwise. Do I think that there are natural forces in play, societal pressure, that push us one way or another? absolutely.
But I am monogamous by choice. I chose to take my marital vows seriously.


You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down

Posts: 1576 | Registered: Aug 2006 | From: New York
aesir
♂ Member
Member # 17210
Default  Posted: 4:17 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Evolution is not to blame for people cheating on their partners any more than physics is to blame for people getting drunk and crashing their vehicles into telephone poles.

Actually, physics very much explains cars crashing into telephone poles. In fact, it's the very demonstration of it. The driver's condition is absolutely a factor but the laws are in play every where in that example.
No, it's not a valid demonstration since the driver needs to meet the necessary conditions to personally create the situation. Otherwise physics doesn't care, because physics is just there.No, it's not a valid demonstration since the driver needs to meet the necessary conditions to personally create the situation. Otherwise physics doesn't care, because physics is just there.

Artificial selection for promiscuity or blue eyes doesn't cement its place as morally acceptable simply for existing, either, but the evidence for blue eyes as an inherited trait is readily available where the concepts of promiscuity and monogamy are not so easily laid out in the same way.

Evolution doesn't care either, it's just there. And much like physics, it can be pretty brutal on the individual. Whether you are drunk or sober, neither physics nor evolution care, they each have their own mechanism for punishing those who transgress against their own amoral rules. All any of us can do is try to live within the guidelines, lest we become candidates for a Darwin award. Evolution is certainly responsible in part for adultery, as sexual reproduction is in fact an evolved trait, and is not present in the earliest life forms which reproduced asexually.

I blame my wxh's A's on our current society. Hungry? Go to McDonald's. thirsty? Drive thru beer distributor. Need to call someone? Whip out your cell phone. Need a plunger at 2am? Walmart.

We are conditioned to expect instant gratification. My wxh didn't want to work for anything-he expected instant personal happiness-no matter the cost or expense to me. Because he deserves to be happy.


Not so sure about modern society. I don't recall ever hearing of a society without adultery. It seems that from the time "Though shalt not commit adultery" made the top ten, it was almost immediately reinterpreted as not as a prohibition on adulteration, such as the prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy on mixing seeds, livestock in the field, or wearing clothes of mixed fibers. Many biblical heroes were quite guilty of adultery, promiscuity, and bigamy.

we like to look at pieces of the evolutionary equation, not the whole thing. Human young take 10-15 years to reach something close to physical maturity. Early humans had nothing to gain by simply spreading as much seed as possible.
Expanding one's gene pool involved seeing to it that one's offpring lived, was fed, was raised to an age where they could reproduce and further spread said genes. Given that human offspring take a tremendous period of raising, male would pick females who they beilieved up to the task and females chose males who could hunt for them and the offspring, protect, provide.

This effort took a lot of time. Having loads of freetime to go sow seed to create more and more and more offspring at once doesn't necessarily make evolutionary sense if none of your offspring live to maturity cuz nobody is providing for them.


This could be an argument for an evolutionary imperative to keep adultery a secret. One could have children with one partner that seems advantageous while duping another into providing the labor required to ensure their survival.

Any type of voluntary sexuality performed by humans is by choice. To claim otherwise is a cop out. We also choose to enter into agreements, contracts, covanents, etc. If you have a physical affair that violates your M, you chose that action.
To me it is a total cop out to claim otherwise. Do I think that there are natural forces in play, societal pressure, that push us one way or another? absolutely.
But I am monogamous by choice. I chose to take my marital vows seriously.

Pretty much sums it up.

Biologically I believe we all have a natural inclination towards sexual activity, and that natural inclination is not really all that concerned with morals, nor very particular about who it is with. Most of us have been raised with the idea of monogamy, but the cultural imperatives alone are not sufficient to enforce the idea. We also learn about successful relationships through experience (and observation if we are lucky). Some people have a harder time learning these lessons, while others can learn them early enough in life that their mistakes don't really matter. Any boy who liked (and could not decide between) two girls in junior high or late elementary should have been able to figure out from their reactions that adultery would not be a good idea, long before they understood what adultery was. Pretty sure that's how I first started to sort this shit out.

ETA:

Are we really saying that this is how we've "evolved"? That healthy adult (Mostly) men are such slaves to their sexual desires they can be "happily married" but cheat because the desire for some strange is overwhelming? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit of the highest order, IMO, and I'm very sorry for anyone who's been sold that bill of goods.

Not that it is overwhelming, just that it exists. Some have learned the lessons, others still need to, or temporarily forget.
I am a recovering addict. I have almost 5 years of sobriety, and I still miss getting high. I miss that anticipation, the moment of using, and the rush when it hits. I didn't get high yesterday, and as long as I keep doing what I've been doing, I won't get high today. And if I keep doing what I've been doing, the chances are pretty good that I won't ever feel that anticipation and rush again.

And I am okay with that. Because I understand that if I use again, it will be at a cost that is unacceptable to me.


And you seem to have the point I am making figured out in relation to one vice already. Many people, whether it is with regards to drugs, alcohol, or some strange do not have that understanding yet, and sadly some never will.

[This message edited by aesir at 5:32 AM, June 17th (Monday)]


Your mileage may vary... in accordance with the prophecy.

Do not back up. Severe tire damage.


Posts: 14924 | Registered: Nov 2007 | From: Winnipeg
uncertainone
♀ Member
Member # 28108
Default  Posted: 8:34 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

No, it's not a valid demonstration since the driver needs to meet the necessary conditions to personally create the situation. Otherwise physics doesn't care, because physics is just there.

Well, last I checked every drunk driver doesn't drive into telephone poles. Some actually make it home safely.

Newton's Third Law

For every action their has to be an equal opposing reaction. If the car hits the pole, the pole also has to hit the car. When cars drive on roads roads "push" back. Say the road is wet. Friction is reduced. Road can't "push" back equally on all the tires. Car loses control.

Condition of driver may affect. Laws of physics apply regardless.

Like I stated. Some drunks make it home safely. Some broken people don't cheat. There are many things that factor into the choice.

Some may not be "wired" for monogamy. Then don't get married. I would imagine if they did it wouldn't end well and probably hasn't.


Me: 37

'til the roof comes off. 'til the lights go out. 'til my legs give out, can't shut my mouth


Posts: 6795 | Registered: Mar 2010
WhatsRight
♀ Member
Member # 35417
Default  Posted: 8:42 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

I think it all boils down to this...

There are plenty of men (and women) who choose to NOT be monogamous. That is their right.

I just don't want to be married to them.


"Noone can make you feel inferior without your concent." Eleanor Roosevelt

I will not be vanquished. Rose Kennedy


Posts: 1889 | Registered: Apr 2012
7yrsflushed
♂ Member
Member # 32258
Default  Posted: 8:47 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

I haven't read the entire thread yet but as a man, the original premise is complete bullshit. It's pretty damn simple, man or woman, if you wnat to fuck a ton of people then do so. It's your business. HOWEVER, if you tell someone you are in a committed relationship or get married then you turn your damn "skittles card" in and no longer have the right to fuck the rainbow. If you do want to continue fucking the rainbow then man or woman up and tell your significant other that you want out of the relationship.

The last time I looked free will and our abililty to think rationally was located in our brains not our penises or vaginas. You can science it up and test it up all you want. It's a choice to go around sleeping with everyone. I'm not knocking it, if that's your choice then tell your partner so they can exercise THEIR choice of whether to sleep with you or not.

[This message edited by 7yrsflushed at 8:50 AM, June 17th (Monday)]


D-day 5/24/11
BH = Me
2 children
The first true sense of calm I felt in YEARS was when I filed for D...
D hopefully official any day now, off to check the mail again.

Posts: 1899 | Registered: May 2011 | From: VA
uncertainone
♀ Member
Member # 28108
Default  Posted: 8:50 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Aesir, you're hilarious!

Many biblical heroes were quite guilty of adultery, promiscuity, and bigamy
.

Oh, and don't forget incest. Busy little suckers.

Sex, or the drive to have it may be a biological imperative, but if the desire to procreate were so innate in men you'd think there would be lines around the block at sperm clinics.

It's the process that seems the lure, not the result. And yeah, the process does have supporters. Me for one. Huge supporter and I'm a woman. Sex feels good. Some don't have problems feeling good with one person, some have curiosity about others and not the emotional make up for connection and stability being with one person provides.

Not every culture views monogamy as a virtue.

Regardless. If two people make that choice, which I'm also a strong supporter of, staying faithful is crucial to making that choice strong, healthy, mutually beneficial if both parties agree that fidelity is critical for that choice.


Me: 37

'til the roof comes off. 'til the lights go out. 'til my legs give out, can't shut my mouth


Posts: 6795 | Registered: Mar 2010
StillGoing
♂ Member
Member # 28571
Default  Posted: 10:23 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Evolution doesn't care either, it's just there. And much like physics, it can be pretty brutal on the individual. Whether you are drunk or sober, neither physics nor evolution care, they each have their own mechanism for punishing those who transgress against their own amoral rules. All any of us can do is try to live within the guidelines, lest we become candidates for a Darwin award. Evolution is certainly responsible in part for adultery, as sexual reproduction is in fact an evolved trait, and is not present in the earliest life forms which reproduced asexually.

Yes, that was my point. Saying we evolved to cheat is an overly simplistic way to look at things.

Well, last I checked every drunk driver doesn't drive into telephone poles. Some actually make it home safely.

Newton's Third Law

For every action their has to be an equal opposing reaction. If the car hits the pole, the pole also has to hit the car. When cars drive on roads roads "push" back. Say the road is wet. Friction is reduced. Road can't "push" back equally on all the tires. Car loses control.

Condition of driver may affect. Laws of physics apply regardless.

Like I stated. Some drunks make it home safely. Some broken people don't cheat. There are many things that factor into the choice.

Some may not be "wired" for monogamy. Then don't get married. I would imagine if they did it wouldn't end well and probably hasn't.

I honestly don't see where you're going with this so I'll take my best guess and assume you believe that some people are hard wired to cheat and associate promiscuity with that, and use Newton's mechanics to illustrate that.

I am not arguing that these things don't happen. I am skeptical of the applied associations. That some drunk drivers make it home safely does not argue for the idea that driving drunk is a safe action.

Evolution, like Physics, are governing laws we use to measure and understand the universe. They apply in every situation according to the situation. Yes, fine. Assign physics as the cause to your car exploding, go for it. It's the same dead end reasoning in both circumstances.

People cheat. People are promiscuous without cheating. The two are not necessary to each other, so even if people are "wired" to be promiscuous it does not necessitate that infidelity follow. Further, we understand the mechanisms of physics and don't say "That happened because that's how things work" even if it is a true statement. With this particular scenario, the conclusion is not so cut and dry as a formula like F=MA. We understand the mechanisms of selection in this circumstance but it's not conclusive that is the case, and saying "we evolved that way" is not a correct statement.

Even if it is a correct statement, this particular process of evolution is artificial selection, not natural selection, which means we have as much control over how we reproduce in a social construct as we do over our choice not to kill babies that aren't ours. Also, even if some people are "wired" for infanticide, that still does not require a social acceptance of those actions, as was the point of my original response.

Finally, the crux of this as far as I am concerned is a false association. An inclination to promiscuity is not an inclination to infidelity any more than high speed transit is an inclination to irresponsible driving.


“Fate is a fickle bitch who dotes on irony.”

Posts: 7431 | Registered: May 2010 | From: USA
tryingmybest2011
♀ Member
Member # 32584
Default  Posted: 11:04 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Evolution is not to blame for people cheating on their partners any more than physics is to blame for people getting drunk and crashing their vehicles into telephone poles.

Hmmm. UO, I interpret this to mean that the choice to get drunk and get in your car and drive (and subsequently crash) is not caused by physics, just as the choice to cheat (and subsequently crash) is not caused by evolution. Based on that interpretation, I agree with the statement.

We have a lot of evolutionary and biological drivers for our behaviour, sure. Some of our social conventions fall in line with those, and some challenge them.

To me, if you don't want to, are not capable of, or don't support the conditions that are part of marriage (and I'm specifically talking about mutually agreed-upon monogamy), then don't subscribe to it. Don't sign up for it. Reneging on that marital contract is not a evolutionary issue. Whether or not the human animal has tendencies to have multiple partners is irrelevant to me, because I subscribed to the idea of marriage, which supercedes the need for extramarital partners. If I go back on that contract, I become that broken/asshole/entitled/insert-adjective-here , not just a natural human playing out my instincts.


BS: me - 37
WH: him - 37
DD: 8
DD: 11 mos

Married over 9 years, together for 18.

DD#1: 12/12/10 - LTA of 3 years, 2 mos.
DD#2: 02/02/11 - 2 EA/PA with coworkers, a month after the LTA was ended (by OW).

In limbo.


Posts: 323 | Registered: Jun 2011 | From: Ontario Canada
uncertainone
♀ Member
Member # 28108
Default  Posted: 11:05 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

That some drunk drivers make it home safely does not argue for the idea that driving drunk is a safe action.

That was not the comment. The comment was "blaming" physics was faulty in the case of the drunk hitting the pole. Well, blaming being drunk for hitting the pole is dicey logic as well. Following that logic you'd have to credit being drunk for arriving home safely.

Look, my point was if "you're" discussing why one persons WS cheated that's one thing. If discussing the infidelity problem as a whole using simplification is a mistake, in my view, because all the pejoritives used to describe cheaters can also exist in the non cheating population as well.

While may be contributory factors, reducing one of the most violent acts you can commit on a relationship and another individual to simple "pop offs" deminished the true horror of it and also limits the recovery. After all, if those perjoritives are in fact true in every situation reconciliation would be a very bad idea, I'd think.


Me: 37

'til the roof comes off. 'til the lights go out. 'til my legs give out, can't shut my mouth


Posts: 6795 | Registered: Mar 2010
aesir
♂ Member
Member # 17210
Default  Posted: 11:38 AM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Looking back at the beginning of the sub thread here...

Both physics and evolution are clearly involved in the respective issues. If we ignore a key factor in the problem, we will devise solutions for the problems that are sub optimal.

In the case of driving, physics and motor neuro control are the big issues. It is only safe to drive when ones neuro motor control is functioning sufficiently that one can operate a vehicle without exceeding the the parameters defined by physics. A simplistic answer like don't drive after drinking takes pretty much all of us off the road, if we ever get on the road, as I know I drank before I had a drivers licence. A proper course of action involves understanding the interaction of alcohol, motor control, physics, and a few other things.

Similarly, if we ignore the traits that have resulted from evolution, we are left to conclude that people must be either irredeemable, or simply driven to adultery by demons and can be "cured" via excorcism. I'm not to keen on writing off over half the population, nor in being married to a cheater whose only work on themselves has been purging evil spirits by inhaling the sacred smoke of the cannabis plant.


Your mileage may vary... in accordance with the prophecy.

Do not back up. Severe tire damage.


Posts: 14924 | Registered: Nov 2007 | From: Winnipeg
StillGoing
♂ Member
Member # 28571
Default  Posted: 12:25 PM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

My original post to the subject was this:

That's kind of like saying stars evolved to destroy planets IMO.

Sexual selection for promiscuity traits don't make sense to me, but a lot of that field - evolutionary psychology - is based on correlation rather than evidence. Even so, the field also discusses things like infanticide. To put it simply, a genetic predisposition to something is not an immediate conclusion to its status among the social constructs of Wrong or Right. Killing babies because they aren't male is something we consider wrong in our society.

Everything else aside, evolution does not yield optimal results. Even if promiscuity is a genetic predisposition it could be considered a handicap similar to an inability to make vitamin C. If we're talking about sexual selection as a social construct, it is baffling to me how the idea of promiscuity would be the argued-for trait in tribal structures when promiscuity generates conflict while monogamy generates cooperation.

Evolution is not to blame for people cheating on their partners any more than physics is to blame for people getting drunk and crashing their vehicles into telephone poles.

I don't see why or how it got to suggesting I am writing off the involvement of evolution entirely. I'm not writing off the involvement of physics in a car crash, either.

Look, my point was if "you're" discussing why one persons WS cheated that's one thing. If discussing the infidelity problem as a whole using simplification is a mistake, in my view, because all the pejoritives used to describe cheaters can also exist in the non cheating population as well.

The discussion I was involved was this:

Are we really saying that this is how we've "evolved"? That healthy adult (Mostly) men are such slaves to their sexual desires they can be "happily married" but cheat because the desire for some strange is overwhelming? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit of the highest order, IMO, and I'm very sorry for anyone who's been sold that bill of goods.

I'm not involved in a discussion about pejoratives as they apply to the population at large. I was participating in a discussion re: men evolving into slaves of their own dicks. If you want to tell me I'm a slave to my dick thanks to evolution because the pejorative applies to me even though I didn't cheat, fine, whatever. I don't understand the direction you're trying to take this and I'll repeat my statement that I am skeptical of the assignation of blame, not the existence.

eta:

Additionally this:

That was not the comment. The comment was "blaming" physics was faulty in the case of the drunk hitting the pole. Well, blaming being drunk for hitting the pole is dicey logic as well. Following that logic you'd have to credit being drunk for arriving home safely.

Does not work, because we understand the chemical effects of alcohol on the brain and how it reduces awareness and impacts judgement. You can assign it as such but that would be correlation, and a perfect example of over simplifying something by looking at a single piece of the whole and assigning an incorrect cause.

[This message edited by StillGoing at 12:32 PM, June 17th (Monday)]


“Fate is a fickle bitch who dotes on irony.”

Posts: 7431 | Registered: May 2010 | From: USA
silverhopes
♀ Member
Member # 32753
Default  Posted: 9:36 PM, June 17th (Monday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

Neither physics nor evolution were ever my strong suit, so unfortunately all the smart arguments ^^^^ passed over my head but this seems about right to me:

It's pretty damn simple, man or woman, if you wnat to fuck a ton of people then do so. It's your business. HOWEVER, if you tell someone you are in a committed relationship or get married then you turn your damn "skittles card" in and no longer have the right to fuck the rainbow. If you do want to continue fucking the rainbow then man or woman up and tell your significant other that you want out of the relationship.
The last time I looked free will and our abililty to think rationally was located in our brains not our penises or vaginas. You can science it up and test it up all you want. It's a choice to go around sleeping with everyone. I'm not knocking it, if that's your choice then tell your partner so they can exercise THEIR choice of whether to sleep with you or not.

Telling someone you want an exclusive relationship with them and then screwing around anyway... Well, that's pretty crappy to lie to your partner and say you're someone you're not. And if you genuinely believed it when you got in your relationship that you would remain monogamous and then didn't... You find out how crappy it feels to have lied to yourself as well.


Find peace. Or sleep on it.

Infidelities are like icebergs - they may take many different shapes and sizes, but they all damage your ship.


Posts: 3902 | Registered: Jul 2011 | From: California
HFSSC
♀ Member
Member # 33338
Default  Posted: 9:15 AM, June 18th (Tuesday), 2013View ProfileEdit MessagePrivate MessageHomepage

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I appreciate all the responses.

I guess for me, what it boils down to is that I can accept that there are physiological reasons why "strange" can be so appealing and attractive. But it is abhorrent to me that someone would use that as their excuse to stray while insisting that they are "happily" married. Especially because the BS rarely seems to buy into that idea.

The potential for harm is just so huge, and the cost unacceptable. If only a WS on the slippery slope could see that before making choices that can't be undone.


Me, 47
Him, 40 (JMSSC)
married 17 years. In R. We are making it. The past does not define who we are today.

Posts: 2709 | Registered: Sep 2011 | From: South Carolina
Topic Posts: 37
Pages: 1 · 2

Return to Forum: General Post Reply to this Topic
adultry
Go to :
madness  
© 2002 - 2014 SurvivingInfidelity.com. All Rights Reserved.