SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

For the love of god, he was obviously paraphrasing! I understood that was what he was doing at the time and I assume anyone else who is unlucky enough to be following this thread understood what he was doing.

Paraphrasing does not include making something sound worse than it is.

For the love of god, he was obviously paraphrasing! I understood that was what he was doing at the time and I assume anyone else who is unlucky enough to be following this thread understood what he was doing.

Ha, honestly didn’t even consider that paraphrasing. I truly thought Thumos possibly said it. Until he said otherwise.

I think my ability to pair-bond has been reduced due to this thread.

Lol, -20 Celsius around these parts, Ellie. Yeah...this is fine!

I truly thought Thumos possibly said it.

Thumos wasn't even positive that he didn't say it. Which is kind of the point - he didn't need to say it. The message was loud and clear.

I think my ability to pair-bond has been reduced due to this thread.

Haha, mine too.

Omg, if that is loud and clear, how can we ever say anything at all? I’m not exaggerating.

Thumos wasn't even positive that he didn't say it. Which is kind of the point - he didn't need to say it. The message was loud and clear.

Sounds like a good reason to lie to me!

I don't want to be something I am not in order to be more attractive to the opposite sex. (Well, I am married so that might be easy to say). My history is my history. I will share it, and it will be honest. If the other person doesn't like it, I don't see that as a defect in me, I see it as a lack of compatibility with that other person.

Well said. I'm single and it's still easy to say.

I think this thread has caused an epiphany. After 15 years I think it may be time to retire from this venue. 34 pages (and counting) of back and forth, some insults, many generalizations. I believe this place is now pretty much the same as any other social media site. That's not an indictment, it's just the way it is.

By all means, carry on!!!

Thumos wasn't even positive that he didn't say it. Which is kind of the point - he didn't need to say it. The message was loud and clear.

No, it's that I've been gaslit so much that my self-confidence is shot and I never want to say never until I have empirical proof now. But thanks for the psychoanalysis anyway.

Can I just say, from a social science/psychology standpoint, this whole thread is really pretty fascinating; just how differently the sexes communicate and how different people see/hear different things. For the last several pages I have been talking in my head about it like a nature program narrated by David Attenbourough.

Loukas, bundle up buttercup!

Actually I just realized this making up something I said and then accusing me of a thoughtcrime when I was genuinely confused and hoping I would never have said something like that ... was definitely an online form of gaslighting. Wow. That's quite a revelation. I really hate gaslighters. Lowest of the low. If there's one thing being a betrayed spouse has taught me it's that gaslighters are sucky sucky people.

So at this point all I’ve got is this.

5

If you are a man, you seen the number 4.

If you are a woman, you seen the number 6.

Some of might have crossed over, but if any of you seen 5 you don’t belong in this thread.

Finding someone who shares your values is very different than saying "I can do this, but you can't because you are a woman" And that's where the problem comes in.

OK, I just have to ask. Would it be OK as a gay man to say while I was promiscuous, I would not want that in a partner? At least I'm not shaming women in that case. Because, to me, that's what this is really about, it's hard to seperate for me, because, of course, I like women, but what I'm really saying is that, in my partner, I want that type of behavior (which, yes, is not the same as mine was in the past).

"I can do this, but you can't because you are a woman"

You CAN do it. In fact, it's going to be a lot easier for you to do it than me. But, yes, you're going to pay a higher price for it. A price that I did NOT set. And we all know this to be true, which, of course, is why this thread set off a s*8tstorm. No, it's NOT FAIR. Along with a million other things that aren't fair. And it's not ME who's saying this, I honestly don't and never did have this issue when dating. But I'm a bit of an outlier on this, I know I am, because, I, like apparently others (judging by the harshness of the reactions) have heard guys say "I'm not dating her, she's a slut". Yeah, it's a thing. Yeah, I think it's a silly reason not to date someone. But people care. Men and women, both care. And yes, men typically care more than women, but not always. And I just fail to see what's wrong with that.

If you feel like it’s difficult for your schedules to match up, if maybe you like softer bodied women. Or maybe you find them on a whole to be too intense and you like someone with a lighter spirit.

But if you objection is to a woman being an athlete- and it should be for you as a male only- then yeah that’s sexist.

We're saying the same thing. I'm not sure anyone said, "I object to women having sex with lots of guys" or "sex with lots of people should be only for men". We're close to 1000 posts in, but I'm pretty confident I didn't say that. I certainly don't feel it's wrong for women to have sex with lots of guys (be an athlete), but, at the same time, I know there are a lot of guys who don't want to date a women who's done that (is an athlete) even though they are "athletes" themselves. It's the same thing, and we can come up with lots of reasons like you gave above (intensity, softer bodies, etc) where a guy would make that decision for himself. He might like playing football for hours on end, but NEVER want to date a female football player (actually, this is kind of good example, because I do know some guys who are just like this, spend 6 hours a day in the gym, but would never date another bodybuilder). Does that make him a hypocrite? I'm not even sure anymore, but, in my eyes, no, not at all. He's not making a moral judgement on bodybuilding, in fact, he enjoys it himself greatly. He just doesn't want to date someone else who enjoys it. Not because he's better than them (he IS them), it's just not his preference.

Your analogies, once again, do not really make sense here.

I think that may be because the conversation barely makes sense, but, by all means, draw your own analogies and clear it up. That's not said in jest or as a poke, it's said in earnest hope that you can come up with one that ties it together for all of us.

I don't understand that, but if you are okay with it that's fine. So are you saying that if you didn't have the high paying job she wouldn't like you as much? I am not sure that's hypocritical, but it's shitty. It would mean she sees your value in your wallet rather than somewhere else. If you are okay with that, then that's okay I guess, but I would not be okay with that.

Of course she wouldn't like me as much. Now, how much less? IDK, 1 point on a 1-1000 scale or 10 points on a 1-10 scale? Who knows. But of course it's important to her, just like my humor is important to her and her looks important to me. And yes, there's more double standard for you; I put a higher standard for her on getting ready to go out than I do myself. Frankly, because it's not possible to put the same standard on myself (no makeup), but also because I value her beauty more than she values my handsomeness. And she values my income more than I value hers. That's fine, right? Or do I need to learn to put on mascara and spend 3 hours getting ready to not be a hypocrite?

Hey Sal, quit being such a Judgy McJudgerton!

Thumos, quit judging me for being a Judgy McJudgerton! How...human of you!

Thumos, I'm genuinely sorry you have a past history of being gaslit. This, however, is not that.

With that, I'm out.

RIO, it's not your observation of the baser aspects of human nature that gets under my skin. It's your shrugging about it and repeated insistence that lifting a single finger to change it is pointless. Sure, you could challenge the behavior of the toxic bros you work with, but it would be tilting at windmills. (Editor's note: this is a summary of my understanding of RIO's position and not a direct quote.) Attributing prejudices to a biological imperative has been instrumental in perpetuating generations of misogyny, racial inequality, and gay persecution. There are so many oppressions that people have sighed and said it might be regrettable, but what can you do, it's just history and biological instinct at work. It isn't true. If you see something that sucks, the way to change it is to be among the people who stand up and say "no more." Just because it's always been this way does not mean it has to stay that way.

And now, the "little RIO" example is the saddest and most telling of anything I've seen you write. As a parent, your job is to instill the values you want your children to take out into the world. You're not helplessly boxed in by the exact question your kid asks you. You have the option to challenge his goal of obtaining a person as if she is an object, a status symbol like a gold watch or a fast car. This was the first time that I really thought, "All these disclaimers that he doesn't approve of that antiquated system don't align with his action plan: get a high paying job to buy a beautiful woman, and then teach your kid to do the same." That sure doesn't sound like advice from someone who reviles the system and wants to see it end. That's the plan made by someone who is counting on that system remaining the status quo and then teaching his child how to perpetuate it.

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 6:05 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]