![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 51. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 9:35:48
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » pinkeye, posted by Susan47 on March 26, 2005, at 7:53:35
What are your thoughts about the wives? The mothers of the men's children? Admittedly the first responsibility for fidelity within a marriage lies with the members of the marriage. But..
Well, if you ever become my husband's mistress, I'd appreciate a heads up. Perhaps not all wives agree. But if my husband is privy to all parties involved in our marriage, I'd like the same privilege.
Of course, I'd have to warn you that you were being ummm.... "invaded" by a space alien. One wonderful thing about being married to a guy who thinks very well of himself indeed is that he couldn't stand to do anything that didn't agree with his self image.
Posted by Tamar on March 26, 2005, at 19:49:52
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Susan47, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 9:35:48
I think this is an interesting area for discussion. I've read that it's quite common for people with certain kinds of trauma history to be quite promiscuous. Does that make a difference?
I'm certain that if my husband were unfaithful my reaction would depend entirely on the identity of the other woman. I would be upset if I felt it threatened my marriage (for example, if he fell in love with someone else). But if it's just friendly sex I wouldn't mind so much.
Maybe it's because I'm not naturally jealous, or maybe it's because I think my husband isn't likely to leave me because we have kids together. But I tend to think that sex is just sex and doesn't have to have some kind of cosmic significance. Am I odd?
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 20:12:11
In reply to Re: tis been awhile, posted by Tamar on March 26, 2005, at 19:49:52
I think if both parties agree, it's fine. As long as the kids don't get hurt. But I think it's very important that both parties do actually agree. So if you and your husband get together and say it's perfectly ok for you both if one or both of you have friendly sex with others, that's cool.
But I still don't think the other party should take one spouse's word for it. Spouses have been known to lie. I suggest a meeting where the whole thing is discussed openly and an agreement in principle is ironed out. That way no one gets hurt.
And hey, if a potential lover is willing to introduce you to his/her spouse and discuss planned activities, there can be no question of misunderstanding.
Posted by Tamar on March 26, 2005, at 21:21:28
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Tamar, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 20:12:11
I think you're right: both parties would have to agree. Having said that, I can't quite imagine *myself* in the scenario you suggest: with the meeting of other spouses and discussing planned activities! It sounds very sensible in principle. I think, though, that if my husband were going to have friendly sex with someone I'd rather not know about it. But if I found out about it, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
And although I talk about my husband doing it, I can't quite imagine myself having friendly sex at the moment, unless I could do it in the dark without taking my clothes off (not feeling very confident about my attractiveness right now!).
Seriously, though, even having a discussion beforehand might not cover all the bases, because people's feelings can change, and being sexually intimate with someone might lead to a more powerful emotional connection than anyone expected. I suppose that's why infidelity is considered so socially unacceptable even in this permissive age.
Posted by Susan47 on March 26, 2005, at 21:57:55
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Susan47, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 9:35:48
I'll tell you this; I have trouble with my identity. Just so you know. So I will definitely switch from this to that on some things. Sometimes those things that I'm not always sure about agree with what you feel, and sometimes they don't. But don't believe that there is only one side or one way to view ANYTHING. Please. And if you feel that way, don't castigate me for the way I feel. Because Dinah, I have reasons for feeling the way I do. I have reasons for believing what I believe. Sometimes the experiences are personal, and sometimes they're from reading or knowing someone dear and precious to me, and sometimes it's a combination of all three.
Please try to be tolerant of me. I know it isn't always easy for you. It isn't black and white for me. I hope, really, that most things in life will always have the possibility of changing shades.. because I never want to stop growing, inside.
Posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 22:40:52
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 26, 2005, at 21:57:55
I don't feel intolerant, Susan. And I have no desire to castigate you.
But I'm a wife, you see. So I can't agree with blanket statements that infidelity is A-OK. Not if both parties in a committed relationship aren't in agreement that it's A-OK with them.
That doesn't mean that I have any particular feelings about any particular infidelities.
Just very particular feelings about the general idea.
And infidelities involving my husband, or my therapist if they also involve a patient (otherwise it's between him and his wife). And perhaps one involving friends who are hurt by infidelities. Which has happened. But I've also had friends who have hurt their spouses with infidelity. I'm not sure I've ever had close friends who had infidelity in the marriage, but no one was hurt. But if it ever did happen, I wouldn't have a single thing to say about it.
Posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 0:21:09
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Susan47, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 22:40:52
Show me my "blanket statement that infidelity is A-OK".
Please try and be a bit more objective, Dinah. This is a bit insulting IMO.
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 0:29:46
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 0:21:09
I didn't say you did make such a statement.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted by what I did say.
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 0:40:36
In reply to Re: tis been awhile, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 0:29:46
Hmmm... Not sure whether elaborating would be harmful or helpful.
But for the record, I stayed out of this conversation until I read the last sentence in this post.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/475650.html
I'm not directing my remarks *at* anyone. Just giving my own take on that last sentence. In that sense I'm being totally objective in that I'm not talking about you or Pinkeye or anyone else. Just weighing in that I don't think affairs are acceptable unless they are acceptable to *both* parties of a marriage. It's a general statement, not a person specific one.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 1:24:10
In reply to Re: tis been awhile, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 0:40:36
I seem to remember a similar thing coming up over on relationships a while back...
And a thread over on psych about fallen...
I think it is best for me just to butt out.
I don't wanna get in trouble :-(
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 10:21:13
In reply to Re: deep breaths everybody..., posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 1:24:10
It's pretty much a philosophical discussion for me, Alex. Which is one reason I moved it away from the other thread. I don't think philosophical discussions should start out as a personal post. But I suppose I should have moved it to relationships. Even I get confused. :)
It's based on two premises. One is that a marriage (or any other committed relationship) is based on a covenant between two people (or three, or seven, or whatever). And that it is reasonable for both (or all) parties of that covenant to believe that, as a minimum, it includes an implied promise to quit dating others. And that if that covenant is to be altered to include having sex with others, it should be amended fairly explicitly so that a new covenant is made (or the original covenant is understood if it was that way from the beginning).
The second premise is that a committed relationship usually comes along with an agreement that it is no longer necessary to have "safe sex". And so it is only fair to both parties to know where the penis that is entering them, or the vagina they are entering, has been. So that both parties can affirmatively assent to the level of risk they have the opportunity to relatively accurately assess.
And I suppose there is a third premise in there as well. That although the main responsibility for a covenant is between the covenantal parties, it is in the best interests of society as a whole if people outside the covenantal relationship have some respect for it and both parties concerned. Which is true in business law too.
Can't get much more cerebral than that.
Posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:34:01
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Susan47, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 22:40:52
From your post: "So I can't agree with blanket statements that infidelity is A-OK. Not if both parties in a committed relationship aren't in agreement that it's A-OK with them."
I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Who were you talking to and what statement were you referring to, specifically?
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 12:40:01
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:34:01
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050316/msgs/476106.html
Posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:50:14
In reply to Re: tis been awhile, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 0:40:36
All right, Dinah, I think I understand what you're saying. And I agree that with some people, it definitely is acceptable to both. I'm not the type of person who ever wants to hurt anyone, although I know I do. And even though I don't know if I can ever be with anyone always, I guess that's my problem, really, I can see where an interim relationship with a married man can help me and him; and maybe, if the wife finds sex with her husband a chore (which I did with mine, hm-hm and quite honestly I would've been okay with him taking it elsewhere; I even told him so, and quite honestly, if we'd both been happy sexually with others because we couldn't do that with each other, maybe we'd still be co-parenting our children in the same household; the strain of having sex with someone I didn't really want was just too much and I had to leave; I'd have sex with him because I felt guilty NOT; how can that be satisfying to a man? Is it fair? I know it certainly wasn't fair to me, to feel like I had to have sex with him when I really did not want to).
In any case, as I've already said, I have trouble with identity issues so this may always be a problem for me. I suspect the reason I want to have an "affair" is so that I won't be completely known ... I may never be the type of woman who can completely be with a man .. so those infrequent passionate nights, the stolen moments, the knowing/not knowing one another, are very very attractive to me ... and I am sorry if you felt threatened by my attitude.
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 12:58:03
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:50:14
I don't feel at all threatened, Susan.
I am completely confident in my husband's fidelity. And I trust my therapist to not have sex with a client, which is all that matters to me with him. Why would I feel threatened?
If my husband were not the man he is, it might be different. But if he weren't the man he is, I wouldn't have married him, so I still wouldn't feel threatened.
Integrity is the sexiest quality a man can have.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 14:37:22
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:50:14
Yeah, I think I get what you are saying Susan. I also agree with Dinah's posts and the reasons she gave. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone either.. But then it is true that I do sometimes. I don't know. It is a hard one.
Posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 13:58:58
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Susan47, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 14:37:22
Well, since my post has caused so much of confusion, I think I should clarify what I meant by the sentence "it seems acceptable to me"
I don't have a hard stance one way or the other w.r.t affairs. Generally, I prefer no affairs. Personally, I think I would never ever have one myself, even if I lust someone out of my marriage. I always seem to be able to control myself very well - atleast in actions, if not in thoughts and feelings.
At the same time, I also can see very compelling situations people can be in sometimes, and how affairs might save their lives - in some cases even the marriage, or if it is the right thing to happen, or even dissolve a marriage which is not a right one to begin with.
AS with anything, it is a very subjective thing - you have to weigh in a lot of factors - how good both the husband and wife had been to each other, how long the affair was, was one of the spouses abusive to the other spouse which prompted this affair, was it just a one night temporary sexual fling, was there a pattern of cheating etc etc. If a person has an affair intending to hurt his or her partner, it would be really bad. If a person really is in a situation where he/she cannot help it and needs some vent and solace and sought it in an affair - like if one of the partners is constantly ill and the other spouse never has a satisfying sexual relationship and needs some temporary vent - that kind of thing seems ok to me.
Having a thoughtless affair just to satisfy your curiosity would be bad - but when you are so much caught in some situation and you need some vent to survive yourself - that seems ok.
I don't necessarily agree with the partner knowing everything. If my husband ends up having an affair, I would like if he keeps it to himself rather than come and tell me (unless of course if it is a long standing one and he wants to dissolve the marriage. I really wouldn't want to know if he has a one night stand somewhere - and expecting him to have taken care w.r.t STD s)
But these are all my mind talking. My heart might be different - I have never felt very possesive about my husband, but I have felt possesive about other people in my life and had I been married to one of them, an affair on their part might have just killed me. Maybe after a few years of marriage and some more emotional involvement in my marriage, I might end up taking the same stance with respect to my husband also.
Posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 14:47:31
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by Susan47 on March 27, 2005, at 12:50:14
>>I suspect the reason I want to have an "affair" is so that I won't be completely known ... I may never be the type of woman who can completely be with a man .. so those infrequent passionate nights, the stolen moments, the knowing/not knowing one another, are very very attractive to me ... and I am sorry if you felt threatened by my attitude.
Susan,
I used to think like this too - that all these not full availability and secrecy and not knowing was very attractive - but slowly I am realizing that availability and stability is what is attractive and beautiful. I wouldn't want to sleep with a man who wouldn't be available fully for me.. I used to think I would be ok with it before - but now, I am not interested in partial flings any more. I really want someone who is as interested in me as I am in him and who is fully availble to me. But I think it is a progress that I made with therapy.. as my self respect and esteem increased, my desire for all these half-way-flings decreased a lot. I agree there is lot of thrill in it, but there is lot more thrill in really knowing a person inside and out and knowing that he will be there for you no matter what, and in falling in love and staying with that person. And many times I used to equate pain and longing and suffering with beauty before. Now I equate beauty with happiness and fulfillment and stability and peace. That was a huge step for me. Now I think all this pain and longing and everything is very ugly and that makes me move away from it as fast as I can. It is only construction that is beautiful - destruction is momentary and can be done any time. No effort is required for that.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:43:10
In reply to Re: tis been awhile, posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 13:58:58
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 19:47:03
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » pinkeye, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:43:10
yeah i guess. I never take a hard stance on any ethcial issues in life.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:51:03
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 19:47:03
ethical or moral?
There's a big difference.
I try not to take stands on moral issues. I figure those are between me and God, and others and whoever.
I try always to take stands on ethical issues. I can't imagine life without a stance on ethical issues. It is simply beyond my comprehension.
Posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 20:14:44
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » pinkeye, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 19:51:03
I don't know the difference too much. I think they are both highly interwined. But ohter than murder and rape and crimes like that and intentional hurting too much of other people, almost everything else can be justified given appropriate circumstances..
Even stealing can be justified in some circumstances, if the person who steals is stealing for his own hunger. Certainly adultery and things like that could be justified if the situation is compelling enough.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 20:35:50
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 20:14:44
How many people is too many?
Posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 20:53:20
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » pinkeye, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 20:35:50
Meaning? How many people for what?
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 21:30:27
In reply to Re: tis been awhile » Dinah, posted by pinkeye on March 28, 2005, at 20:53:20
I'm sorry. It's not important. I was just curious about what you said and how you thought, that's all.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.