A dangerous relationship?

[MacGuffin]

DowntownAmber - This is a public forum designed for discussion amongst members of what is posted here. You posted. We discussed. *shrugs* Seems reasonable.
Rope monkey posted a question and invited opinion. Mandy responded answering his question. That seems reasonable. You gave a brief answer to rope monkey's question before tearing into mandy's opinion. Whether or not that is reasonable is quite another matter.

DowntownAmber - but if your vanilla girlfriend is still hurt and opts to walk out the door on you, are you really going to be more satisfied alone with your "definitions" of righteousness?
Yes I will be better of without her. If the slightest hurt to means she walks out the door then it's clear we were not compatible and it was only a matter of time before she walked. Nobody knows mandy's rl partner better than she does and in her view it's not a problem. I don't see how anyone, not knowing mandy's partner, is in a position to dispute her judgement.

Ragoczy - Since your original post wasn't clear that all parties are aware -- in fact, the impression I got was that they weren't -- then it's natural that those who object to that would question it.
Personally if something is not clear to me I request clarification then base my opinions on the subsequent clarification. That seems a more natural way to go for me than simply assuming then condeming a person for something they never said. Guilt by "impression" is a dangerous road to go down.

DowntownAmber - No, of course you can't. But shouldn't they have the option to decide? When did it become okay for one person in the relationship to dictate what the other "needs to know?"
Come down from those ivory towers for a second. When I go to to the pub and ogle at the barmaids tits should I come back home and tell my woman what I did because I don't have the right to dictate what she "needs to know". Get real!

Human relationships are based on trust and a degree of privacy. In mandy's view her ol relationship does not detract from her rl one. End of story. If her rl partner does not share her view or trust her then compatibility and trust will come up sooner or later in another area. Heaven forbid she has her own private bank account.

DowntownAmber - And a lie by deliberate omission is still a lie.
There is a difference between omitting a key detail when one is being asked and simply not raising the topic in the first place. Did Clinton lie when he omitted to mention the fact that Monica had been going down on him. The Senate obviously didn't agree with your deliberate omission is still a lie theory else they would not have acquitted him of perjury.

There are many important relationships not just romantic ones. There is the relationship and obligations to parents. I wonder how many people on this site have omitted to tell their parents about their bdsm activities. Presumably thats a lie and it's not okay for thm to dictate what their parents "need to know".

Rope monkey - Does anyone here believe you can explore one side of your sexuality online without it being an affront to the sexuality of your r/l partner?
Mandy was kind enough to answer rope monkey's question but because she had the audacity to express a view other didn't agree with she is lynched by the righteous mob. Hardly the way to encourage a broad view of opinions is it, crucify anybody who dares to have a different view.

Rope monkey, I'm sure you will excuse me if, for obvious reasons, I do not give you my response to you question.

[IAmCanadian]

DowntownAmber - No, of course you can't. But shouldn't they have the option to decide? When did it become okay for one person in the relationship to dictate what the other "needs to know?"
Come down from those ivory towers for a second. When I go to to the pub and ogle at the barmaids tits should I come back home and tell my woman what I did because I don't have the right to dictate what she "needs to know". Get real!

That's not the same thing. If you want to start a thread about whether clandestine tit-ogling is kosher, then be my guest. I'm starting to figure out how things work around here- you just take the other guy's position, describe the worst possible implementation of it (one that no right thinking person would try), and then argue against that, instead of against his original point.

So in this case, instead of talking about "needs to know" re: infidelity and affairs, we get the tits example. Not that I object to any mention of breasts.

DowntownAmber - And a lie by deliberate omission is still a lie.
There is a difference between omitting a key detail when one is being asked and simply not raising the topic in the first place.

For the purposes of covering up an affair, there certainly isn't. Do you think it's any less of a betrayal if your spouse doesn't think to ask about it? This statement is just wrong.

Did Clinton lie when he omitted to mention the fact that Monica had been going down on him? ... The Senate obviously didn't agree with your deliberate omission is still a lie theory else they would not have acquitted him of perjury.

This is a bad argument.

Whether it was a lie or not, I don't think anyone would dispute that Clinton's act was infidelity. Are you trying to use THIS case of all cases to prove your point? You couldn't have picked a worse example. Nobody out there is walking along saying to themselves: "Bill never cheated on Hilary, he just omitted the truth of all the blowjobs he was getting in the Oval Office."

It doesn't matter if omission is technically a lie according to the Ye Olde Oxford Fuckinge Englishe Dictionary, or by any legal statute. There is no legislating affairs of the heart. If it's the same act, and if it hurts your partner the same way, it's still betrayal. Having been found out, is the plan to trot your high school english teacher over to your devastated spouse, and have him make the case that it wasn't a lie, but an omission? I'm sure that will be great solace to her while she's chucking your clothes all over the front lawn.

Oh well- failing that, maybe you can get the Senate to convince her.

Rope monkey - Does anyone here believe you can explore one side of your sexuality online without it being an affront to the sexuality of your r/l partner?
Mandy was kind enough to answer rope monkey's question but because she had the audacity to express a view other didn't agree with she is lynched by the righteous mob. Hardly the way to encourage a broad view of opinions is it, crucify anybody who dares to have a different view.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what happened here.

- FS

[Ragoczy]

DowntownAmber - This is a public forum designed for discussion amongst members of what is posted here. You posted. We discussed. *shrugs* Seems reasonable.
Rope monkey posted a question and invited opinion. Mandy responded answering his question. That seems reasonable. You gave a brief answer to rope monkey's question before tearing into mandy's opinion. Whether or not that is reasonable is quite another matter.

I think it's reasonable to give your own opinion and respond to the opinions of others -- much as you just did. It seems somewhat disingenuous to question whether responding to someone other than the original poster, who you happen to disagree with, is reasonable at the same time you're doing it.

For someone asking a question like rope monkey's, disagreement, even heated disagreement, is valuable to see, because it gives one the real sense of how people, including rope monkey's partner, may feel and react to a topic. Denying the questioner that is a disservice.

We should all be sweetness and light and say "oh, honey, just do what makes you happy and what you think is right" -- then when the partner finds out and explodes the poor questioner is left thinking "but so many people told me it was okay"?

Do that and they might as well close up shop for everything but the Fun & Games posts, because the site'll be useless to anyone who actually wants the whole spectrum of opinion.

DowntownAmber - but if your vanilla girlfriend is still hurt and opts to walk out the door on you, are you really going to be more satisfied alone with your "definitions" of righteousness?
Yes I will be better of without her. If the slightest hurt to means she walks out the door then it's clear we were not compatible and it was only a matter of time before she walked. Nobody knows mandy's rl partner better than she does and in her view it's not a problem. I don't see how anyone, not knowing mandy's partner, is in a position to dispute her judgement.

I think the essence of so many posts on this topic has been simply that while you may consider it a "slightest hurt", the person's partner may consider it a major betrayal -- and their feelings and response should be considered.

There are two people involved in any relationship and that means making accommodations for how the other sees things as well. If the two views are incompatible, then the two people probably shouldn't be together -- but to simply ignore the other person's views as unworthy of consideration shows a singular lack of respect.

How would you view a dominant who told his partner "I know you have a hard-limit against piss-play, but I like it and I think it's 'slight' so I'm going to do it anyway"? This community would "tear into" such a person and "crucify" him -- one only needs to look around the forums to see such.

Why should the non-BDSM partner's limits be any less respected?

Because the limit is unvoiced? Nonsense -- some limits are implied, even in BDSM and traditional relationships don't explicitly state their limits ... should they be ignored simply because it isn't the common convention to state them?

Because it isn't physical harm? Again, nonsense -- because a BDSM limit on verbal humiliation causes no physical harm, but would still be considered wrong by the BDSM community.

Trust, consent and respect of a person's limits -- so important in the BDSM realm, but okay to ignore if the person being harmed is not a member of our community?

Ragoczy - Since your original post wasn't clear that all parties are aware -- in fact, the impression I got was that they weren't -- then it's natural that those who object to that would question it.
Personally if something is not clear to me I request clarification then base my opinions on the subsequent clarification. That seems a more natural way to go for me than simply assuming then condeming a person for something they never said. Guilt by "impression" is a dangerous road to go down.

I count five questions posed in this thread toward that post, two personal opinions in opposition and one partial agreement. The closest I see to "condemnation" is a comment that something is "a little counterproductive". One would have to be pretty touchy, I think, consider that condemnation.

Regardless, the post in question said nothing about the partner's knowledge or agreement, only statements that "I decided", "I wrestled with", etc. Nothing like "we talked", "we decided", "he agreed" -- I stand by my statement that the conclusion was reasonable, especially in the context of a discussion like this.

DowntownAmber - No, of course you can't. But shouldn't they have the option to decide? When did it become okay for one person in the relationship to dictate what the other "needs to know?"
Come down from those ivory towers for a second. When I go to to the pub and ogle at the barmaids tits should I come back home and tell my woman what I did because I don't have the right to dictate what she "needs to know". Get real!

If your partner feels that ogling barmaids is a violation of some term of your relationship and you then do it anyway without her knowledge or consent, then you've violated her trust and have not respected her limits. If she doesn't like it, but you've made it clear you're going to do it anyway and she's accepted that, then ogle away.

If she decides it's okay to suck some other guy's dick (or something you'd object to if you're okay with that), then it's okay for her to do it and keep it from you because you "don't need to know"? There's a formula for a relationship based on mutual respect. Now, maybe you don't want a relationship based on mutual respect -- and there's nothing wrong with that if that's actually what you want -- but the original post concerned traditional relationships and this is part of those.

Human relationships are based on trust and a degree of privacy. In mandy's view her ol relationship does not detract from her rl one. End of story. If her rl partner does not share her view or trust her then compatibility and trust will come up sooner or later in another area. Heaven forbid she has her own private bank account.

My partner trusts me not to give them an STD because she thinks we're monogamous, so I always use a condom when I have casual sex with strangers in bars. In my view, my actions don't detract from her safety, so it's all good. Right?

The private bank account's fine if they've agreed to have private bank accounts. Why the hell is it so hard for people in a community that talks so damn much about trust, consent and limits to accept that trust, consent and limits are important?

DowntownAmber - And a lie by deliberate omission is still a lie.
There is a difference between omitting a key detail when one is being asked and simply not raising the topic in the first place. Did Clinton lie when he omitted to mention the fact that Monica had been going down on him. The Senate obviously didn't agree with your deliberate omission is still a lie theory else they would not have acquitted him of perjury.

There are many important relationships not just romantic ones. There is the relationship and obligations to parents. I wonder how many people on this site have omitted to tell their parents about their bdsm activities. Presumably thats a lie and it's not okay for thm to dictate what their parents "need to know".

Are you actually expecting legal definitions to apply to interpersonal relationships? That's sadly absurd.

And your parental analogy is specious. Not all relationships are the same.

Want to use a parental analogy, fine: Your parents get old and give you power of attorney, they trust you to be a good financial steward of their retirement money because they've gone a bit 'round the bend. You start betting the horses with the money and don't tell them about it. Even if you win, you've violated their consent, betrayed their trust and broken their limits. Deciding "they don't need to know" is okay?

Rope monkey - Does anyone here believe you can explore one side of your sexuality online without it being an affront to the sexuality of your r/l partner?
Mandy was kind enough to answer rope monkey's question but because she had the audacity to express a view other didn't agree with she is lynched by the righteous mob. Hardly the way to encourage a broad view of opinions is it, crucify anybody who dares to have a different view.

The answer to that question that everyone here has given is: Yes, if your partner is aware of and consents.

What's been criticized is violating trust and not respecting limits.

And, frankly, asking questions, which is what most of the responses to Mandy's post were doing, is not lynching or crucifying.

As for broad opinions, some opinions are morally wrong.

Rope monkey, I'm sure you will excuse me if, for obvious reasons, I do not give you my response to you question.

If you can offer a different position and defend it, that would be valuable to the discussion and the original poster.

[SnickerKitten]

My partner trusts me not to give them an STD because she thinks we're monogamous, so I always use a condom when I have casual sex with strangers in bars. In my view, my actions don't detract from her safety, so it's all good. Right?

.

Just try it, Love. As you know; if I don't approve beforehand, you'll lose your penis before I slowly kill you.

The answer to the original question posed in this thread is:

YES, it's absolutely possible and totally fine provided that you get your real life partner's consent.

"DowntownAmber - but if your vanilla girlfriend is still hurt and opts to walk out the door on you, are you really going to be more satisfied alone with your "definitions" of righteousness?"
Yes I will be better of without her. If the slightest hurt to means she walks out the door then it's clear we were not compatible and it was only a matter of time before she walked.

Wouldn't it be far more admirable to be up front and say, "Hey, don't expect me to be monogamous." So that your partner can make the determination as to whether or not she feels compatible with you? I'd *hardly* call it a "slight hurt" if Rago cheated on me. I, personally, would feel absolutely justified in killing him over it. (Now there is fuel for a totally different pot)

Thank goodness he's aware of that! Imagine this scenario, Person A has your view, that cheating is only a slight hurt and we're incompatible if Person B has a problem with it and walks out the door. Person B has my view, and finds that Person A has dipped his stick outside Person B's consent. Do you see where this leads?? Person A isn't going to end up being better off thinking Person B being gone is a good riddance because "we were incompatible and he/she would end up walking out at some point anyway". Person A would be dead and Person B would be in jail. (Yes, I understand that if Rago ever did cheat on me and I killed him that I'd spend the rest of my life in jail, I'm not stupid, just a little on the extreme side.)

-kitten

[Ragoczy]

Thank goodness he's aware of that! Imagine this scenario, Person A has your view, that cheating is only a slight hurt and we're incompatible if Person B has a problem with it and walks out the door. Person B has my view, and finds that Person A has dipped his stick outside Person B's consent. Do you see where this leads?? Person A isn't going to end up being better off thinking Person B being gone is a good riddance because "we were incompatible and he/she would end up walking out at some point anyway". Person A would be dead and Person B would be in jail. (Yes, I understand that if Rago ever did cheat on me and I killed him that I'd spend the rest of my life in jail, I'm not stupid, just a little on the extreme side.)

And my kitten's penchant for violence aside, this is a very real scenario.

Infidelity is one of the leading causes of sudden domestic violence (meaning where no history of violence exists in the relationship). I've personally observed groups (chats and forums, not here) where the attitude was: it's okay, you need to be happy, don't worry about that other person, just yourself.

That attitude exists because, in those communities, a large portion of the members are engaged in online activities without their partner's knowledge.

Now, we know from news reports that violence has been committed when one partner discovers the other is having an online affair. So I wonder how culpable the cheating partner's online "friends" really are in that outcome? If you encourage someone to do something that could get them hurt, are you at all responsible for the results?

[DowntownAmber]

DowntownAmber - This is a public forum designed for discussion amongst members of what is posted here. You posted. We discussed. *shrugs* Seems reasonable.
Rope monkey posted a question and invited opinion. Mandy responded answering his question. That seems reasonable. You gave a brief answer to rope monkey's question before tearing into mandy's opinion. Whether or not that is reasonable is quite another matter.

I still find it reasonable, as mandy's response had to do directly with rope monkey's questions and the theme of this thread. And no one was "tearing" into mandy. This is an open forum designed to perpetuate discussion and I spoke to points she made without ever being disrespectful or referring to her with any degree of malice.

I don't dislike mandy, I simply raised questions to get a better feel of where it looked like she stood based on her post. As I stated before, I thought that's what open forums such as these were all about?

DowntownAmber - but if your vanilla girlfriend is still hurt and opts to walk out the door on you, are you really going to be more satisfied alone with your "definitions" of righteousness?
Yes I will be better of without her. If the slightest hurt to means she walks out the door then it's clear we were not compatible and it was only a matter of time before she walked. Nobody knows mandy's rl partner better than she does and in her view it's not a problem. I don't see how anyone, not knowing mandy's partner, is in a position to dispute her judgement.

You will note that there is a "?" at the end of my sentence, thus pointing to the fact that I am asking a question. My response to the various infidelity threads that have cropped up on the forums lately has been this: ask yourself if it is going to be worth it when your partner finds out. It's a question, not a judgement, and certainly not disputing anyone else's judgement. Frankly dear, I don't really care what anyone else does with their own life. I certainly don't care enough to judge them. I do enjoy discussing the logic and the thought process behind the decisions people make, however, and that's why I come here. It's a thought provoking way to while away a few miniutes here and there each day and that's all. I'm sorry if raising questions hurts people's feelings, but I'm not inclined to stop anytime soon.

DowntownAmber - No, of course you can't. But shouldn't they have the option to decide? When did it become okay for one person in the relationship to dictate what the other "needs to know?"
Come down from those ivory towers for a second. When I go to to the pub and ogle at the barmaids tits should I come back home and tell my woman what I did because I don't have the right to dictate what she "needs to know". Get real!

I'm not sure I would consider looking at the barmaid's tits quite the same caliber of indiscresion as having an affair with the barmaid. If this puts me up in an ivory tower, well, I guess forward my mail and send up a pizza. I guess I just find it hard to beleive that most people, unless specifically in an open or poly relationship which implies that this has been discussed anyway, wouldn't find it reasonable to expect that their partner is open with them about their sexual exploits. You're saying you wouldn't be bothered at all if the woman you're dating had an affair and neglected to mention it? At the point where she picked up an STD from the other guy at the bar and passed it on to you and you got pissed would her telling you to "get real!" and "come down from your ivory tower," make you feel any better?

DowntownAmber - And a lie by deliberate omission is still a lie.
There is a difference between omitting a key detail when one is being asked and simply not raising the topic in the first place. Did Clinton lie when he omitted to mention the fact that Monica had been going down on him. The Senate obviously didn't agree with your deliberate omission is still a lie theory else they would not have acquitted him of perjury.[/QUOTE]

The Senate doesn't agree with me on a lot, I'm afraid...lol

And there is a big difference between being dishonest and legal perjury. For example, I could rob a bank and take money that's not mine. That's extremely dishonest, not to mention illegal. However, I could avoid a perjury charge simply by keeping my mouth shut and never saying in court, "no, I did not rob that bank." Well hooray for me, I technically didn't lie but it still appears I'm a dishonest git, wouldn't you say? At the point where morality is being broken down to bits of technicality and rules lawyering, well, that's the point I think I'd like to head back up to that tower you put me in earlier.

There are many important relationships not just romantic ones. There is the relationship and obligations to parents. I wonder how many people on this site have omitted to tell their parents about their bdsm activities. Presumably thats a lie and it's not okay for thm to dictate what their parents "need to know".

Well, if you're having sex with your parents and they're under the impression you're only having sex with them, then yes, I would hope you would tell them they just aren't doing it for you and you need to expand your kink horizons. Though, somehow I'm hoping you're not serious with that example...

I really doubt most kids have sexual monogamy, whether implied or discussed, with their parents. If so, whole 'nother thread...

Rope monkey - Does anyone here believe you can explore one side of your sexuality online without it being an affront to the sexuality of your r/l partner?
Mandy was kind enough to answer rope monkey's question but because she had the audacity to express a view other didn't agree with she is lynched by the righteous mob. Hardly the way to encourage a broad view of opinions is it, crucify anybody who dares to have a different view.

Rope monkey, I'm sure you will excuse me if, for obvious reasons, I do not give you my response to you question.

MacGuffin: I would still encourage you to answer rope monkey's question, as I assume that is why you clicked on this thread to begin with. No one called mandy a "righteous mob" or told her to "get real!" as you did in response to other's posts, and I can assure you I will not do that to you when you answer the question at hand.

I will, however, promise you that I will ask questions if I have them, look for clarification, and question logic that seems dodgy to me. That's why we're here, after all.