OK, since this whole Tiger Woods thing has come up, I've been having this discussion with a lady friend of mine regarding "wifely duties", adultery, etc.
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion, I posited the question of whether Mrs. Woods had, well, terminated "wifely duties", or at least brought them to a substantial curbing of frequency/quality/whathaveyou.
Now, she's of the opinion that, regardless of the state of the sexual relationship in a marriage, men have no right to violate the committment if the faucets are turned off, as a marriage can still be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex. In short, just because he's not getting it at home, he still doesn't have the right to get it elsewhere, either.
I am of the opinion that, just as a husband does not possess the legal, moral or ecclesiastical right to rape his wife, neither does the wife possess the right to enforce celibacy unto her hubby.
So, when it comes to adultery, her operative term is "commitment". Mine is "breach of contract".
For you married people, ex-married people, and people about to make that stupid ass mistake of a lifetime, what say you? Is adultery justified in certain cases?
*For the record, my lady friend has her husband in "embargo" mode. :P
*Pops popcorn*
Excellent question. I am taking a seat in the front row.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion
He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 12, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion
He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.
That's not the question.
Question works just as well the other way around.
My general take on this, is that adultery is never ok...in that it is a level of betrayel that shouldn't be tolerated.
But that being said...if one thinks sex is important to the health of the relationshi(a perfectly legitimate view), and it comes to be severly lacking. Then it is time to consider throwing out the "D" flag.
I like Tonto's answer.
Presumably the sex just doesn't stop overnight. Surely some frank, calm discussion could help to solve the problem?
If one of the partners is no longer interested in sexual intimacy, then a separation would make sense.
I believe that sex is part and parcel of the marriage agreement. It is implied and understood in most vows.
That being said, if a wife is unwilling to fulfill her vows and stops having than it doesn't give the man the right to seek sex elsewhere without her approval.
If a woman (or man) is unwilling to fulfill their vows than the marriage needs to be called into question. Either both sides reach an accord such as an open marriage or looking the other way about affairs OR the marriage needs to be ended.
Adultery is the coward's way out.
It's ok as long as it's just a fuck, but he shouldn't make any kind of emotional relationship.
Wait, are we talking NO SEX or just "No" when the guy asks for anal?
Quote from: PDH on December 12, 2009, 11:07:12 PM
Wait, are we talking NO SEX or just "No" when the guy asks for anal?
No sex, or no sex for months on end. So little to be inconsequential, like, on his birthday.
You know, like fahdiz when he was married. :P
I find the breach of contract analog amusing. You don't think marriage entails a promise to not lie to your wife and have sex with another woman?
An open marriage is fine, but lying or cheating? Nah.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
For you married people, ex-married people, and people about to make that stupid ass mistake of a lifetime, what say you? Is adultery justified in certain cases?
Justified on the condition it is not a secret. If you are too much of a bitch to tell your wife you are going to start sleeping around then you are an asshole and I have no respect for you. I normally applaud being passive aggressive but there is just too much of being a contemptible loser about sneaking around sleeping with people as some sort of 'got you' for your wife holding out on you.
By the way women cheat alot also. I am not sure why these discussions always act like it is always the man who cheats.
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2009, 11:52:37 PM
By the way women cheat alot also. I am not sure why these discussions always act like it is always the man who cheats.
Of course they do. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm looking for an indictment of cuckholding wives. Not cheating ones. That, as Oprah would say, is for another show.
I agree with what seems to be the majority. If they don't have compatible sexual appetites they should figure out why; if it can't be resolved they should probably split up. Sex is as much a part of an adult relationship as changing her oil and listening to her bitch about her boss; I think cheating is wrong but wouldn't condemn a guy who stepped on a wife who cut him off completely.
When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified. That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed. If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.
So really it's a little of column a and column b. By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long. Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.
I found this amusing article on MSN ( :x ): http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=22822846>1=32023
Quote"My affair saved my marriage"
Until she had an affair and they went to a therapist, her husband couldn't understand that his behavior was a major contributor to her straying. That counselor saved their relationship by reminding them how much they really cared about each other.
It was 1986. We'd been married seven years (yeah yeah, what a cliché — the Seven Year Itch) and had two small children. My husband is a professional musician and has always traveled for a living. Back then he was playing lead alto for Frank Sinatra, flying first class all over the world, staying in fabulous hotels, rubbing shoulders with celebrities, living the high life.
Meanwhile, I was home, alone with our daughter and son, 1,000 miles away from my own family. We lived close to my in-laws, but they had a very active social/work life, and didn't have time for much baby-sitting. I had grown increasingly resentful, disenchanted with my marriage. Mike came home from weeks on the road, exhausted, ready to catch up on his sleep, have home-cooked meals. I longed to have him step in and share child-rearing responsibilities and take me out to dinner. No such luck.
The watershed moment I remember is when, in the middle of us having words, I said, "Listen, pal, when you come home, you're HOME. This isn't your celebrity life — the limos, hotels, fancy dinners. You carry out the garbage, help with the kids, be a partner to me — this is your REAL life." And Mike said, "How do you know? Maybe that other life — the limos and glamour and celebrity — maybe THAT'S my real life."
He couldn't understand that his being happy and successful wasn't enough for me, that I had desires and dreams of my own, a career of my own, which had been put on hold so that he could have the life he wanted while I assumed all responsibility for our home and family.
I was devastated, and my feelings of aloneness and my anger were overwhelming. I ignited a relationship with someone who was a friend to both me and my husband. It was an intensely emotional affair — he was a sweet, available, quiet, and domestic man. He wanted me to leave my husband and marry him. He was ready to take on my children, too.
When my husband found out, he was completely freaked out. After years of me asking him to go to counseling and him saying, "What for? I'm perfectly happy with things the way they are," things changed. He begged me to go to counseling with him, even went so far as to find a therapist and make an appointment. And we went.
He, of course, felt that he had the upper hand — the moral high ground — because I'd betrayed the marriage by having an affair. I really didn't know what to expect from our therapy; frankly, I didn't care. I was already emotionally checking out of the relationship. The going rate for therapy back then was $70 an hour, about half what it is now. At our first session, when Margaret asked us to talk about our issues, my husband immediately talked about how I'd betrayed him and our marriage, while he'd been out on the road, always faithful, focused only on his career. And then she asked me how I perceived our marriage. Out poured all my heartache and loneliness, my terrible unhappiness. I talked about my deferred dreams, what it was like to be alone, how angry I'd been for so long.
And Margaret looked at my husband and said, "What an ass. Of course she had an affair. She had to get something from someone. She should have left your sorry ass."
My husband's jaw dropped. He expected to hear that I was the bad guy, and that's not what our therapist saw or told him.
Long story short, this woman kept our marriage together, helped us to remember how we'd adored each other as newlyweds. She made us recognize that we had a good foundation for marriage — physical attraction, two children, a basic appreciation of each other. My husband made huge changes, his eyes opened up to what it was like to be the one left behind while the other flew. It didn't change the nature of his job, but he came home a different man.
We've now been married for 30 years, solidly, happily. We have, in our own estimation, a very successful, close relationship. I believe our therapy made all the difference in the world. We both got words of real empathy and wisdom when we needed it. So when people say that affairs saved their marriages — it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Sometimes a big catalyst is necessary to move a relationship forward.
More from MSN Lifestyle Site Search: Get additional content on having an affair, divorce proceedings, and how to win big through child support payments.
If the man cheats, he's a scumbag, but if the woman cheats, it's a-okay!
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2009, 01:28:02 AM
When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified. That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed. If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.
So really it's a little of column a and column b. By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long. Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.
The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".
Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).
Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
OK, since this whole Tiger Woods thing has come up, I've been having this discussion with a lady friend of mine regarding "wifely duties", adultery, etc.
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion, I posited the question of whether Mrs. Woods had, well, terminated "wifely duties", or at least brought them to a substantial curbing of frequency/quality/whathaveyou.
Now, she's of the opinion that, regardless of the state of the sexual relationship in a marriage, men have no right to violate the committment if the faucets are turned off, as a marriage can still be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex. In short, just because he's not getting it at home, he still doesn't have the right to get it elsewhere, either.
I am of the opinion that, just as a husband does not possess the legal, moral or ecclesiastical right to rape his wife, neither does the wife possess the right to enforce celibacy unto her hubby.
So, when it comes to adultery, her operative term is "commitment". Mine is "breach of contract".
For you married people, ex-married people, and people about to make that stupid ass mistake of a lifetime, what say you? Is adultery justified in certain cases?
*For the record, my lady friend has her husband in "embargo" mode. :P
Unfortunately, from a legal perspective, if the contract involves a bundle of rights and obligations from each party, and there is no clear equivalency line that can be drawn between individual rights and obligations (like "the obligation 1 of party A corresponds to the obligation 2 of party B"), then it is really hard to argue that if party A fails to perform one of his or her obligations under the contract, it entitles party B to stop performing any one of his or her obligations either. In such cases, the party B can really only sue for damages for a failure to perform the contract (plus any contractual penalties, if provided for) and/or seek for the contract to be annulled/terminated.
The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.
So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 04:24:58 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2009, 01:28:02 AM
When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified. That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed. If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.
So really it's a little of column a and column b. By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long. Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.
The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".
Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).
Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?
When they got married they agreed to not fuck other people - may not have been specifically in the vows, but it was implied.
What was your point anyhoo?
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 04:36:35 AM
The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.
So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).
And yet you Homo's want to be able to marry :rolleyes:
:P
Quote from: sbr on December 13, 2009, 04:37:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 04:24:58 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2009, 01:28:02 AM
When you're married you make the commitment not to lie and cheat on your partner* so that's never really justified. That said, not having your needs (emotional, sexual, whatever) fulfilled in the marriage is obviously a problem and one that should be addressed. If it is not addressed it's not unnatural nor surprising if the unsatisfied person attempts to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship.
So really it's a little of column a and column b. By the time there's actual cheating involved it's usually a sign that the problems have festered far too long. Adultery is never really justified, because if the "no sex thing" is that big of a problem then it's time for renegotiating the terms of the relationship or divorce, but while it's not justified it's often understandable because relationships are difficult.
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
*Agreed upon non-monogamy is of course different than lying and cheating.
The problem with your explanation is that the divorce option is not "painless".
Let's assume his wife tells him he won't be getting any, anymore and she is not agreeing to any "open marriage" situation, either. So according to you his options are: (a) accept it, or (b) seek divorce - and give half of his money to his wife (I am talking about a no-prenup situation).
Seems hardly fair, doesn't it?
When they got married they agreed to not fuck other people - may not have been specifically in the vows, but it was implied.
What was your point anyhoo?
They also agreed to fuck each other. My point is that "marriage" is not a promise of celibacy, and yet if one party makes it celibate, the other party is punished for seeking to get out of the contract.
Quote from: katmai on December 13, 2009, 04:37:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 04:36:35 AM
The problem really is that, as far as I am aware, in most Western countries "not putting out" is not going to be considered a cause for a "fault divorce", but cheating is.
So if a husband wants to divorce a wife that is not putting out, he is still going to give her half of his money if they divorce, but the situation would be different if she was divorcing him for cheating on her (and vice-versa).
And yet you Homo's want to be able to marry :rolleyes:
:P
It's about:
(1) pissing off the fundies,
(2) gay power couple weddings.
I don't intend to get married if I can help it. :P
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 13, 2009, 03:29:23 AM
If the man cheats, he's a scumbag, but if the woman cheats, it's a-okay!
That cuckold should have left instead of accepting her sticking strange dicks inside of her.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 12, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion
He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.
The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.
Quote from: Viking on December 13, 2009, 05:34:47 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 12, 2009, 09:32:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion
He's 33, the top athlete in his sport in the world, and worth a billion dollars, the question is why wouldn't he be banging tons of chicks on the side.
The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.
Pressure from his parents, possibly internalized.
Quote from: Viking on December 13, 2009, 05:34:47 AM
The question is, why he married in the first place? When he could be out there quite legitimately banging tons of chick out in the open.
Maybe he wants children and a family. They're well taken care of, maybe he just wants some new pussy on the side once in a while.
Or maybe he just married for marketing reasons and to get fat contracts from Nike by appearing to be a family man. :lol:
But I agree with Jacob that somehow the facts do not add up. Two rumours out there (which imo have big holes in them) are:
1. He is into some weird shit which he couldn't do with his wife. BDSM, some strange fetish or something. But this theory does not add up with the fact that the hookers are not telling anything of that sort - that would surely come up at some point, since they decided to go to the media anyway.
2. He is gay and this is a big cover-up campaign, to preempt some potential gay lover coming out with a story about banging Tiger Woods, since any such lover would be now dismissed as a me-too-ist and not treated seriously (assuming he doesn't have fluid evidence, Clay Aiken's style :P).
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2009, 01:28:02 AM
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
Yeah, there's a clinical pathology beginning to display itself here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2009, 05:47:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 13, 2009, 01:28:02 AM
With Tiger Woods I think there's something else going on beyond simple "cheating".
Yeah, there's a clinical pathology beginning to display itself here.
I think it's called "being rich".
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 05:47:08 AM
2. He is gay and this is a big cover-up campaign
Oh FFS. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2009, 07:28:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 05:47:08 AM
2. He is gay and this is a big cover-up campaign
Oh FFS. :lol:
I said these theories have big holes in them - I am just telling what is on the wire. :P
Don't shoot the messenger. :P
I thought that was called 'spousal abandonment'?
There is definately a double standard involved. My female friends used to dismiss their cheating with stuff like, 'he became my best friend' or shit. If their guys cheated on them (in one case they weren't in a relationship, she was just obsessed with him and took his dating for cheating) then they were pigs and scum, etc.
Divorce can financially destroy a guy, so it isn't an easy choice. In Mass. you could also kiss goodbye any chance of getting custody too.
Time for the contract of wifely duties: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html
As for the question, I have no idea. I've gone 5 months due to medical reasons. I'd get twitchy over an embargo.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2009, 11:49:37 AM
Time for the contract of wifely duties: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html
Good Behaviour Days! :o
Quote from: Lucidor on December 13, 2009, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2009, 11:49:37 AM
Time for the contract of wifely duties: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html
Good Behaviour Days! :o
Most awesome contract ever.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2009, 11:49:37 AM
As for the question, I have no idea. I've gone 5 months due to medical reasons. I'd get twitchy over an embargo.
You originally had nine months in there. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on December 13, 2009, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 13, 2009, 11:49:37 AM
As for the question, I have no idea. I've gone 5 months due to medical reasons. I'd get twitchy over an embargo.
You originally had nine months in there. :contract:
I messed up the math. It happens. big whoop.
AND ARE YOU FUCKERS FOLLOWING ME?
My spies are everywhere.
Dude. Ed expects him to die. :menace:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.boardgamegeek.com%2Fimages%2Fpic10636.jpg&hash=105b2c7c0b2308bb67f8c1ab923f9ae187c62bb6)
Weak game.
It still has its fans. The rules are also, like, half a page long.
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 04:41:59 AM
They also agreed to fuck each other. My point is that "marriage" is not a promise of celibacy, and yet if one party makes it celibate, the other party is punished for seeking to get out of the contract.
Since celibacy includes not getting married it sure would be weird if it included the promise of celibacy.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2009, 11:40:33 AM
I thought that was called 'spousal abandonment'?
There is definately a double standard involved. My female friends used to dismiss their cheating with stuff like, 'he became my best friend' or shit. If their guys cheated on them (in one case they weren't in a relationship, she was just obsessed with him and took his dating for cheating) then they were pigs and scum, etc.
Divorce can financially destroy a guy, so it isn't an easy choice. In Mass. you could also kiss goodbye any chance of getting custody too.
Your female friends are assholes. Get new friends.
I did.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
I did.
Oh, so all the Pacman pies and "eggnog feasts" were an elaborate scheme to get rid of your female friends? Makes sense. I wondered if there is a purpose to it. :P
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2009, 09:50:33 PM
Since celibacy includes not getting married it sure would be weird if it included the promise of celibacy.
Since celibacy and marriage are completely unrelated, I don't see how you could think this point valid. In fact, celibate marriage was once quite popular in some early Christian circles, and as late as the Eighteenth Century (arguably even the Nineteenth) the Shakers were practicing it in substantial numbers.
Now, you may think marriage vows that include celibacy are weird, but that shouldn't be because you think that celibacy, by definition, excludes marriage.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2009, 07:33:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2009, 09:50:33 PM
Since celibacy includes not getting married it sure would be weird if it included the promise of celibacy.
Since celibacy and marriage are completely unrelated, I don't see how you could think this point valid. In fact, celibate marriage was once quite popular in some early Christian circles, and as late as the Eighteenth Century (arguably even the Nineteenth) the Shakers were practicing it in substantial numbers.
Now, you may think marriage vows that include celibacy are weird, but that shouldn't be because you think that celibacy, by definition, excludes marriage.
Beat me to it. :(
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2009, 07:33:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2009, 09:50:33 PM
Since celibacy includes not getting married it sure would be weird if it included the promise of celibacy.
Since celibacy and marriage are completely unrelated, I don't see how you could think this point valid. In fact, celibate marriage was once quite popular in some early Christian circles, and as late as the Eighteenth Century (arguably even the Nineteenth) the Shakers were practicing it in substantial numbers.
Now, you may think marriage vows that include celibacy are weird, but that shouldn't be because you think that celibacy, by definition, excludes marriage.
My understanding is that celibacy is a rejection of all sexual relationships including marriage. I would find it odd for celibacy to be practiced by Christians along with marriage since the New Testament is entirely clear that those are separate paths: it encourages you to be celibate but if you cannot swing that get married.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2009, 02:50:20 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
I did.
Oh, so all the Pacman pies and "eggnog feasts" were an elaborate scheme to get rid of your female friends? Makes sense. I wondered if there is a purpose to it. :P
It's been a years long project my man.
The Shakers IIRC did in fact require their members to be chaste, even if they were married... so yes, despite that fact married couples were expected to avoid screwing each other. There were some other 19th century movements like that (for some reason upstate New York attracted fruits like this) plus there were those Oneida people, who were into orgies and having young boys screw old ladies. :x
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 13, 2009, 03:29:23 AM
I found this amusing article on MSN ( :x ): http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=22822846>1=32023 (http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articledoublex.aspx?cp-documentid=22822846>1=32023)
If the man cheats, he's a scumbag, but if the woman cheats, it's a-okay!
Let's put this through the de-spinulator.
Woman is unhappy in her marriage and life in general.
Doesn't want to end the marriage.
Doesn't want to live with it.
Gets a mutual friend involved and starts shagging him.
Mutual friend, who is admittedly an asshole anyway, falls in love with her, as she convinced him they are gonna go off to Fantasy Island and be together4evar.
Woman gets husband's attention, ditches the other ass, and lives happily ever after.
Nasty piece of work that.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2009, 09:19:53 AMit encourages you to be celibate but if you cannot swing that get married.
That's horrible
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 14, 2009, 09:29:44 AM
That's horrible
I know. It makes you wonder why Christians call this message 'Good News'.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 14, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2009, 02:50:20 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
I did.
Oh, so all the Pacman pies and "eggnog feasts" were an elaborate scheme to get rid of your female friends? Makes sense. I wondered if there is a purpose to it. :P
It's been a years long project my man.
I support your pac-man pie project. Don't let the haters drag you down.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 14, 2009, 10:21:08 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 14, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2009, 02:50:20 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2009, 09:55:35 PM
I did.
Oh, so all the Pacman pies and "eggnog feasts" were an elaborate scheme to get rid of your female friends? Makes sense. I wondered if there is a purpose to it. :P
It's been a years long project my man.
I support your pac-man pie project. Don't let the haters drag you down.
They were cakes, actually. And I think they looked pretty badass.
I think you should bake some penis and vagina cakes for your eventual weddiing, like the Romans. :)
If a marriage can be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex, then why do women seem to view withholding it as such an effective punishment and frequently use that as a threat?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 14, 2009, 11:29:37 AM
If a marriage can be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex, then why do women seem to view withholding it as such an effective punishment and frequently use that as a threat?
They withhold marriage? Cruel! :(
I have seen couples where a woman withholds sex. Thankfully my wife views that as being entirely disfunctional.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:10:07 PM
I have seen couples where a woman withholds sex. Thankfully my wife views that as being entirely disfunctional.
Well there are couples where the wife has no interest in sex, and engages in it only rarely and out of a sense of duty. That's probably disfunctional on some level.
But to actively "withhold" sex, as some form of punishment or discipline? Yowzas - that's messed up.
I've heard of deliberately withholding sex to get one's way, but find it hard to imagine.
Most women are clever enough to say they have a headache rather than straight up saying they're withholding sex to punish you
You can always wait until they're asleep and cold fish 'em.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 14, 2009, 12:26:56 PM
Most women are clever enough to say they have a headache rather than straight up saying they're withholding sex to punish you
Really. I have seen that on TV but do women really say that and do men really fall for that or are men smart enough to know what is really happening?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2009, 12:29:32 PM
You can always wait until they're asleep and cold fish 'em.
That would constitute a crime in Canada. :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 12:24:21 PM
I've heard of deliberately withholding sex to get one's way, but find it hard to imagine.
We were talking to another couple at a diner party and the wife said she had withheld sex for a month to punish her husband for something or other. He seemed to accept that this was the way of world.
I found it all astonishing.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2009, 12:40:18 PM
That would constitute a crime in Canada. :ph34r:
If she wakes up you tell her you slipped.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 13, 2009, 08:57:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.boardgamegeek.com%2Fimages%2Fpic10636.jpg&hash=105b2c7c0b2308bb67f8c1ab923f9ae187c62bb6)
I raise you this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odinartcollectables.com%2Fimages%2FTop%2520Secret%2520SI.jpg&hash=81e28784792b16189099a54fa167f36e1a3b2f0b)
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:10:07 PM
I have seen couples where a woman withholds sex. Thankfully my wife views that as being entirely disfunctional.
I'm reliably informed that the best way to ensure your husband doesn't cheat is to "squeeze him dry".
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:40:26 PMWe were talking to another couple at a diner party and the wife said she had withheld sex for a month to punish her husband for something or other. He seemed to accept that this was the way of world.
I found it all astonishing.
Yeah, when put that explicitly. On the other hand "I don't feel like fucking when you make me feel miserable" makes sense, and the line between those two could potentially be fairly blurry.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
I'm reliably informed that the best way to ensure your husband doesn't cheat is to "squeeze him dry".
Couldn't hurt!
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 12:24:21 PM
I've heard of deliberately withholding sex to get one's way, but find it hard to imagine.
We were talking to another couple at a diner party and the wife said she had withheld sex for a month to punish her husband for something or other. He seemed to accept that this was the way of world.
I found it all astonishing.
It seems a very odd way for alleged adults to behave.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 01:56:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 12:24:21 PM
I've heard of deliberately withholding sex to get one's way, but find it hard to imagine.
We were talking to another couple at a diner party and the wife said she had withheld sex for a month to punish her husband for something or other. He seemed to accept that this was the way of world.
I found it all astonishing.
It seems a very odd way for alleged adults to behave.
People behave oddly all the fucking time, http://www.languish.org . Film at 11.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 14, 2009, 12:26:56 PM
Most women are clever enough to say they have a headache rather than straight up saying they're withholding sex to punish you
Really. I have seen that on TV but do women really say that and do men really fall for that or are men smart enough to know what is really happening?
I get that line sometimes. I know it's BS but it's usually easier not to argue (or else I will be the one with a (non-fake) headache :blush: )
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
OK, since this whole Tiger Woods thing has come up, I've been having this discussion with a lady friend of mine regarding "wifely duties", adultery, etc.
In the whole "wondering why he'd do that shit" discussion, I posited the question of whether Mrs. Woods had, well, terminated "wifely duties", or at least brought them to a substantial curbing of frequency/quality/whathaveyou.
Now, she's of the opinion that, regardless of the state of the sexual relationship in a marriage, men have no right to violate the committment if the faucets are turned off, as a marriage can still be "emotionally fulfilling" without sex. In short, just because he's not getting it at home, he still doesn't have the right to get it elsewhere, either.
I am of the opinion that, just as a husband does not possess the legal, moral or ecclesiastical right to rape his wife, neither does the wife possess the right to enforce celibacy unto her hubby.
So, when it comes to adultery, her operative term is "commitment". Mine is "breach of contract".
For you married people, ex-married people, and people about to make that stupid ass mistake of a lifetime, what say you? Is adultery justified in certain cases?
*For the record, my lady friend has her husband in "embargo" mode. :P
Hmm, I don't think I could commit adultery, but then again, I've avoided commitment so far... And I'm not 33&super rich either, that does limit my possibilities of banging hot chicks. At some point, you get tired of the chubby ones, and exchanging one chubby for another chubby is not that attractive.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that this should be discusses in the couple prior to the action, i.e. both should have the right to have sexual encounters on their on. If the embargo on sex is something absolutely essential for one member of the couple and the other can not live in this situation, then they should not be together.
Quote from: Slargos on December 14, 2009, 01:58:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 01:56:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2009, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 12:24:21 PM
I've heard of deliberately withholding sex to get one's way, but find it hard to imagine.
We were talking to another couple at a diner party and the wife said she had withheld sex for a month to punish her husband for something or other. He seemed to accept that this was the way of world.
I found it all astonishing.
It seems a very odd way for alleged adults to behave.
People behave oddly all the fucking time, http://www.languish.org . Film at 11.
Know that line about "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would accept me?"
Languish is what you get when that rule is broken. :D
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 01:56:27 PM
It seems a very odd way for alleged adults to behave.
Sometimes marriage comes down to who can out passive aggressive the other one.
Does anal sex count as sex during an embargo?
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2009, 04:30:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2009, 01:56:27 PM
It seems a very odd way for alleged adults to behave.
Sometimes marriage comes down to who can out passive aggressive the other one.
I've found that both people being stubborn as a mule does not make for a happy engagement.
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2009, 04:32:30 PM
Does anal sex count as sex during an embargo?
It's not sex if it's with another guy.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2009, 04:13:50 PM
At some point, you get tired of the chubby ones, and exchanging one chubby for another chubby is not that attractive.
That's crazy talk.
Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2009, 05:47:08 AM
2. He is gay and this is a big cover-up campaign, to preempt some potential gay lover coming out with a story about banging Tiger Woods, since any such lover would be now dismissed as a me-too-ist and not treated seriously (assuming he doesn't have fluid evidence, Clay Aiken's style :P).
You have to be kidding me.
Do you really think everybody is gay?
Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:31:27 PM
You have to be kidding me.
Do you really think everybody is gay?
To Marty having sex with women is just a compensation and proof of your latent gayness. :P
Spanking Blog reports that Tiger likes rough sex.
Does this mean that Elin doesn't? :(