Has anyone stopped and thought that maybe his gf didn't get behind his back because she's bi, but because she's a ****? Would it have made a difference if she was banging other guys instead?
Bull.
7 years and counting, my friend. 7 years and counting.
What's a *serious* relationship? Play dress up for one day, spend way too much on a pair of blood diamonds and on a lavish waste of a ceremony, and now you're serious? What a laugh!
Sex and love aren't the same thing BTW. It works when you're telling your daughter that just because some boy her age and her are in love doesn't mean she has to put out, it certainly works the other way. How many couples are still in love 40 years later but have stopped enjoying sex together and see lovers on the side with full knowledge by both parties? A lot! What's more mature, ending something good because you can't handle somebody else's ***** inside your wife, or staying with your love while being realistic?
But the Western world has this big issue with anything carnal. Love is acceptable because it's all in the mind. Sex is dirty because it involves the flesh. If the two have to butt head, people will side with love every time.
Or comming home with some strange disease, I've seen enough cervical cancer and other side effects of these diseases in my time from good friends and family that went through the fear and anguish to know that there's a reason why certain things are taboo. Looking at the societal level, Africa is a good reason why the "flesh is taboo."
Love is also considered "bad," because it's also well known people make stupid decisions for the sake of "love."
Danger exists, some can avoid others won't. Just like there are good drivers and bad drivers. Simple fact is people get sick and die. Other people enter into more complex relationships they can't handle, adding a third person also complicates issues.
Some people will always succeed at the "taboo," just like there are sucessful drug lords. However, many others fail due to inherent weaknesses of self or structural factors of risk itself. Hence the "danger of cool things." Yes the one guy with the unpracticed rogue deck will win the PtQ, while many others have tried and failed at the exact tournament.
As far as relationships go, lust and love are two seperate brain functions. When those functions work together, there's a better marriage in general. The marriage itself doesn't reach the pinnacle of what it was or what it can be with folks fooling around on the "side." Personally, I think having "lust on the side" is often a cop out to the complexity of human relations when factoring in the totality in the "danger of cool things" it a subordinate proposition to tradition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Most of us have already said that, but it good your aware.
Congrats to you, Angel, I think you and your partner to be a rare case. That, and you sorely missed my point.
While I hold my reserves on Marriage, I never said it was impossible- but I'm sure myself and a good deal of people would agree that couple (or in this case, one individual involved) that needs to outsource sexually to be happy with their relationship will have a hard time maintaining a meaningful relationship with either/or. Sure, I bet someone out there worked something out, But then again, there are people who ca force their eyes in and out of their skull.
It's understandable blue control players would be shocked and in denial at the notion of this card, since their decks have been dominating multiple formats for an eternity yet they've curiously never once had to deal with any counter-hosers that weren't ineffectual, narrow CRAP.
What's more mature, ending something good because you can't handle somebody else's ***** inside your wife, or staying with your love while being realistic?
Really? Sexual acts are a matter of pleasure. I don't think maturity is an issue here. If my wife is getting pleasure from someone else, than I'm not doing my job or she just needs more than I can give her. Either way if you love someone, then you want to make them happy in every way possible. If they find this happiness with someone else, then that should bother you. In this case, I'll take my western world's viewpoint.
I don't understand the relevance of these "statistics" about potential partners. I'm a heterosexual male, and have been in a monogamous relationship while still maintaining friendships, both casual and close, with many beautiful women. I'm monogamous. If I was Bi, I would still be a monogamous person and same if I was Gay. My sexual preference is irrelevant, and so is the number of potential partners that happen to surround me. I've dated a woman who had polygamous tendencies, and ultimately, we were simply incompatible. We ended up calmly calling the relationship off due to this, though we still maintained a certain level of affection and admiration for one another.
What you need to do, good sir, is communicate and communicate more. She needs to understand how this is making you feel. If she tries to shrug it off, and continues to claim that it's no big deal, then you must work from there. But, right now, your job is to communicate clearly and truthfully. Cut to the heart of the matter.
If my wife is getting pleasure from someone else, than I'm not doing my job or she just needs more than I can give her. Either way if you love someone, then you want to make them happy in every way possible. If they find this happiness with someone else, then that should bother you.
Happiness is not some package deal that all comes into one person.
My best friend is a pilot. I'm scared of heights. I don't go fly his plane with him. I don't get mad that he's got other friends to do this stuff with and I don't begrudge him the happiness that flying gives him by telling him he has to only be friend with me for all his life.
Happiness is not some package deal that all comes into one person.
My best friend is a pilot. I'm scared of heights. I don't go fly his plane with him. I don't get mad that he's got other friends to do this stuff with and I don't begrudge him the happiness that flying gives him by telling him he has to only be friend with me for all his life.
Kinda a false dichotomy here. Friendship =/= dating. Not quite the same thing ya know...
As to the topic, If you're content with things the way they are, stay there. If you arent, confront her or leave.
Its pretty clear cut it seems. Just takes a backbone to state your positions and such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[19:59] greymon90210: Hey StormBlind how tall are you? "I'm six money *****, don't forget it"
"The Critics always said that we'd only have a black president when pigs flu"...
Hi, I don't know how actual this problem is but perhaps some insight from a bisexual girl could be useful?
For me there are two parts of partnership: Feelings and sexuality.
Feelings are everywhere the same. If I love someone, I love him or her. Thats the same as with heterosexuals.
Sexuality for me has to do with who I find attractive. That also is the same with heterosexuals. Its just, that I have more choice. Thats all. But sleeping with a woman is the same as with a man (except some biological details)
So, if I have two different partners at the same time, then for me that's the same as for a heterosexual with two different partners. Having two partners at the same time is ok..... as long as my partner agrees. If he or she does not, then I have to become monogamous or break up with that partner. Also my partner has to choose if he can live with me having more different partners or breaking up with me. Both have to decide what they think is best for them.
What flappy wrote is quite good but it's not as difficult for many as he says. I have more options, because I'm attracted to more properties, that's right. But some are more important than others and I can be happy with of what I would like to have. It may be harder for me than for Shaharazad for example, but not THAT hard.
Kinda a false dichotomy here. Friendship =/= dating. Not quite the same thing ya know...
It's the same thing where it matters, and the only places it's different is where this society's conception of love (based on the Romantics) is screwed up (i.e. possessiveness and feelings of ownership of woman by man... or sometimes vice-versa, but most often woman by man).
Again, if you feel like you can't be someone's lover unless you're everything to that person, you have some self-esteem and possessiveness issues.
It's the same thing where it matters, and the only places it's different is where this society's conception of love (based on the Romantics) is screwed up (i.e. possessiveness and feelings of ownership of woman by man... or sometimes vice-versa, but most often woman by man).
Again, if you feel like you can't be someone's lover unless you're everything to that person, you have some self-esteem and possessiveness issues.
Just because you feel that other's can have sex with the person you love, doesn't not mean that people who don't agree with that are wrong. Just because I want to be a perfect mate for someone I care deeply for does not mean that I'm possessive or have self-esteem issues. Get off your high horse, thinking that just because you're different, your lifestyle choices are so much better than the rest of the world.
It's the same thing where it matters, and the only places it's different is where this society's conception of love (based on the Romantics) is screwed up (i.e. possessiveness and feelings of ownership of woman by man... or sometimes vice-versa, but most often woman by man).
Again, if you feel like you can't be someone's lover unless you're everything to that person, you have some self-esteem and possessiveness issues.
If progressiveness means increasing the likelihood of disease or raising a child that is not my own and having to deal with a third wheel in parenting decisions. Nah. Seen and experienced enough of that to know that isn't truly progressive.
Right now in society we're spending billions of dollars on research for disease control, preventation, as well as social programs on people that cannot afford children. Granted there are people that do get into strained situations through abusive marriages and other unfortunant dillemas. However, "progressiveness" as you call it are cutting into funding for people that really could have been prevented.
Diseases die without carriers. It is the most sure fire way to force disease into extinction. If disease extinction and the promotation of "archaic" monogamy for all sexual relationships across the human bandwidth to stop suffering. I'm all for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If progressiveness means increasing the likelihood of disease or raising a child that is not my own and having to deal with a third wheel in parenting decisions. Nah.
Well I personally think child raising should be collectivized, anyway, so...
As for disease, that's why we have safer sex techniques.
Regardless of mine or anyone elses opinion in this thread, it all comes down to one person: You. You need to, first, decide what it is that you are seeking, and then set the proper boundaries. Perhaps you should have had the boundaries conversation before becoming involved in a relationship. If her wants/needs do not align with yours, then end the relationship. Compromise musn't mean that you negate your boundaries. If you neglect your wants/needs, you will find yourself unhappy anyway, and the relationship will suffer; any chance of remaining friends towards the end would fizzle.
Also: go get yourself tested. Having sexual relations with someone whom you really don't know much about is irresponsible. Even if a person LOOKS or SEEMS clean, they may not be. Chlamydia is one of the most common STD's and it is a silent stalker, meaning that most people never develop the symptoms related to this disease.
Well I personally think child raising should be collectivized, anyway, so...
As for disease, that's why we have safer sex techniques.
The issue with "communal" child rearing is how people are divided up, long distances tend to make things more complicated. This isn't small town America any longer where your parents were next door to watch the kids with the siblings a few blocks away.
Except with "safer" sex technques diseases tend to mutate as the opportunistic life forms they are and latch onto new opportunities. This already occurred with oral sex, it's a matter of time before they'll adapt to other techniques.
The goal is eradication, not encourage mutation through new transmission.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well I personally think child raising should be collectivized, anyway, so...
As for disease, that's why we have safer sex techniques.
Sure is safer with three people. There's three (or more) of you, so that cuts your chances by 1/3rd.
.__.
Honestly, this thread is pretty much finished, unless you guys want to start a new one discussing the ethics, reasons, and risks of poly-amorous relationships.
It's understandable blue control players would be shocked and in denial at the notion of this card, since their decks have been dominating multiple formats for an eternity yet they've curiously never once had to deal with any counter-hosers that weren't ineffectual, narrow CRAP.
Except with "safer" sex technques diseases tend to mutate as the opportunistic life forms they are and latch onto new opportunities. This already occurred with oral sex, it's a matter of time before they'll adapt to other techniques.
The goal is eradication, not encourage mutation through new transmission.
Well I guess we should stop going outside too, so we can eradicate the flu.
Dude, the important thing is that you feel like she respects your feelings about the situation. If you are uncomfortable with the situation, and you feel like she is cheating, then tell her how you feel. If she doesn't respond, then end it and find a relationship that provides the things you are looking for; but have the self respect to not get walked all over. Don't just "settle" for something that doesn't make you happy.
Just ask to have one more threesome, have it, then dump her ass. Sounds cruel, but it's my professional opinion. Besides, when else will you have the opportunity to have a threesome where all parties involved are sober?
WHAT!!! If I was you I wouldn't even trip. She brought the girl to you as a gift too...WOW!!! One if she is like that, don't attempt to make her your long term relationship but find another and keep her on the side. I wouldn't even complain if I was you.
I must say this is a terrible idea. Its almost exactly the same thing she is doing with you. She likes being with the other girl, but you are her back up incase she wants something else. I would suggest breaking up with her, because she obviously doesnt want to be with you. However, be a gentleman and help her get a new place if she is living with you
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep - not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
I must say this is a terrible idea. Its almost exactly the same thing she is doing with you. She likes being with the other girl, but you are her back up incase she wants something else. I would suggest breaking up with her, because she obviously doesnt want to be with you. However, be a gentleman and help her get a new place if she is living with you
I agree with you! That or have her choose between the two of you! Its kind of cheating since a relationship is based on love and commitment not sex life! She doesn't seem that committed to you since she went off and found some one else with out letting you know (I'm assuming)!
Or comming home with some strange disease, I've seen enough cervical cancer and other side effects of these diseases in my time from good friends and family that went through the fear and anguish to know that there's a reason why certain things are taboo. Looking at the societal level, Africa is a good reason why the "flesh is taboo."
Love is also considered "bad," because it's also well known people make stupid decisions for the sake of "love."
Danger exists, some can avoid others won't. Just like there are good drivers and bad drivers. Simple fact is people get sick and die. Other people enter into more complex relationships they can't handle, adding a third person also complicates issues.
Some people will always succeed at the "taboo," just like there are sucessful drug lords. However, many others fail due to inherent weaknesses of self or structural factors of risk itself. Hence the "danger of cool things." Yes the one guy with the unpracticed rogue deck will win the PtQ, while many others have tried and failed at the exact tournament.
As far as relationships go, lust and love are two seperate brain functions. When those functions work together, there's a better marriage in general. The marriage itself doesn't reach the pinnacle of what it was or what it can be with folks fooling around on the "side." Personally, I think having "lust on the side" is often a cop out to the complexity of human relations when factoring in the totality in the "danger of cool things" it a subordinate proposition to tradition.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Congrats to you, Angel, I think you and your partner to be a rare case. That, and you sorely missed my point.
While I hold my reserves on Marriage, I never said it was impossible- but I'm sure myself and a good deal of people would agree that couple (or in this case, one individual involved) that needs to outsource sexually to be happy with their relationship will have a hard time maintaining a meaningful relationship with either/or. Sure, I bet someone out there worked something out, But then again, there are people who ca force their eyes in and out of their skull.
As for your second half to your post: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg re
There ya go.
Really? Sexual acts are a matter of pleasure. I don't think maturity is an issue here. If my wife is getting pleasure from someone else, than I'm not doing my job or she just needs more than I can give her. Either way if you love someone, then you want to make them happy in every way possible. If they find this happiness with someone else, then that should bother you. In this case, I'll take my western world's viewpoint.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10507340#post10507340
Youtube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/MtgMcQuacks
What you need to do, good sir, is communicate and communicate more. She needs to understand how this is making you feel. If she tries to shrug it off, and continues to claim that it's no big deal, then you must work from there. But, right now, your job is to communicate clearly and truthfully. Cut to the heart of the matter.
Happiness is not some package deal that all comes into one person.
My best friend is a pilot. I'm scared of heights. I don't go fly his plane with him. I don't get mad that he's got other friends to do this stuff with and I don't begrudge him the happiness that flying gives him by telling him he has to only be friend with me for all his life.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Kinda a false dichotomy here. Friendship =/= dating. Not quite the same thing ya know...
As to the topic, If you're content with things the way they are, stay there. If you arent, confront her or leave.
Its pretty clear cut it seems. Just takes a backbone to state your positions and such.
For me there are two parts of partnership: Feelings and sexuality.
Feelings are everywhere the same. If I love someone, I love him or her. Thats the same as with heterosexuals.
Sexuality for me has to do with who I find attractive. That also is the same with heterosexuals. Its just, that I have more choice. Thats all. But sleeping with a woman is the same as with a man (except some biological details)
So, if I have two different partners at the same time, then for me that's the same as for a heterosexual with two different partners. Having two partners at the same time is ok..... as long as my partner agrees. If he or she does not, then I have to become monogamous or break up with that partner. Also my partner has to choose if he can live with me having more different partners or breaking up with me. Both have to decide what they think is best for them.
What flappy wrote is quite good but it's not as difficult for many as he says. I have more options, because I'm attracted to more properties, that's right. But some are more important than others and I can be happy with of what I would like to have. It may be harder for me than for Shaharazad for example, but not THAT hard.
Signature made by Spiderboy4 from High~Light Studios
It's the same thing where it matters, and the only places it's different is where this society's conception of love (based on the Romantics) is screwed up (i.e. possessiveness and feelings of ownership of woman by man... or sometimes vice-versa, but most often woman by man).
Again, if you feel like you can't be someone's lover unless you're everything to that person, you have some self-esteem and possessiveness issues.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Just because you feel that other's can have sex with the person you love, doesn't not mean that people who don't agree with that are wrong. Just because I want to be a perfect mate for someone I care deeply for does not mean that I'm possessive or have self-esteem issues. Get off your high horse, thinking that just because you're different, your lifestyle choices are so much better than the rest of the world.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10507340#post10507340
Youtube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/MtgMcQuacks
If progressiveness means increasing the likelihood of disease or raising a child that is not my own and having to deal with a third wheel in parenting decisions. Nah. Seen and experienced enough of that to know that isn't truly progressive.
Right now in society we're spending billions of dollars on research for disease control, preventation, as well as social programs on people that cannot afford children. Granted there are people that do get into strained situations through abusive marriages and other unfortunant dillemas. However, "progressiveness" as you call it are cutting into funding for people that really could have been prevented.
Diseases die without carriers. It is the most sure fire way to force disease into extinction. If disease extinction and the promotation of "archaic" monogamy for all sexual relationships across the human bandwidth to stop suffering. I'm all for it.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well I personally think child raising should be collectivized, anyway, so...
As for disease, that's why we have safer sex techniques.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Also: go get yourself tested. Having sexual relations with someone whom you really don't know much about is irresponsible. Even if a person LOOKS or SEEMS clean, they may not be. Chlamydia is one of the most common STD's and it is a silent stalker, meaning that most people never develop the symptoms related to this disease.
The issue with "communal" child rearing is how people are divided up, long distances tend to make things more complicated. This isn't small town America any longer where your parents were next door to watch the kids with the siblings a few blocks away.
Except with "safer" sex technques diseases tend to mutate as the opportunistic life forms they are and latch onto new opportunities. This already occurred with oral sex, it's a matter of time before they'll adapt to other techniques.
The goal is eradication, not encourage mutation through new transmission.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Sure is safer with three people. There's three (or more) of you, so that cuts your chances by 1/3rd.
.__.
Honestly, this thread is pretty much finished, unless you guys want to start a new one discussing the ethics, reasons, and risks of poly-amorous relationships.
Well I guess we should stop going outside too, so we can eradicate the flu.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I must say this is a terrible idea. Its almost exactly the same thing she is doing with you. She likes being with the other girl, but you are her back up incase she wants something else. I would suggest breaking up with her, because she obviously doesnt want to be with you. However, be a gentleman and help her get a new place if she is living with you
I agree with you! That or have her choose between the two of you! Its kind of cheating since a relationship is based on love and commitment not sex life! She doesn't seem that committed to you since she went off and found some one else with out letting you know (I'm assuming)!