Infidelity and BDSM

[Ragoczy]

Is the "you" in your post referring to a specific person or is it generic-"someone"?

I think some people may be taking this as being directed at an individual, but I got the feeling it was more just your pattern of speech to use "you"?

[Ozme52]

Bambina,

Is the "you" in your post referring to a specific person or is it generic-"someone"?

I think some people may be taking this as being directed at an individual, but I got the feeling it was more just your pattern of speech to use "you"?

Bull!! Her intent is clear.

It's despicable, and I am not afraid to say that those who cheat are down right sleezy, good-for-nothing, selfish, maniacal bunch of sh!ts.

And let's be clear about her use of the language. She's not making any consideration for any form of infidelity. Permission granted or not, open relationship or not, poly or not. Hell, by her words, poly itself is infidelity.

Infidelity is the worst thing you could do in a committed relationship and I have zero tolerance for it. There is no reason why (while in a relationship) one should seek out another for anything on an intimate level. NO reason.

[Ragoczy]

Bull!! Her intent is clear.

And let's be clear about her use of the language. She's not making any consideration for any form of infidelity. Permission granted or not, open relationship or not, poly or not. Hell, by her words, poly itself is infidelity.

Well, it clearly wasn't clear, because I didn't necessarily take it that way. I leave some room for the possibility that, in forming her post, she used the word "you" generically and possibly neglected to articulate a "without prior agreement"-clause, maybe thinking it was understood in the context.

So I asked a question to clarify ... is that so unreasonable?

[Ozme52]

Well, it clearly wasn't clear, because I didn't necessarily take it that way. I leave some room for the possibility that, in forming her post, she used the word "you" generically and possibly neglected to articulate a "without prior agreement"-clause, maybe thinking it was understood in the context.

So I asked a question to clarify ... is that so unreasonable?

If she hadn't been clear in her "No Reason" statement, if she hadn't been very clear that she doesn't mind calling all of us sh!ts, I wouldn't have responded as I had.

Perhaps you didn't take it as a directed statement because it wasn't directed at activities you partake in... this time.

[Ragoczy]

If she hadn't been clear in her "No Reason" statement, if she hadn't been very clear that she doesn't mind calling all of us sh!ts, I wouldn't have responded as I had.

Perhaps you didn't take it as a directed statement because it wasn't directed at activities you partake in... this time.

And, again, I'm simply saying that with so much of this discussion having the qualifier of defining infidelity as being where all of the parties haven't consented, she may have assumed that was understood and left the qualifier off. And, having that doubt, I'd prefer to ask if it was her intent to call consenting parties shits or if she really meant just those who go behind their partner's backs.

If she meant that someone whose partner says, "sure, honey, go bang so-and-so", then I have issue with the position -- if she meant just those who sneak, lie and betray, then I support it; because that does harm, not only to the betrayed partner, but often to every future relationship that partner may have.

There is "no reason" to do something that so betrays the trust of someone you've made a pledge to.

[FrozenGrapes]

[IAmCanadian]

And let's be clear about her use of the language. She's not making any consideration for any form of infidelity. Permission granted or not, open relationship or not, poly or not.

I mean...this just isn't true. She obviously means "cheating without permission", a true act of betrayal. Infidelity with no reason behind it besides feeding sexual urges. Considerations are implicit if you just look at the intent.

You're way off base here. Not sure how else to say it. I am baffled by your response.

Sorry brother but if you go back and read it again... she's calling out anyone who lives differently.

This actually couldn't be any less true. It's like a contest was held to see who could misunderstand her statement the most, and you really needed the prize money. Let me quote from her post:

If you live in a Vanilla relationship and you long for one that deals with BDSM then you have some decisions to make.

Don't be dishonest and unfaithful to your spouse because of YOUR need for something different.

What part of the above makes you believe that she is condemning polyamorous relationships, open relationships, or just plain swinging? The only topic explicitly addressed by her post was dishonesty in a conventional marriage. Even when talking more generally, she uses phrases like dishonest and unfaithful. How could those words be a condemnation of polyamory or open relationships, wherein the secondary sex partners are agreed-upon and there is no deception?

Just a ridiculous overreaction.

- FS

[cadence]

Just a ridiculous overreaction.

- FS

Honestly I would have to side with Oz, and while he might have read more into it than others have, I still side with him for the general fact that everytime a thread mentions infidelity, there are always those who will voice thier opinions a little too voraciously.

I'm not saying that infidelity is not wrong, yes we all know it's wrong. I'm not disputing that.

While I appreciate that everyone has an opinion to share, the opinions tend to become a tad to focused and beligerent to others in general.

Sure maybe some people deserve the title of a few choice names, but that does not mean that everyone should be tagged and labled deviant and not worthy of being a human being.

[IAmCanadian]

Honestly I would have to side with Oz, and while he might have read more into it than others have, I still side with him for the general fact that everytime a thread mentions infidelity, there are always those who will voice thier opinions a little too voraciously.

There's a difference between arguing that the message was overly voracious and arguing that it says something about a certain lifestyle when it clearly doesn't.

If Oz wanted to argue that she was being unfair in emphatically denouncing the dishonest, deceptive brand of infidelity just because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, why didn't he just make that argument?

Instead, he tried to say that she was speaking against polyamory, open relationships, and swinging. When she obviously wasn't.

- FS

[cadence]

There's a difference between arguing that the message was overly voracious and arguing that it says something about a certain lifestyle when it clearly doesn't.

If Oz wanted to argue that she was being unfair in emphatically denouncing the dishonest, deceptive brand of infidelity just because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, why didn't he just make that argument?

Instead, he tried to say that she was speaking against polyamory, open relationships, and swinging. When she obviously wasn't.

- FS

Yes you are correct, I shouldn't have taken your quote and used it. I was more or less talking about the first statement he made.
That would make me guilty of jumping the gun, but hey I'm not super perfect.
I can't say whether or not bambina used her dislike of infidelity and asscociated it with poly or other relationships. Only she can clarify it.

[Ozme52]

There's a difference between arguing that the message was overly voracious and arguing that it says something about a certain lifestyle when it clearly doesn't.

If Oz wanted to argue that she was being unfair in emphatically denouncing the dishonest, deceptive brand of infidelity just because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, why didn't he just make that argument?

Instead, he tried to say that she was speaking against polyamory, open relationships, and swinging. When she obviously wasn't.

- FS

I've only commented on her style... and argue against her defenders.

And my comment was about how infidelity discussions inevitably end up with such diatribes. I made no comments previously about any of the opinions stated that were clearly opinions held... those made without attacks.