Columns Nov 18, 2015 at 4:00 am

Cold Cucked


Avast@90. No I did not say that women are bigger assholes/ arseholes than men. How did you deduce that?
Women, I said, are conditioned to stay with one man sexually and in their nurturing with one man. As we often read here, cause where the husband complains, there is also an unhappy wife.. She is also conditioned to stay with him when the sex dies.
If she is released thru a change in monogamy rules in the marriage, then her sexuality and her nurturing energies gets shared between men, and then anything can happen.
Can't see how my opinion lead you to read I was saying women are bigger
a-hs than men.
It's a pity Mr E; because you seem to be a very intelligent man and your comments are often funny.
Then your big red button gets pressed and you do the crazy man over a bunch of strangers. Please go do some therapy.
Until then, to me you are a troll.
@96 - what the fuck is wrong with *you* that you keep engaging with people who flip all of your triggers time and time again? If this crowd is nothing more than a bunch of shitstain rape apologists, why the hell are you hanging out with them? Go find your own people.
I don't see an apology for attributing DuBose Heyward's Porgy and Bess lyrics to Ira Gershwin. What gives, Savage?
@99: "She explicitly did things to him that he had explicitly not consented to. Then she tried to spin it as if was something he had consented to, making it clear that she doesn't believe his consent matters."

I was in a similar situation, on the female side, also with a cuck boyfriend.

He told it turned him on to think of me with other men. I was surprised, but happy to talk out fantasies to be GGG.

But then he informed me that he had arranged for me to sleep with "M." I was stunned. I had been happy talking through fantasies, but I was blindsided by this.

I told him I wish he had consulted me first. He acted annoyed, and insisted that I had agreed to it. He had said something vague about me sleeping with M before, but I had assumed it was just another fantasy talk-through. I hadn't a clue he took my response as a green light to make arrangements. And I suspect he was deliberately vague, hoping to have something he could spin later.

And no matter how much I said I had not agreed to it, he dug in his heels and got irritated with me for protesting.

Looking back, I should have left. I should have left right then. It was clear in that moment that getting his fantasy fulfilled was more important to him than whether I was comfortable or okay with doing something.

Instead, I went through with it. I felt too guilty to deny him what was clearly important to him. And then I resented him for it, and did a lot of things I'm not proud of in retaliation. And I hurt myself in the process.

So yeah, ultimately I have to agree that it's a DTMFA situation when a person (1) Treats their partner as collateral damage to fulfilling their fantasy, and (2) Tries to gaslight that person into retroactive consent. I thought I could salvage what I had when it happened to me. I was wrong.
CUCKS - the breadth of the deception, the disregard for my feelings, and the violation of our agreement
Looks like you've got a good handle on why her behavior was wrong. Your feelings are just as important as hers, and her trustworthiness is just as important as your own, to y'all's relationship. It's healthy to leave a partner who cannot follow the agreements you need to be happy. And it sounds like you cannot be happy with something in this new dynamic, whether that's the ongoing nature of her fling, or the shady way she revealed the facts, or perhaps that you need to initiate closing the relationship when you're stressed, depressed, or alone feeling. The shady way she revealed the facts alarms me the most, although it's possible there was a precedent for this, it's unclear from the letter. I would examine what particular actions resulted in the judgement that she "disregards your feelings". That would be the major problem area I think. Once you have thought about the individual actions that hurt your feelings, you may be able to find ways that she could correct her mistakes, to demonstrate that your feelings really are important to her.

Infidelity is not rape. Rape is when you initiate or continue sexual contact with someone who is expressing that they DO NOT WANT that sexual contact in the moment.

Regretting having had sex with someone when you find out they have a large debt or criminal record or other partners or were born the opposite gender... is simply regret. Feeling bad about sex you consented to (or even didn't bother to protest) doesn't mean that you were raped.

BAD - I think that it's realistic to assume that once you've established a good connection with a suitable mate, that the relationship will grow, not fade. You are either missing something about these men which make them unsuitable mates, or you are initiating too much too fast, leaving them with no motivation to initiate=fade.

Gui@112, what a creep. A little different story to the LWs. He is the cuckhold. He likes his wife to be transgressive. He is giving her double messages. And then he finds her story hot. Very confused guy.

dude, infidelity isn't rape. cut it out. rape is to force someone who can't or didn't consent to have sex with you. although infidelity is a violation of an agreement, it's not a violation of someone's bodily integrity like rape is.
Lava girl nails it regarding Mr Eudamonic...he's cool and says good stuff sometimes but then gets all crazy with the italics and highlighted words over rape and the unnecessary name- calling.

Strange how one can get so bent out of shape so easily and for so long...obviously very passionate about the subject, but yes...enough's enough.
In cheerful news, one of my bridge players from last year who's moved to California was yesterday's big winner on The Price is Right. She didn't get the car she played for, but she won the Showcase and ended the day with a laptop computer, a filtered water bottle, a woman's shaver, a flashlight, a trip to Montana, an amphibious vehicle and a balloon ride as part of a trip to Toledo, Spain.

I had not seen TPiR for a few years, and did wonder what happened to the male model.
This whole cuckhold thing is very confusing. A man wants his woman to get with other men, and tell him about it.
I can see that, and can see the buzz from both sides. Not sure how the others feel, I assume they know the game they are involved in.
The woman has to what? Have an open marriage that is just about satisfying the man's kink?
The LWs woman took his kink and blew it out, and yes I can see where this woman did blow it out big time.
So why. Why did she do this? Maybe she's angry with his rules that are set up to satisfy his kink.
Or she got so into cuckholding him, so eroticised by such a big play, she got lost.
Lucky friend, Venn. The male model has gone missing? That's worrying.
Eudaemonic is not a troll. He is passionate about consent. And it is possible to learn from his posts, if you take for granted that he has a point and is posting as clearly as he is able.

In this case, I wrote several drafts of a post saying that the way the LW responded to his wife in bed ("I asked her if she'd fucked him, and she said yes. It was all hot and awesome") showed that it wasn't a big deal to him at first, and therefore that this was sort of like whatever games they'd played before.

But I couldn't write the post to satisfy the voice of Eudaemonic in my head, saying that I would grant a woman the right to whatever immediate response she had to finding out about a sexual violation. If she made nice with her partner, and played along, I would see that as reasonable choices under the circumstances. And I would still allow that she might feel terribly violated, once she had time to think about it.

So I am grateful, personally, for Eudaemonic's persistence. It makes me think.
Venn @ 117
Thanks for the positive turn. I'll take the woman's shaver and the trip to Toledo, Spain. Already been to Montana.
In other news... Thanksgiving will be observed next week with some friends while I'm thriving to be one of those "heavy make up, perfumed, PTA ladies." A chance to go out dressed up nicely to the occasion without being classified, whether real or imagined, as a "drag queen."
Leftovers potluck event at my place during the weekend, you're all invited.
@EricaP: I have no quarrel with Eudaemonic's ideas (well, I do, actually, but I'm not adverse to there being differences of opinions). I value discussion and I believe I can always learn a new way of looking at something.
What I don't appreciate is the snarling, aggressively vicious name-calling he resorts to when someone has a different viewpoint. There is a way to dissent respectfully. It's called civilized discourse.
I'm going to post this thought on two threads because it is relevant to both. From my perspective, Eud has a negative influence on the SL boards because people are (rightly) afraid to incur his wrath. That makes him a bully, if not a troll.

In this thread we have posts @120 and @122 in evidence to show that he affects how other people express their opinions. In effect, he shuts down debate and silences other voices. That would be my definition of a troll AND a bully. YMMV.
You have your opinion Erica. To me he is a troll, or rather I now treat him like one because he is sometimes crazy and abusive. It's the way abusive people operate. All nice for a bit, then bam.
Has he got your private email?
Then he's all yours.
Lava - you put your finger on it - nice for a bit, then bam!
And if I could go a step further - I think that the "nice" part is actually entirely contrived in order to lend credence to his "bam" outbursts. Judging by how much slack he's given on these boards, it seems that he's become a master at it.

@1 XiaoGui17: Thank you for providing instant LW reference.
@117 vennominon: Cool news about your TPiR Showcase Showdown winning friend! Glad to hear things are better your way.
Wow--what BAD thinks is like a cancer: single at age 27---sounds more like heaven to me. And after only one year? BAD---you're only 27. What's the rush? Seriously, if something, anything---such as steadily dating---makes you that miserable, why keep pursuing it? Give it rest for a while, then figure out what you want. Fully agreed with Dan--get into your work, interests, and passions (i.e.: cooking, music, movies, sports, etc.). You've got your whole life to find "Mr. Right" if that's what you want. What's so "bad" about being single? Are your friends and family pressuring you to hook up? Believe me, being single--even for a little while, is infinitely better than ending up stuck with Mr. Wrong.
@113 Philophile: Kudos for nailing it on BAD's dating situation.
NGAA: I'm glad Dan's advice about musicals helped you.
CUCKS and his wife really need to work this out. Because what could be better than staying married to a manipulative cheater.
NGAA - are you reading the comments? Have you considered making the "other woman" a closer friend in your life? Instead of letting her go completely?
@ JibeHo - It's a fucking comments thread! If you don't like what Eud writes, stop reading his comments! Simple as that.
Mm Kudos. Thanks.

I'd like to be informed and consulted, and she would rather I kept mine to myself.
He has veto power, she does not. Power imbalance can create problems.

feeling a little emasculated.
Why does he use this word instead of "wronged"? What about his being a man is threatened here?

How [to] get over this kind of hurt and anger?
You get over hurt and anger by making the changes you need to live a happy life. Eliminating the things and events that cause unhappiness. Also asking others for help and helping others, finding things that make you happy, returning to things that make you happy, like developing your interests and purpose and material worth.. Doing what is right even if it's hard..

Why hadn't she told me or asked me at the time? Also, I felt very alone and depressed that summer, and when I'd gone to visit her, my wife and this roommate acted very strangely. I told her that I thought it was hot and cool, but that I didn't think it was cool that she'd kept this from me for so long.
It sounds like he didn't ask her why she hid it. I think he should. Assuming the big problem is that he felt his primacy was threatened because another man knew more than he did, he needs to make a big stink about that issue. Unacceptable, will not happen again or divorce time.

He might also have some hypocrisy, if he is pained when she follows DADT rules, assuming that is how he has been operating. In which case he should really examine why he needs veto power when she seems secure enough to operate without having that power over him.

If I were in his shoes, I'd insist that my partner meet someone I was sleeping with. I'd inform them beforehand, though. But I like to test for hypocrisy. I'd be watching to see if my partner could handle their jealousy as well as they expected me to.
I don't think it's as simple as that Ricardo. This is a communal
thread, and a few of us have had the pleasure of being censured by the group.
One assumes that those censured, might listen. Might respond to others perceptions of them, take it onboard and adapt.. Because they want to stay on the thread.
This is not just a chat line, Dan Savage's sites are read all over the world. People want to heal and learn about their sexual lives and impulses, that's why they write into Dan.
Yes, we mob maybe just on his shirt tails, yet there is a certain responsibility to not be abusive people. Repeatedly.
@107: "No I did not say that women are bigger assholes/ arseholes than men. How did you deduce that?"

It's all in the implications. What you said was (#89), "A woman is programmed to put all her sexual and or nurturing energies into just one man." The implication of that is that the woman, being programmed to put all her energies into only one, will direct them to the man she is currently actively exploring her sexuality with; meanwhile the one back home who gave her the green light is courting being dumped for that other man -- or at very least badly ignored and transgressed against, as happened to letter writer.

Further, if one accepts your premise that men are not so much like that, then the implication is that men are more capable of exploring sexuality with someone new while not putting their woman back home at severe risk of being unceremoniously dumped in favor of the new squeeze.

Personally, I don't think I buy either of those premises -- plenty of people will line up to tell you "I'm not like that" -- but if one did buy those premises, those would be the implications. Up to you whether you want to reformulate your hypothesis.

I do feel CUCKS and his wife should work this thru. So, that's the position I'm in.
Her story. No idea. Can only make assumptions from his story. And her behaviour as described by him.
I'm thinking she is angry. And this is how she has expressed it.
Not the best way, maybe she wasn't conscious of being angry.
And she's angry because of the set up. This dear man, LW, has set the stage to suit himself. Can't see where what she wants is part of the equation.
To paraphrase;
"Oh yeah, monogamy, I'm hip that it's not cool. So I'm sorta a cuckhold.. Tight rules, she tells me all before and after.
The missus? Oh yeah, she doesn't want to know what I get up to."
Where in this tidy little set up is room for what she'd like to do with her sexuality with other men? Can't see her imprint on much of this one.
Avast. Er no. Not what I said.
I said she would then share her sexual and nurturing energies, share.
If she hadn't taken care of CUCKS during the summer enough, don't you think he might have noticed something was a miss, way before she told him? She tended him. In hindsight he sees his depression.
And that's because he probably picked up that his woman was sharing her love. See @134.
@114: He found her story hot because she told it to him smack in the middle of fucking him; and she did it in a way that all the other times there hadn't been rulebreaking going on. Eventually it sank in what it all really meant (a process which took a couple of hours _after_ she sprang it on him), whereupon he suddenly understood the implications of a whole bunch of unpleasant behaviors on her part that had left him uncomfortable and unhappy for weeks and weeks. He realized that not only was her story very, very different this time from the previous times, but that it represented an entire summer's worth of her breaking the rules, that she KNEW she was breaking the rules the entire time, and that she kept doing it.

He isn't confused at all.
@131: "I'd like to be informed and consulted, and she would rather I kept mine to myself.
He has veto power, she does not."

The sophism is strong with this one. She has every bit as much veto power as he does. It's not his fault she prefers to put hers on the shelf and not touch it. If she wanted veto power, she would ask that he tell her about his plans, so she could veto them. He didn't ask her for the right to not have to tell her anything. She's using her power to tell him to keep it to himself.
@ 132 - "One assumes that those censured, might listen. Might respond to others perceptions of them, take it onboard and adapt"

Yes, but when experience has proven that this isn't going to happen, what do you do? You make it your mission to show someone he's wrong, to change him? That leads nowhere. I simply stop caring altogether. Remember: we are all strangers on the Internet, not each others' near and dear. No one here owes anyone else anything, but by the same token, no one should give that much importance to anyone else's opinion. (The LWs are asking Dan for his opinion, which they presumably trust, but they don't sollicit ours, so it's safe to assume that they don't really care about it.)

Also, the fact is that I agree with most of Eud's opinions - when he doesn't get in a rage, I think his posts are a highly valuable part of these threads. Sometimes he gets all worked up (always about the same general subject), so as soon as he enters that territory, I stop reading. There's absolutely nothing I can do to prevent him from commenting (and nothing I would do if I could - I never once thought of reporting SeattleBlues for his offensive comments, and all his comments were offensive).

The only thing I can do is to not let myself get overly worried about things I have no control over. No problem there: I'm an adult, I'm not that easily outraged (even if I sometimes appear to be - it's all just for dramatic effect). I actually find it much easier to just "switch off" when somebody appears really angry and aggressive and to stop taking them seriously, and I sure won't try and debate them. Simple as that, indeed.

" a few of us have had the pleasure of being censured by the group."

I see what you did there. Well played.
Sondheim is the Shakespeare of the past 200 years.. I'm so sad that his work may be behind him already.

I'd put 'Move On' from Sunday in the Park w/George on his list.

Straight musical theatre dude who already has two tickets to assassins and may get two more....
Ricardo, such abuse is unacceptable. It contaminates the thread, and I'm sure stops people from commenting and/ or reading.
Well I'm done. That abuse occurs again, I will be reporting it.
There is a school of thought that says that sex obtained under false pretense is sex under false consent, i.e., no consent; and sex without consent is rape.

You may remember the story of the Israeli woman who fucked a Palestinian, thinking he was an Israeli (apparently he told her this), within 15 minutes of meeting him; and later when she found out he was Palestinian she had him hauled up on rape charges.

There are also plenty of people who say that alcohol invalidates consent, and that therefore sex with a drunk person is by definition rape, because they, being impaired are incapable of consent. The laws are constructed to specify that the initiator -- that's crafted to be gender neutral language, but in 95% of cases brought before a judge that will be the male -- is responsible for monitoring not only his own state of intoxication, but the state of his partner. The partner, however, has no duty of responsibility for her own actions once sufficiently drunk (though the language of the law is distinctly fuzzy on what constitutes "sufficiently.") Not to go too far down that rathole, but the takeaway is that the definition of consent is paramount in these proceedings.

I can only guess what Eud's motivation is, but my best guess is that if we are to accept these sorts of definitions at face value, then we must take LW's situation with regards to how it applies under these rules with equal seriousness. She was having sex with him under false pretenses, having cheated on him all summer long. There are things about that formulation that I find problematic. If the formulation is that any sex had under circumstances that don't strictly adhere to every aspect of prearranged agreements, and that sex is therefore false consent and therefore rape, someone who failed to wax his eyebrow tips before sex as per agreements thereby becomes a rapist. This trivializes the idea of rape to a ridiculous and frankly shameful degree.

There is also the problem that I don't believe he ever set a condition with his wife that he only agrees to have sex with her under the condition that she strictly follows his Do-Ask-Do-Tell regimen. While he has the right to be greatly upset with her for the major breach of trust in her summer of bad behavior, it was never a condition of his agreeing to have sex with her. I cannot recall any other case where someone's infidelity was successfully spun into that specific formulation ("I never would have been fucking you if I knew you were cheating, therefore that constitutes sex without consent, and you are therefore a rapist.") Anybody have an example of that happening?
Ricardo, as JH pointed out above, using the word rape to describe any bit of intimacy behaviour gone wrong is grossly inappropriate.
That is a specific behaviour, that many people have been serverely traumatised by.
Seriously Avast; You too?
There are no bloody forms of rape. There is rape.
When you ready to hear.. Like listen.. Get back to me.
EricaP @ 120
I also think Euda has some valid points, but they get lost by the tone and some unnecessary exaggerations.
I can feel pain and frustration for not being heard, but there are healthier ways to deal with those.
Yes, she violated the contract but what a contract. No room for whatever is evolving in her life, which includes her sexual life, much freedom of expression.
And she needs to own that and when they sit down at the negotiating table, working out their real contract for an open marriage, I hope she gets a bit real with what she would like in her freedom package.
She obviously loves this guy, she came home to him.
Ricardo @ 130 and I’m afraid also @ 138
Yes, it is a fucking comments thread indeed. But when a large percentage of those fucking comments are written by the same angry person who may have a point but repeats the same extremely LOUD arguments over and over and is often not playing very nice with the other kids, calling them all kind of not-so-nice names and stuff like that, then it may be unfairly affecting others and shifts the energy as we unnecessarily throw shitstains at each other.
@143: it wasn't clear from what I wrote that I disagree with that school of thought?
I still like you though...
Oh shit. Did you Avast. I didn't read past it, your tone suggested you agreed, so I didn't want to digest anymore.
I'll return and finish reading.
It seems pretty clear to me that CUCKS is not objecting to the fact that his wife had sex with another man:

Last weekend we were having sex, and she asked me if I "wanted to hear a story," code for treating me to a tale of a sexual contact. She'd been out of town for work most of the summer, and she told me that one of her roommates had gotten in the shower with her and fingered her until she came. I asked her if she'd fucked him, and she said yes. It was all hot and awesome.

So far that sounds like they had an arrangement allowing her to have sex with other people - not in some hypothetical fantasy but in actual fact - and that this was not the first time she had acted on this license (which is why they had a shared code that they didn't have to explain to each other). The problem starts with the next line:

But a few hours later, I was experiencing pangs: Why hadn't she told me or asked me at the time?

Note that he never says "I never thought she would act on those fantasies!" or "I can't believe she actually went and fucked another guy, that bitch!" The source of his pain has nothing to do with the sex and everything to do with withholding the information from him. He says as much himself:

I told her that I thought it was hot and cool, but that I didn't think it was cool that she'd kept this from me for so long.

That was the deal in the first place:

...we talked about monogomish guidelines: I'd like to be informed and consulted, and she would rather I kept mine to myself.

He wanted Do Ask, Do Tell, whereas she wanted Don't. THAT'S what he got upset about, once the larger context of the act sank in (it happened months ago, she didn't tell him until now - in fact, it was going at the time he visited, and she withheld that information from him but not from her summer lover, etc.) It's pretty clear that the violation is due to her delayed disclosure and the fact that he felt treated as lower status (in terms of information sharing) than the fling partner. His monogamish agreement with her was predicated on him being in a position of privileged information, which she denied him.

Perhaps she broke the agreement because she was tempted to leave him for this other man, perhaps because she was uncomfortable with the agreement and would have preferred that neither of them disclose to the other, perhaps for some other reason. It's not clear why she chose to tell him at all (feeling guilty? afraid he'd find out? pushing the relationship envelope? bored?), but when she did she made things worse by trying to cover up her breach of trust by confessing during sex, and trying to pass it off as "just another sexy story".

Based on what he's told us, this wasn't a misunderstanding - she knows she violated the agreement by sitting on this story for so long, and then bringing it up in the way she did. It's possible that they could work things out, but I don't think CUCKS should even think about forgiving her until she's demonstrated abject remorse for her boundary violation. He doesn't need to "get right with GGGejus", she does. Agreeing that your partner can have sex with someone else doesn't mean they can't cheat on you. Unless she recognizes that and takes responsibility for what she did, he should DTMFA.
(It doesn't sound like either of them have a lot of experience at this, so it's possible that her previous stories of "sexual contact" did not go further than flirting or making out or some groping - but that's beside the point, he found the sex "hot and cool", the information blackout very much not. And he's right.)
Say what, Avast. The R word seemed to be right thru that post. These intimacy fail behaviours are not ever that.
And I'm sorry the male sex gets such trouble for sins only a few of them commit.
Yes. She acted out big time. What was she up to. I keep returning to his desire for transgression. Like. Which way does he want to play? With his training wheels on.
If I may be so bold, she did a perfect cuckhold play.
His desire for a certain play, has activated her desire and that's where it took her.
I don't get that this guy is devastated. He's hurt, and I understand that. And his wife needs to look at why she behaved that way. They will both learn from the process.

Abject remorse, Chase. You had me till those words.
Yes. She's been a bad bad girl. A lot of you guys seem to have the same response, except Dan. He didn't tell the LW to give her 100 lashes.
Bullshit Chase. Just bullshit.
They both need to get right with each other. The man is a fucking cuckhold, he got cuckholded. Then he cries foul.
Don't open up a big black door and not expect the other to explore. That is a mind fuck.
Yes. Got it. She done wrong. And maybe these two are just new to the game as you suggest. One hopes so, as they are crashing into each other.
@73: SCUM.

@81: Yes, Alison. Eudaemonic IS of the opinion that something that happens between two third parties, not even in your presence, is exactly the same thing as having someone's expressly unwanted, repulsive appendage thrust into you against your will, thus depriving you of the only control you can reasonably expect to have, that is, control over your own body. An opinion that is not only completely irrational, but highly offensive to anyone who has ever been raped. Male or female. I have been cheated on, and I have been raped. Being cheated on is a violation of trust that feels like being punched in the gut. Being raped is having your very body autonomy stolen from you. Having something indescribably repulsive done to you, which you are powerless to stop, and which you are likely to relive in horrific ways for years to come. To equate the two is to equate shoplifting and murder. And to state that anyone who disagrees with your offensive comparison is a sexist is insulting to the extreme.
Lava @106: You are right. I am sorry I fed the troll. I just want to state for the record that HE violated my express lack of consent to post any more offensive posts on this topic. He went ahead and did it anyway. By his own definition, that makes him just as scummy as Mrs CUCKS. If consent to have sex is the same as consent to be non-monogamous, then it's the same as consent to read offensive posts. Eud is therefore, by his own logic, a rapist. He has just raped me.
@ 142 - I agree with you on that, but as I have clearly stated above, I haven't been following that part of the conversation. And I won't start now.

@ 146 - That's precisely why I say that the only wise thing to do is to disengage from the conversation with that individual.
Ricardo - I can see your point, but if you don't care if Eud attacks others, then why do you care that Lava is judging his behavior as abusive?

I think there are two sides here. One is that you don't feed tantrums or bad behavior. But the other is that evil happens when good men do nothing. It's healthy for a community or society or relationship to address bad behavior.

@137 Avast - The sophism is strong with this one. She has every bit as much veto power as he does.
Yes I agree that she freely agreed to give up her veto power. I didn't say it was unconsensual. Consensual power imbalances can cause problems. At least more problems than consensual equal treatment.
Oh yeah, and quit being a sophist, Avast. :p
Ricardo, yes, it's possible to simply skip over the letters written by people who annoy you (that's why it would be nice if everyone had an avatar--anyone who finds me too irritating to want to read can just skip the comments that appear next to my Wild Thing). I actually do that already with several posters or particular threads from time to time. But if someone is a prolific poster, then chances are high that there are a lot of responses to their posts, which means either you read responses and halves of dialogues or you skip a huge chunk of a comment thread.

This is a community and there's no reason why community norms for acceptable behavior shouldn't be expected to be followed. It may not "hurt" anyone to be insulted or called names, but neither is that behavior necessary and something that we should just put up with. Shrugging off people being called shitstains and liars and rape apologists by saying it's a fucking comments thread mystifies me.

Everyone has the right to post, even some of the loonier people that have appeared here from time to time (mercifully, most of the really unhinged ones disappear quickly). But that doesn't give anyone the right to repeatedly insult someone whose opinion you don't agree with. I don't know that anyone's calling for Eudaemonic's banishment from the comments board, but I don't know why comments like some of those on this thread are allowed by the Slog monitors to stay up. As LavaGirl pointed out, a while back I did the same thing as XiaoGui17 did @1 and for the same reason, and my posting was deleted. I don't know if people reported it as offensive or trolling or spam or if the moderator just didn't think it was necessary. Fine. But it kind of disgusts me that something like that, which was meant to be helpful (a lot of people were complaining about the new format and the new need to open a separate tab to refressh their memories or refer to the letters and Dan's comments) would be removed, while a post such as that @93 is allowed to remain. For what it's worth, I reported that post as "abusive," and nothing happened. So the Powers That Be apparently agree with you that being called a "rape apologist shitstain" for daring to express a different opinion about a letter is a perfectly legitimate way to behave.
>> . So the Powers That Be apparently agree with you that being called a "rape apologist shitstain" for daring to express a different opinion about a letter is a perfectly legitimate way to behave >>

Or else they believe that encouraging Eudaemonic to stick around is worth some hurt feelings among the other posters. He is changing the world. His perspective is different from everyone else's and it is important that it be heard.

The Party Line nonsense is far more annoying and off-topic here than Eudaemonic's rants, which almost always have a kernel of value.
@161: EricaP, I always skip the Party Line, which doesn't interest me. This is different. "Changing the world" (not necessarily an assessment I agree with) doesn't give you a license to insult people who've done you no wrong except by holding a different opinion on how a stranger to both of you conducts his/her sex life. People shouldn't have to wade through a heap of abuse because there might be a kernel of value hiding in it somewhere.
I think there are plenty of ways to "encourage Eudaemonic to stick around" beyond allowing him freedom to attack and abuse other people. After all, he doesn't always behave this way. I assume you hold your children to standards of acceptable behavior and modes of address; would you think that telling them that it's unacceptable and not tolerating verbal abuse would be discouraging them from ever expressing themselves?
@149: Fair enough. In return, I guess I interpreted "programmed" to mean something different than you meant it to.
I'm no logician, but even I can spot the logical fallacy expressed above.
While rape always results from a disregard for consent, disregarding all kinds of consent doesn't always or necessarily equate to rape. To quote the Mad Hatter and March Hare:

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.
`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'
`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter.
`You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'
`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

CUCK's wife was unfaithful to an agreement that they made; she committed acts of infidelity. She didn't rape anyone. Eudaemonic's logic that every time a spouse in a monogamous marriage has an affair and then has sex with their cheated-on spouse s/he is committing an act of rape because the cheated-on spouse wouldn't consent to having sex with an unfaithful partner is a sophism of the worst sort. It's absurd and it's an insult to true rape victims.
Just giving my perspective, which is that Eudaemonic is not a troll, nor is he a child, to be scolded. People who like scolding are free to keep trying, of course.
@ 160 - "So the Powers That Be apparently agree with you that being called a "rape apologist shitstain" for daring to express a different opinion about a letter is a perfectly legitimate way to behave"

I do not think that's legitimate. You are making a serious accusation here that has nothing to do with what I said. I'm sorry, but I know that you're more intelligent than that, and you've just sunk rather low. Now, who does that remind me of?

I do not know what Eud writes in his rants (and therefore cannot have any opinion about them, their validity or legitimacy) because as soon as he starts, I quit reading not only his posts, but all the other posters' answers to his rants. It is thoroughly unproductive, as everyone here should have noticed by now.

If you wish to stop him from taking up a huge chunk of a thread with his aggressive posts, stop being his audience. Stop reading his posts, stop answering them. He won't have much to go on if no one cares to challenge him.

It really is as simple as that. You just have to know when to stop. If you don't, you only have yourself to blame if your feelings get hurt in the process. We are all here because we choose to. If it's that crucial to anyone to read and comment on every thread and that it always be a positive experience, I say: get a fucking life.

And since I myself do know when to stop, I'm disengaging from this conversation right now. Have a nice day.


Erica P @ 161
"The Party Line nonsense is far more annoying and off-topic here than Eudaemonic's rants."

As Party Line’s founding mother my idea was to engage others in a fun manner and keep it shitstain-free. I want to believe that some people were willing to join, two actually did, but then the line took a turn after Hunter's hostile takeover.
Maybe not.

Partiers have so far posted only few segments and even those have been reduced lately due to the not-so-great ratings, which probably stems from their content.
Lesson learned.
Apparently Venn had cleverly finessed us in the bridge tournament, and once it was over we shook hands and went on with our lives.

Is it too much to expect the person in question to demonstrate a similar learning curve and post his kernels of value in a slightly more civilized way, or non at all?
On CUCK's wife, I've come to the tentative conclusion that she's done being his hotwife, and may be done being his wife too. I think they've grown apart, and her affair is a symptom of her no longer feeling intimate with him. If she wants to rebuild with him she has a lot of apologizing to do. But I'm not confident she's interested in rebuilding.
@152: "If I may be so bold, she did a perfect cuckhold play."

Problem is, he isn't a perfect cuckold. He sounds more like a swinger, or just a plain old nonmonogamous person, than a cuckold. He say so right up front:

"I've always been a big believer in the common-sense obviousness that monogamy is hard. Additionally, I like the idea of my wife getting fucked. I don't have any desire to be denigrated or emasculated; I just get off on the idea of her being satisfied and a little transgressive."

It's probably kind of transgressive for him to be getting some on the side, too. That's part of what makes sex on the side hot.

Cuckolds get off on the humiliation, and he says up front that's _not_ for him. That she went ahead and did it anyway isn't an inspired bit of cuckolding, it isn't taking off the training wheels, it's a boundary violation, plain and simple. She knew it was a boundary violation, as evidenced by her guilty behavior during his visit. Wives of cuckolds are known for rubbing their husband's nose in it, not acting all nervous and weird and then waiting months to let slip what she had done. So it wasn't the perfect cuckold play after all. It was plain old cheating.

Minus the part about rape, and minus the name-calling, Eudaemonic has a point. You are being a boundary violation apologist and a cheating apologist.
@166: Ricardo, if you don't know what Eudaemonic writes in his rants, then I don't know that you're the best person to comment on them. You can--and have--offer advice to skip them, but to tell people to "get a fucking life" because they don't like being verbally abused . . . well, sure that's a way to deal with it. I prefer to live in a more civil world, and I'm not quite sure why that seems either so unreasonable or so threatening or such an over-the-top expectation.

I usually find your posts to be thoughtful and respectful and I don't understand why you're defending verbal abuse. It isn't necessary. True, it's not going to kill any of us to be called a shitstain by a stranger, but neither is it the only way one has of expressing oneself and I don't think it's unreasonable or censorious to ask people to treat others with some sort of minimal, baseline respect.
As to my comment @ 160 - "So the Powers That Be apparently agree with you that being called a "rape apologist shitstain" for daring to express a different opinion about a letter is a perfectly legitimate way to behave"--I don't see how you interpret that as sinking low on my part. My point was that I've had a comment deleted before--a comment in which I did what others before me had done with no problem, and which someone did in this comment thread with no problem, and which was designed to be helpful and inoffensive and then a poster can call anyone whose viewpoint differs from his own things like "rape apologist shitstain" and that's allowed to stand and I honestly find that action and inaction on the part of the Slog moderator baffling and disturbing.
Here's the problem with saying "let's keep Euda around, his views are important." His vicious off the rails attacks, of which I have received my fair share, drive away other view points.

It's all nice and first amendment-y to be "we don't silence opposing views," but that loses any rationality when the views expressed are done is such a vicious way that it silences other people. So what do you believe in? If you believe in free expression of different ideas, then call out your pet troll when his vitriol rises to the level of smothering rather than facilitating debate.

Its the same type of shibboleth used by those who want to continue prejudice: "you're being intolerant of my intolerance!"

As someone who's first penetrative sex was at the least coercive and at the most rape, being cheated on is NOT the same as rape. Honey, my b@stard first husband cheated on me. Yeah, he did that with the lack of consent. That isn't the same as having someone force his penis into you while you are saying, no no no. One is breaching the terms of our relationship. One was a full out physical assault on me.

(I fully acknowledge, btw, that men also can be raped, by women and by other men).

How we label things matters. The language we use, and the way we convey our ideas matters. And I would think, in light of Dan's "it gets better" campaign, we here would be a little more aware of the impact words can make on people.

Count me of one of the people who doesn't really feel like talking very much or getting involved into conversations with one of the regular commentators have resorted to vicious attacks on others. I often agree with Euda, and find many of his posts interesting... but that does not excuse the others, of which this thread certainly exemplifies.

Sex, cheating, etc. are sensitive topics. I can't really be classified as part of this "community" because I don't post very often. But I will guarantee you, a lot of other people won't even venture in in light of the tenure. Its a shame. Dan has taught me so much.
Arg. Edit. "tenor" not "tenure."
BTW, for what its worth, IMHO, what the wife did was absolutely out of bounds, and she knows it. Dan had this nailed. I don't think she was the least confused about where the lines were and inadvertently crossed over.
@164: I agree. All of these attempts to reduce various bad behaviors all to a least-common-denominator as yet another instance of false consent==sex without consent==rape, are simple-minded bad logic. Unfortunately they are all too common, and seem to be gaining traction in the culture.

Using the false-pretense==false consent==no consent formulation, giving money to a charity and then finding out that the CEO takes 100% of the donations home as salary should allow the outraged donor to charge the CEO with strong-arm robbery.

From my perspective, anything that boils down to "I never would have (X) with you if I had known (Y)" is an example not of rape, but of fraud. (Or depending on the circumstance, failure of due diligence.)

Is the group therapy session still going, I'll wait.
Yes Avast, @174, it is fraud, lies, whatever. I'm working backwards.
What nonsense to use the R word to describe all these other behaviours.
how about R the land? Another misuse of the word. The land can't give permission for anything.

DarkHorseRising @171, for me this isn't about first amendment issues (Dan's not the government and can silence anyone on his blog). For me, this is about valuing Eudaemonic's posts. Yes, I hope he finds peace and can post less viciously. But I'm not personally as concerned about those he may drive away as about the risk of losing him.
@174, agreed on all accounts. People grab for the straws of black and white thinking because it is easy. Unfortunately, the world is gray. A simple thought experiment on "killing a person is wrong" elucidates this.

@175. If that was aimed at me, that's uncalled for.

I would just like to reiterate Philo's post @158 -

"I think there are two sides here. One is that you don't feed tantrums or bad behavior. But the other is that evil happens when good men do nothing. It's healthy for a community or society or relationship to address bad behavior."

This. It's one thing to simply stop interacting. It's quite another to witness abusive and intolerant behaviour being perpetrated towards someone else and loudly proclaiming, 'Welp, this has nothing to do with me, I'm outta here...' Why not speak up and tell the jerk to knock it off? As several people have mentioned, there is a way to hold differing opinions and to share those opinions with others without going all neighbourhood bully on them.
Fan, my dear girl, I am so sorry you were
raped. I don't often have a vision of lopping off mens' testicles. Hearing of that behaviour, that visual is spontaneous towards these specific men.
It is a crime of obscene anger, power, rage and punishment. Not just sexual gratification, that is intertwined with all the others.
EricaP @177 - I'm going to try not to take that personally :)

On a serious note - I think there are probably many valuable voices turned off from commenting - or "lost" in your words - due to Eud's tone. If he's going to silence those voices, he's going to have to step up his game to make it worthwhile in my view.
I had a joke at the window, lost it by the time I got to the desk. Funny.
Avast. Yes, he wasn't a perfect cuckhold. Then don't use words to describe what you aren't. And transgressive. Cut it with the double messages.
You know why we in the west have taken to monogamy. Cause it makes it all very clear. Difficult. Intimate. Etc.
One steps out of this carefully.
He unleashed her sexuality to suit himself. Not giving her room for her own expression, her own agency.
She is angry. Acted it out erotically.
Symbolically, a fingers up to her guy.
You want cuckhold.
I'll give you cuckhold.
I am well aware that the First Amendment is not applicable to private parties, ding ding ding, unless they have taken on a role usually reserved by the government (do you want me to start quoting 1983 law? Private entities do get sued all the time for First Amendment violations under limited circumstances). I was referring to the concept behind the First Amendment - the desire of open discourse and exchange of ideas.

However, I see I made a mistake. You really don't care about people being silenced or being chased away from the boards, so long as it isn't Eud. We can't silence Eud because he's very personally special to you. But everyone else, yah, who cares.

@182. How can you possibly know any of that? How do you know he didn't give her agency? She was free to negotiate different terms if she didn't like them. She was free to address having a long term relationship with this roommate if she wanted to do so ahead of time.

By your own statements, you are the one taking agency away from Cuck's wife, treating her as if she was at the utter mercy of her libido without Cuck's restraining hand and unable to negotiate the terms she desired. Yow!
Does anyone know the name to describe a person who listens to the same music repeatedly, till something changes, then finds the next one to play on repeat.
Just asking for a friend.
DarkHorseRising @183, would I rather people stayed and took Eudaemonic's rants with a philosophical grain of salt rather than leaving in outrage that he thinks poorly of them? Yes. And I'm glad I'm not moderator and don't have any responsibility to curate these threads.

But I feel worse about the pain he's in than about the irritation he causes others with his insults. And I appreciate his insights more than almost anything else I've read on SL in the past two years. You want to chalk up my efforts as mere favoritism on behalf of someone I've never met and often argue with, be my guest.

DarkHorseRising @184 good point. Though (to take her perspective) she may not have understood what she wanted until she felt deep attraction to this roommate, after having had meaningless "hotwife" sex for her husband's benefit for years.
Dark horse, I can only ever speak for my own female energy. In a relationship with a man a woman changes.
Very different experience to having no male close in.
I look back at myself with a man and see how I moulded myself to him, maybe that's conditioning. Maybe instinct. When you rearing kids it all gets confused.
She had agency to say he didn't have to tell her. She gave him room.
His side of the contract gives her no room.
I'm not suggesting this anger she has is conscious.

I still hold these two can work this thru.
This contract was unequal. Tear it up and start again.
There used to be this thing in our society called "casual dating." It was when people would be going out on dates with several different people and dating was not the same as a commitment, except for the one date at a time. If, after some time has passed, two people decided that they liked each other enough to take things to the next level, then they would break it off with any other people they were seeing and be "exclusive" or "go steady." So there was a whole level of social interaction where there was no expectation or commitment beyond the current plans for either party. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but I wonder if it would be sensible to get back to that sort of mindset.
I get peoples annoyance with posters who say stupid, offensive shit, but that's kind of the point of a comments board. Like they say, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one." Whenever "He Who Must Not Be Named" (could be anyone, really) steps over the line A) call 'em on it or B) stop reading their ignorant opinions. Don't be intimidated, or quit the board because some fool who lives a thousand miles away and who you will never meet opens his/her mouth and lets the insects crawling around inside their head get out. Every Batman needs a Joker as a nemesis – life (and this comments board) would be a little duller without someone to say, "What a boorish prick" about.
I can see Bette Davis playing one of the roles here. She was wicked that woman, as an actress. Veronica Lake, my very special favourite. Even the name.
@153/154: What did the Letter Writer do wrong? Let his wife have sex with other men? That's not license for her to disrespect him, something he says right from the start he's not cool with. He's not a cuckold by choice, he's just into swinging, open relationships, hot wifing, whatever you want to call it. That's different from what his wife just put him through. She needs to apologize profusely and convincingly, or he needs to DTMFA, probably the latter.
@Lava, I love the "dames" in the old movies, too, but Kathleen Turner in her prime was always the one who got my motor running. Might have to dig out my Body Heat DVD and watch it tonight. Sweatiest movie ever!
For Pete's sake Lava, the man was not looking to be a cuckold, you keep using the wrong word to describe a guy trying (however misguidedly) to allow his partner the variety he assumes she craves. It takes a huge amount of trust and love to do that and doesn't necessarily reveal a secret desire to be humiliated. In my experience it takes generosity and trust to support your partner's desire to sleep with others, and that's what he gave her. He was not looking to be taken advantage of, or humiliated, or treated with contempt, he was trying to find a way for each of them to satisfy their longings for variety within the rules of a committed relationship. He may have been wrong to assume she felt the same as he did about monogamy, but I don't see how that translates into him stifling his partner, or pulling the ol' one-two-three-patriarchy or otherwise removing her agency. She's a full member in a two-person partnership and she agreed to an arrangement they both seem to have discussed, and she knew what he needed in order for it to work. That didn't stop her from doing the opposite.

She may well have been acting out on a buried anger at him. (Personally, knowing what I know now, I would be concerned about her DADT need--does that reveal a deep discomfort with the arrangement? If so, she should have spoken up and not become resentful at his inability to read her mind.) Then again, she may just have been giddy and selfish. Being wanted--never mind being well fucked--by someone you like is quite a high.
BAD, life is weird. Don't focus too hard on finding a lgtm relationship, just talk to, meet and date many guys at the same time. I remember talking to at least 10-12 people on average as potential lovers, actively seeing about 4/5 (long distance and locally) for about 2 years with no thoughts of a serious relationship, just friendship and fun. One day, I came across a guy who was in my mind a very long shot at ANYTHING but ended up being my husband :) So don't give up.
@186, @193 -- I spy with my little eye some personal experience with something similar.
Yes, very earthy woman. Carole Lombarde was the creme de la creme.
I've gone thru so many men over the years in my actor choices, I must be some form of slut.
BAD is 27? We're sure that's not a typo of 17?

A whole year without finding a long term partner? Yes, something must be seriously wrong. Everybody else in the world moves from one 6-year-plus relationship to the next, only ever needing to date a few people over the course of a couple months in between those relationships. To go a whole entire year meeting and having sex with numerous people but not finding even one with whom the majority of your life goals, habits, and other important relationships mesh such that they are long-term-partner material is utterly shocking!

Based on nothing but haphazard bits of information to which I'm assigning undue weight, I'm going to posit that BAD isn't just reasonably pretty, she's gorgeous. So she finds it really easy to get sex, but her woeful naivete makes her irritating or boring to spend time with. Thus, once the thrill of a new sex partner starts to fade, so do the dudes.

BAD, go read Leslie Feinberg's Stone Butch Blues and Patricia Hill Collins's Black Sexual Politics. Not because they really have anything to do with your situation, but exactly because they don't. You need a massive dose of social awareness if you're ever going to be a more interesting person, and those books are a great place to start.
@88: They're not poly and he doesn't have a pussy hall pass. Maybe it's my Asperger's kicking in, but I see minimal practical difference between "you can't have sex outside the relationship" and "I don't want to know about it" (to the extent that I think "I don't want to know about it" as often a euphemism for "you can't have sex outside the marriage.") Either way, you can have sex outside the relationship if and only if you successfully hide it from your partner.

I'm guessing the guy has no sexual adventures to disclose. It's generally agreed here that women in open relationships have an easier time finding additional men than men in open relationships have finding additional women. On top of that, she can look for men openly, while he has to look for, which would usually mean court, women in whatever time he can sneak in without it being apparent to her that he's using that time to look for women.

I'm also guessing that she's had one night stands in the past, and when she asked if he "wanted to hear a story", he was expecting to hear about a one night stand, not to be told that that summer he was feeling depressed and alone and missing her, she was living in basically a state of marriage with another man.
Chase, I didn't check the nos, I'm Assuming you talking to me.
Yes. She did. Humiliate him big time. I'm pretty certain I've said above that she needs to explain what the hell she was up to. If that leads to her feeling and saying sorry, Id think that was a good outcome.
I'm not joining the blame her for all of the structure falling down group, when the structure was faulty to begin with.
I've never had fantasies of sex with actors, cause my images are form changes, not specifics.
I have fallen in love with actors.
Peter Finch, he must have been close to first. He did a beautiful bi sexual film, with Glenda Jackson
" Sunday, Bloody Sunday", it was very real, sexy and revolutionary.
@198. Old crow. True. Transgressive extremis. Be careful what you wish for.
@150: That's a good observation about the 'withholding of information'. Not being a cuckold myself, but having been the third party in a few of these ventures, here is my observation:

There is something about watching or hearing about the exploits of your partner that appears to be the turn-on for the cuckold. So until the story is told, the wife's activity provides no arousal for the man. And since that's what he (the cuckold) appears to value, he is being deprived of it while his wife derives a benefit. In fact, some couples insist on a 'live viewing' by the husband, so to speak. So his gratification is immediate and first hand.

Why people get off on this, I don't really understand. But it does appear to involve the vicarious experience with as little delay as possible.
DonnyKlicious @189: Don't be intimidated, or quit the board because some fool who lives a thousand miles away and who you will never meet opens his/her mouth and lets the insects crawling around inside their head get out.

Is that an order? Because when something triggers my own trauma it might not be so simple to obey your directive. I did come back after JibeHo drove me off, but it took a lot of deep breathing.

It’s easy for me to ignore Eudaemonic once he’s been triggered because he’s so over-the-top; it was harder for me to ignore JibeHo telling me I had no right to speak because I was the wrong kind of person, because that paralleled things I’d been through in very real life. (I’ve mentioned previously that I imagine Eudaemonic as having PTSD, which helps me compartmentalize his inputs; I now imagine JibeHo as a mean drunk, which helps me dismiss her.)

The thing is, different people have different life experiences. I may be the only person here who responded so strongly to JibeHo’s needling because of my own history. Someone else might respond strongly to Eudaemonic’s passionate hatred.

You can’t just instruct people not to care and declare that fixes everything. We’re social animals and we matter to eachother.
@169. Avast. A boundary/ cheating apologist you say, I am. I've been looking at this story a different way. The rest of you have found the moral outrage to CUCK'S wife's behaviour, I just didn't feel it.
And I do feel that outrage with different letters.
The LW doesn't sound overly freaked by this. Dan pointed out how he saw the story and reminded CUCKS what good sex he was having.
My response and reasons for them have been outlined numerous times, I haven't shifted from my take on this.
Not an order, Alison@203, a personal philosophy. Ever read I'm OK, You're OK? I think it's very applicable to this...basically it talks about three personalities we all use, Parent, Adult & Child. In a simplified nutshell, the goal is to not let your illogical and emotional "child" personality get "hooked" by external situations/provcations and to stay in your logical 'adult" personality. I realize that we all have trauma and hard situations in our past and that you are struggling with some - not discounting that at all. Put another way, rise above the fools that surround you, especially the ones that are just voices on the Internet wind. “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Sarah Cook
Alison--you came up on a friend's FB thread! Anyway--I thought JibeHo was sarcastically agreeing with you. Not driving you away! Underscoring your point, in fact. Be well.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.