If a woman from your DH's past mentioned going to lunch.....

[happyWImom]

I realize the OP asked for opinions-she asked whether we would be bothered or upset, how would we react, or if we thought it was weird.  I get that, and that everyone is free to express their opinions not just agree with what she felt.

 

But, I've seen a lot of harsh comments on these boards over the years, and I know some people are intimidated & maybe scared to post questions because of some of the responses.

 

It's fine to say you wouldn't be threatened, bothered, think it's weird, etc....  But to say either she or whoever agrees with her is extreme, silly, territorial or has a sad marriage doesn't really make this seem like an open, non-judgmental place.

[Aelwydd]

I don't think anyone has suggested that the woman is some sort of "filthy wh*re," nor do I believe that those who suggested that the woman may have an ulterior motive are insecure.

 

And realistically, if you go around posting on the FB pages of men whose bands you followed around from gig to gig many years ago, I wouldn't call you any unpleasant names, but I would certainly say you had way much time on your hands, and that perhaps it was time to get off the computer and meet some new people in real life instead of turning into a FB groupie for a guy you never really knew, and who isn't even in a band any more.

I would say this isn't any better than "filthy whore." She made one comment on Facebook. I don't draw from that the assumptions you do about her character and how she spends the other 23 hours and 58 minutes of her day. I don't really care at all about her comment. Or if she was a groupie.

 

The only thing that matters is whether dh was honest and kept faith with me.

[I.Dup.]

Note to self: Don't post on anyone's FB page if I don't want to be seen as a filthy whore by insecure people.

 

LOL!! How often do you post on a married man's wall that you followed around in the past asking them to go to lunch? On a picture of them with their kid? When they're married? lol Klassy!

 

Everyone not in internet land would look at you like: :confused1:  if you did so. Probably including the married man himself.

 

I posted about how funny some guy was who was always making jokes on one of my friend's wall (he really was hilarious). His wife pounced on me not a minute later and marked her territory. ;)

 

Doesn't necessarily mean women who are like this are psycho or insecure, if anything I was embarrassed because of MY behavior, not hers. If something would be tacky IRL, it's probably tacky online.

 

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that the woman is some sort of "filthy wh*re," nor do I believe that those who suggested that the woman may have an ulterior motive are insecure. 

 

And realistically, if you go around posting on the FB pages of men whose bands you followed around from gig to gig many years ago, I wouldn't call you any unpleasant names, but I would certainly say you had way much time on your hands, and that perhaps it was time to get off the computer and meet some new people in real life instead of turning into a FB groupie for a guy you never really knew, and who isn't even in a band any more. 

 

 

Umm, yeah.

[Aelwydd]

I realize the OP asked for opinions-she asked whether we would be bothered or upset, how would we react, or if we thought it was weird. I get that, and that everyone is free to express their opinions not just agree with what she felt.

 

But, I've seen a lot of harsh comments on these boards over the years, and I know some people are intimidated & maybe scared to post questions because of some of the responses.

 

It's fine to say you wouldn't be threatened, bothered, think it's weird, etc.... But to say either she or whoever agrees with her is extreme, silly, territorial or has a sad marriage doesn't really make this seem like an open, non-judgmental place.

Who said this board is supposed to be non-judgmental or free of criticism, even harsh?

 

It's a board dedicated to classical education, which is predicated upon logic and critical thinking. I'm not defending ad hominem attacks as criticism--but no here is making personal attacks on the OP. We are expressing what our responses are to the scenario the OP shared.

 

Again, not aware of any stipulations that posts on this board must be supportive in general.

[Catwoman]

I would say this isn't any better than "filthy whore." She made one comment on Facebook. I don't draw from that the assumptions you do about her character and how she spends the other 23 hours and 58 minutes of her day. I don't really care at all about her comment. Or if she was a groupie.

 

The only thing that matters is whether dh was honest and kept faith with me.

 

Seriously?  :confused: 

 

That's just ridiculous.  :glare:

[Aelwydd]

Seriously? :confused:

 

That's just ridiculous. :glare:

No, really it's not. You pretty much summed her up as useless.

[happyWImom]

Seriously?   :confused:

 

That's just ridiculous.   :glare:

:iagree:   Done here for today.   :banghead:

[Heatherwith4]

The OP never used the word groupie, BTW.

[Catwoman]

No, really it's not. You pretty much summed her up as useless.

 

 

Oh, please. :glare:

 

I said nothing of the kind. You are completely misinterpreting my words. 

 

Saying that someone should find something better to do with her time hardly equates to calling her "a filthy wh*re" or "summing her up as useless."

[Aelwydd]

Oh, please. :glare:

 

I said nothing of the kind. You are completely misinterpreting my words.

 

 

Saying that someone should find something better to do with her time hardly equates to calling her "a filthy wh*re" or "summing her up as useless."

I'm trying to figure out how one 15 second comment = she has no social life, is nothing more than a groupie, and spends her time doing frivolous things.

 

That is what you said about her. All that might be true, but how do you reach those conclusions about someone on a second hand account of a one- sentence comment?

[Catwoman]

I'm trying to figure out how one 15 second comment = she has no social life, is nothing more than a groupie, and spends her time doing frivolous things.

 

That is what you said about her. All that might be true, but how do you reach those conclusions about someone on a second hand account of a one- sentence comment?

 

NO, that is not what I said about her. You are exaggerating. 

 

I'm not sure why you're looking for a fight with me today, but I'm not taking the bait. 

 

Feel free to believe whatever you'd like about what I have posted. It really doesn't matter to me, and it certainly isn't helping Bean. 

 

I think we should just agree to disagree and let it go at that, so this thread can get back on track. 

[gardenmom5]

Some women are predatory. Some people just are that way. Many aren't. No big deal. I've never had experience with a person who might be after my husband, some of the women here seem to. A good deal of the more cautious advice probably comes from wives with that experience.

 

 

I've never had reason to be jealous of another woman in 31 years, and dh has female friendships from before we even met.  

 

 - but nothing but a groupie and no contact since from 20 years ago is strange at best, and would put me on alert.  I also think that sane rational people should listen to their gut - and in this case, her gut is telling her something is off.

[kristi26]

 

So my point with this is that people just need to be conscious of this stuff.  Discuss with your spouse what your expectations and boundaries are and hold each other to them.   

Other people only seem to slip through when there are no standards...  Just be on the same page, whatever page that might be.

 

This is very well said.  I, like the OP and many other P's ( ;) ) who've posted, would be upset by the comment.  DH would never respond to it.  He would never go.  But that's because we have boundaries that are clearly set for our relationship.  We both know the boundaries, know the standards we are held to, and we abide by the rules we've made for our relationship.  We both come from broken families (with at least one cheating parent) and we refuse to allow OURS to end up like that for our own sake and for our children's sake so we have strict rules about the opposite sex.

 

All that to say, everyone should discuss the boundaries within their own marriage and be sure that all involved are happy with it whatever it is.

[Guest]

So I asked dh about a scenario like this.  Dh is TOTALLY not a jealous person, and his response was, "I wouldn't want you taking up that offer...innocent or not it looks bad."

 

We try to never put ourselves in a situation where it would give any appearance of something not right.  

 

 

 

[Aelwydd]

NO, that is not what I said about her. You are exaggerating.

 

I'm not sure why you're looking for a fight with me today, but I'm not taking the bait.

 

Feel free to believe whatever you'd like about what I have posted. It really doesn't matter to me, and it certainly isn't helping Bean.

 

I think we should just agree to disagree and let it go at that, so this thread can get back on track.

I'm not looking to fight. I'm asking how you got from point A--she mentioned to OP's dh that she'd like to go to lunch sometime--to point B, which is:

 

And realistically, if you go around posting on the FB pages of men whose bands you followed around from gig to gig many years ago, I wouldn't call you any unpleasant names, but I would certainly say you had way much time on your hands, and that perhaps it was time to get off the computer and meet some new people in real life instead of turning into a FB groupie for a guy you never really knew, and who isn't even in a band any more.

You won't call her any unpleasant names, but you say that she has "way too much time," (i.e., spends her time doing frivolous things); you say she needs to "get off the computer and meet some new people (i.e., she has no social life); and she is "turning into a FG groupie for a guy [she] really never knew" (i.e., is nothing more than a groupie).

 

happyWIman just expressed her dismay about how this board is full of harsh criticism. As I said to her, I don't agree with ad hominem attacks, that is personal attacks, on someone's character. I believe a rational critique is completely appropriate here, though.

 

Which is why I questioned how you got from one comment to a conclusion about her character. I don't know her from Eve; she may, in fact, be a groupie, with no social life, who needs to find more productive things to do with her time. She may be a "filthy whore." But I don't know how it's possible to glean any of those things from the limited amount of information about the issue.

 

That's why I said anything at all. I don't really care at all about the woman. I'm curious, however, about the motives behind saying those things about her.

[Catwoman]

I've never had reason to be jealous of another woman in 31 years, and dh has female friendships from before we even met.  

 

 - but nothing but a groupie and no contact since from 20 years ago is strange at best, and would put me on alert.  I also think that sane rational people should listen to their gut - and in this case, her gut is telling her something is off.

 

I agree completely. 

 

I don't view Bean as being insecure at all. Everyone has "red flag moments" at one time or another. It's not like Bean starts a thread every other day about how she is worried about women chasing after her dh; this was a one-time thing that she thought seemed odd, so she posted about it. 

 

 

If Bean thought something didn't seem right, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her. 

[WishboneDawn]

I'm not looking to fight. I'm asking how you got from point A--she mentioned to OP's dh that she'd like to go to lunch sometime--to point B, which is:

 

You won't call her any unpleasant names, but you say that she has "way too much time," (i.e., spends her time doing frivolous things); you say she needs to "get off the computer and meet some new people (i.e., she has no social life); and she is "turning into a FG groupie for a guy [she] really never knew" (i.e., is nothing more than a groupie).

 

happyWIman just expressed her dismay about how this board is full of harsh criticism. As I said to her, I don't agree with ad hominem attacks, that is personal attacks, on someone's character. I believe a rational critique is completely appropriate here, though.

 

Which is why I questioned how you got from one comment to a conclusion about her character. I don't know her from Eve; she may, in fact, be a groupie, with no social life, who needs to find more productive things to do with her time. She may be a "filthy whore." But I don't know how it's possible to glean any of those things from the limited amount of information about the issue.

 

That's why I said anything at all. I don't really care at all about the woman. I'm curious, however, about the motives behind saying those things about her.

I'm not sure why, if a rationale critique is important and gleaning too much from limited information is to be frowned on why then the judgement of "sad and silly" about one isolated scenario was defensible.

[Aelwydd]

I'm not sure why, if a rationale critique is important and gleaning too much from limited information is to be frowned on why then the judgement of "sad and silly" about one isolated scenario was defensible.

Because if you go back and reread those comments, the person who made them also made it clear that it was not about Bean, herself. The poster in question did not call the OP "silly." She said that, in the context of her own relationship, if such and such happened, she would deem it silly or sad if she got upset. She went on to elaborate that it was about what was going on in her own head. She did not say Bean was "silly," or "sad" or any other thing for asking the question or feeling what she felt.

 

I don't recall anyone on this thread saying anything personally about Bean, herself, about her character, or that of her dh. If someone had, I would definitely not agree with that. You may think that's splitting hairs, but to me, there's definitely a difference between someone sharing their own feelings in response to a direct question--"How would this make you feel?"--and someone making blind or rash assumptions about the life and character of another person, who isn't even present for the conversation.

[mamaraby]

Calling her silly & saying she's suspicious of the whole of womankind doesn't seem like I'm overreacting to the comments.

 

Again, since I haven't mastered the multi-quote, and since I don't want to have a bunch of darts thrown at me, I'm not going to name every single comment I think might have been offensive. But when people are typing things in all caps for the OP about being FRIENDS with the opposite sex & calling her "extreme", it doesn't spell supportive to me.

 

And, as the OP said, they were never "friends". A cross between groupie & acquaintance, not a friend.

Gently, For someone who is self-described PMS-y, is it possible you are reading more in those other posts than what is actually there? From what I've read, most of those posts used "I statements" (If it were me...My husband...My marriage) which draw specific attention to another person's perspective versus "you statements" that indicate specific judgement about another person. Can you quote for me where someone said "You are being silly about this and need to get over it"?

 

As for CAPS, some folks use it for emphasis, but again, if given in the context of an "I statement" this speaks specifically about the person answering the question and not their feelings aout the OP.

 

And yes, groupie, acquaintance, whatever, it wold not bother me if it were my husband or my marriage. In my opinion, and where it concerns my husband and I, we're both adults and capable of managing ourselves. I am not concerned about single women going after my husband, goddess knows another married woman could be just as interested in him and just as lkely as trying to initiate a relationship.

 

When it comes to *me* and *my* marriage, I'll be the first to admit that I cannot control my husband nor what other people do around him. It's entirely possible that he may decide at some point that he doesn't want to continue to be married or that he loves someone else. I've already been clear that I am not interested in an open relationship and that I'd rather he told me before anything happened. *shrugs* Because we do not view our relationship as a forever, no way out proposition, I would not see anything untoward about what the OP described because in my case I would trust that my dh would have let me know if he did not want to stay. Nothing the OP said indicated to me that there were trust issues nor did she indicate that her dh had any interest in the other person. As such, I would take him at his word.

 

And again, just because I have said what I would do, it does not mean that I judge those who think differently nor do I judge the OP for feeling the way she did. Many marriages, many ways of being married.

[mommaduck]

Does she see herself as an old friend of your husband's or did they have a sexual relationship? That would be the difference. I have male friends from twenty some odd years ago that, if they were in town, I'd invite them over for supper or out to lunch depending upon how long they were in town and how busy they were....a couple of them dh would not have a problem with because they were practically brothers to me or to him. If they had had a sexual relationship, then the answer would be a big NO.

[unfrumpable.]

I've had jealousy issues before, but it was helpful to remember they were *my* issues, not dh's. Not some unfairly labelled hussy's. It was my own head.

 

I happen to like lunch. I'd go have lunch with just about anyone, and am just as likely to extend the invitation as accept it. I'm neither a hussy nor an untrustworthy spouse. And, if I were either, I'd expect dh to give me the boot well before anything could possibly happen.

I completely agree with both your posts. :)

[happyWImom]

Gently, For someone who is self-described PMS-y, is it possible you are reading more in those other posts than what is actually there? From what I've read, most of those posts used "I statements" (If it were me...My husband...My marriage) which draw specific attention to another person's perspective versus "you statements" that indicate specific judgement about another person. Can you quote for me where someone said "You are being silly about this and need to get over it"?

 

 

 

It is very possible! :rofl:   It is difficult w/email, social media, etc... to always detect the "tone" that the writer intends.  So yes, I could be totally off.

 

There is such a thing as implied intent, though.  When someone says I'm not suspicious of the rest of womankind,  and that it's sad that people are territorial & think all other woman are predatory, whom is she speaking about?  

 

 

I also think healthy debate is good, and I know that it isn't written anywhere that we are all to support each other, but do we need to tear each other down?  Having an opposing opinion, especially when asked "What do you think about...." is fine, but am I so off the wall here that I am misreading anything inflammatory at all?  Totally benign?  Again, it's possible.

[happyWImom]

I'm the one who said it was silly to worry and be suspicious... And I stand by that. Because if it's not silly then it's sad. It's sad that a marriage wouldn't be strong enough for something so mild as a casual comment about lunch and sad that so many people see other women as "predatory" and are so territorial about their husbands. It's also maybe a little sad that something on FB would be so threatening. So, yeah, I hope it was silly and not a real problem in their marriage. Sometimes I have silly feelings of insecurity or suspicion that I then have to shake myself out of and say to myself, come on, be real, be more confident, get over it.

 

I do want to say that I could have totally misinterpreted your meaning, because as I previously stated, it is hard to determine "tone" from just the written words.  

 

My PMS has gotten the better of me, and I am going to try & imagine that all the responses here were sincere.  :001_smile:   

 

I didn't want to hijack this thread & make it about me & whoever, instead of helping/answering the OP.  

[Guest]

It's interesting. This thread has divided into camps exactly the same way as when I posted about this same type of issue. 

 

 

[Catwoman]

It's interesting. This thread has divided into camps exactly the same way as when I posted about this same type of issue.

I remember that thread, and I also remember being concerned that some of the posts might have hurt your feelings.

[KrissiK]

Regarding the friending ... some people friend every one they ever thought they knew. This chick I sort of knew in early elementary school friended me. I accepted, just because.... I don't know why. I hadn't thought about her in 35 years. I don't think FB friending means a lot initially. Of course it can get sticky. Regarding the lunch thing.... I just took it as some off-hand comment. Like, "oh you were in my town, we could have done lunch..." (Not really, but it sounds like a nice thing to say).

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's interesting. This thread has divided into camps exactly the same way as when I posted about this same type of issue. 

That's because there are two basic views of the power of temptation in a marriage on this board.  Some believe that any lapses are due to temptation being allowed to be present and that if there is enough of that, someone might have a lapse in judgment.  Some believe that any lapses are due to the person who lapsed making bad choices and that good choices can be made no matter how much temptation might be around.  At least that is how it appears to me.  

[Scarlett]

Hmm. Yes, I think it would kind of bother me, but I wouldn't freak out about it. I have a tendency to run a little hot tempered. Character flaw, I know.

 

The thing that is interesting about the question to me is that *I* have an ex-boyfriend that I've talked about having coffee with sometime. We're both happily married. I moved back to our hometown and we ran into each when he was in town to visit family. We've caught up with each other via FB messages--nothing I wouldn't show my husband, in fact, I did read him parts of the messages, and it didn't even cross my mind that this might be something that would tick off dh. I don't believe it did. He's a pretty mellow guy. Now I'm thinking we should just go out for a few beers as two couples instead of the two of us for coffee.

Yes definitely with your spouses.

 

These type of threads usually fall into two camps. 1) those who wouldn't like it and 2)those who don't mind at all.

 

The exact situation in the OP would not be alarming...but eyebrow raising....there are a lot of people out there who do not respect the marriages of others. That comment, as innocent as it sounded, could very well have been her feeler to see if she could get into his life.

 

It would be something that I would point out to dh as a potential problem. But he and I are on the same page about that kind of stuff. He probably wouldn't have friended her in the first place.

[Guest]

I remember that thread, and I also remember being concerned that some of the posts might have hurt your feelings.

 

Meh. Some of them may have at the time, but it all worked out for the best in the end. 

 

What I find concerning is women who feel that not being pleased about this scenario equates to them having a jealousy problem of their own.  My dh is my territory - end of story. I wouldn't be keen about somebody who once admired him trying to open the door for connection. Of course it could be totally meaningless and innocent...but it might not be. His primary connection is with me, not just for teA, and all the crumpets that go with it, but for soul-level connection, enjoyment of company, close friendship. TeA is not some abstracted thing that happens unconnected (at least, not in the context we're talking about). It's when someone starts to say, "Wow, Band Guy. We just connect so well, together, don't we? It's like we're totally cut from the same cloth..." that barriers to physical dallying are more likely to come down. 

 

In my own situation, there are things I see now in retrospect that I either didn't notice or wanted to deny.  There is no question that this was an "unfriend" that needed to happen. 

[Scarlett]

Meh. Some of them may have at the time, but it all worked out for the best in the end.

 

What I find concerning is women who feel that not being pleased about this scenario equates to them having a jealousy problem of their own. My dh is my territory - end of story. I wouldn't be keen about somebody who once admired him trying to open the door for connection. Of course it could be totally meaningless and innocent...but it might not be. His primary connection is with me, not just for teA, and all the crumpets that go with it, but for soul-level connection, enjoyment of company, close friendship. TeA is not some abstracted thing that happens unconnected (at least, not in the context we're talking about). It's when someone starts to say, "Wow, Band Guy. We just connect so well, together, don't we? It's like we're totally cut from the same cloth..." that barriers to physical dallying are more likely to come down.

 

In my own situation, there are things I see now in retrospect that I either didn't notice or wanted to deny. There is no question that this was an "unfriend" that needed to happen.

And to further that thought, every person on the planet is capable of being unfaithful. My dh and don't want to do that and we take what some may see as ridiculous precautions and set firm boundaries in an effort to avoid such a situation.

[Aelwydd]

I totally agreee with you about being the primary connection in his life. All that other stuff, temptation, etc., usually only becomes a problem when something interferes with a couple's emotional connection first.

[Erin]

His primary connection is with me, not just for teA, and all the crumpets that go with it, but for soul-level connection, enjoyment of company, close friendship.

I agree.

And I tend to think people forget how their own relationships started.  

 

For most of us, it was nothing more than an idle conversation.   Then a second where we kind of firmed up the connection.

Or, maybe it was an instant click and we just took off--immediate friends. 

 

 

But most of the time, it was pretty innocent and completely unplanned, at the very beginning...

That's why I think people need to have very clear boundaries established with their spouses.  "These are the lines I will not cross."  Be specific.  

And "I will not have sex with other people" is WAY too far down the trail.   You want your line set well before that.

[Guest]

That's because there are two basic views of the power of temptation in a marriage on this board.  Some believe that any lapses are due to temptation being allowed to be present and that if there is enough of that, someone might have a lapse in judgment.  Some believe that any lapses are due to the person who lapsed making bad choices and that good choices can be made no matter how much temptation might be around.  At least that is how it appears to me.  

 

Perhaps. I don't even think about this sort of thing in terms of the temptation it presents as much as the trajectory of where your taking (developing, moving) the friendship. 

 

What happens when you first date someone you may be interested in? (Granted, there are folks who skip the crumpets and go right for the teA, but...) Doesn't it start with the most basic feelers? Is he willing to give me his phone number? Yes? Cool. Is he willing to meet up with me for lunch? Yes? Awesome. Is he sending me private messages, disclosing things about himself? This is getting better and better. He's willing to rearrange some aspect of his life (drive a couple hours, spend some money, get coveted tickets to a show, etc.) to do something for me? He's really putting a priority on me...IMO, when you choose your mate, these steps of developing a relationship end for others who are not your spouse or your same-gender buddy. Sorry to make it so gender-biased, but that is just the truth. I'm not tempted to have sex with my best girlfriend, however dear she may be.  :laugh: All those little acts of demonstrating the priority you are willing to put on someone, IMO, goes only to your spouse and same-gender friends after marriage. 

 

Sure our actual choices matter and one can always shut down a "friendship" that's gathering speed in the wrong direction, but there's something to be said for not giving the impression that a possibility exists if it doesn't. Why respond positively to all those little "feelers" I mentioned if you're not aiming to become closer and closer, more and more intimate with the person sending out the feelers? 

[Carrie12345]

And to further that thought, every person on the planet is capable of being unfaithful. My dh and don't want to do that and we take what some may see as ridiculous precautions and set firm boundaries in an effort to avoid such a situation.

I don't want to disrespect that viewpoint, I just don't understand it. If my spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him. All to herself. *I*, *I*, *I* don't believe my husband's parts will ever unintentionally fall into someone else's. If he intends to do that, he can just go!

[Jean in Newcastle]

And to further that thought, every person on the planet is capable of being unfaithful. My dh and don't want to do that and we take what some may see as ridiculous precautions and set firm boundaries in an effort to avoid such a situation.

Capable, yes.  But a virtuous wife is a virtuous wife because of decisions she makes in her mind, not because she's never been afforded any opportunity to stray.  Ditto, a virtuous husband.  Does that mean I look for opportunities to stray?  No, of course not.  That would mean that something was already "off" in my thinking.  But it also means that I'm monitoring myself and am going to respond accordingly to keep myself out of trouble.  I expect my dh to be the same.  if I felt like I had to monitor him or be afraid of his own monitoring of himself, then I would already be thinking that there is something off in his thinking and in our connection.  And if he ever did stray, I would be blaming him and him alone.  Our commitment needs to be to each other regardless of who flashes a leg or extends a lunch invitation.  Obviously I don't care if someone errs on the side of caution and says no to every invitation to lunch but in our situation, we would miss out on some great people who happen to be the opposite gender.  

 

BTW - personal experience here.  I used to go out to lunch all the time with male coworkers.  Since I worked in a mostly male field, I would have been pretty lonely at lunch if I didn't.  Most lunches were a group of us grabbing something at the nearby mall but sometimes due to people's deadlines would end up being one-on-one.  But one day one new coworker asked me to go to lunch and then specifically that he wanted to go to a separate place.  I thought it a bit odd but didn't think too much of it - until we got to this cute little romantic bistro.  I don't totally know if my spidey sense was right, but I felt really uncomfortable and talked non-stop about how much I adored my husband!  He never asked me out to lunch again and things always seemed a bit awkward after that.  I did go out with other coworkers though and never again felt like someone was trying to cross a line.  My husband could trust me to monitor and respond appropriately to the situation.  

[Catwoman]

I totally agreee with you about being the primary connection in his life. All that other stuff, temptation, etc., usually only becomes a problem when something interferes with a couple's emotional connection first.

 

:iagree:

 

Hey, Rebekah -- we're finally agreeing with each other on this thread!!! :D

 

:party:

[Scarlett]

I don't want to disrespect that viewpoint, I just don't understand it. If my spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him. All to herself. *I*, *I*, *I* don't believe my husband's parts will ever unintentionally fall into someone else's. If he intends to do that, he can just go!

I feel the same way.....you want someone else go have her! I divorced my first husband for that very reason. But there was a long path getting to that point and it would have been better to have avoided it.

 

Few people who cheat start out with that thought or intention. It is a process...like quill says above....a path I don't want to go down.

 

And the world is full of people who would do anything to turn back the clock and not go there. My xh is one.

[Melissa in Australia]

Yes, there are many "predatory" women who have no particular respect for a man's marital status. I'm not going to demean my husband by encouraging him to live as if mere exposure to their willingness is going to change something fundamental about him.

 

I don't need "them" to not want him... I need him to not want "them" -- if that's not the case, then something fundamental is already lost about my marriage, and the very next willing and attractive woman will prove it. It may start with lunch; but that's not a reason to avoid lunch.

 

People who respect their own marriages can be trusted anywhere they trust themselves. People who don't have that level of commitment can't be "trusted" to step outside their own front doors.

I don't necessarily agree. you are assuming that people have the same type of relationships as you. What if there are mitigating factors? 

 

 

Here is an example that I know of with a relative. her DH had a girlfriend in his past life and it was a very intense relationship.  over the yearsof being married to my relative the male did things that made the wife feel that he still had feelings for his ex. things like wanting to name his daughter after his ex and little things like that. After number of years the ex girlfriend tried to contact the male. Even though the male did not reply or respond, the wife was pretty upset. I don't think she was overreacting or showing lack of trust in her husband  or anything like that at all.

[Aelwydd]

Perhaps. I don't even think about this sort of thing in terms of the temptation it presents as much as the trajectory of where your taking (developing, moving) the friendship.

 

What happens when you first date someone you may be interested in? (Granted, there are folks who skip the crumpets and go right for the teA, but...) Doesn't it start with the most basic feelers? Is he willing to give me his phone number? Yes? Cool. Is he willing to meet up with me for lunch? Yes? Awesome. Is he sending me private messages, disclosing things about himself? This is getting better and better. He's willing to rearrange some aspect of his life (drive a couple hours, spend some money, get coveted tickets to a show, etc.) to do something for me? He's really putting a priority on me...IMO, when you choose your mate, these steps of developing a relationship end for others who are not your spouse or your same-gender buddy. Sorry to make it so gender-biased, but that is just the truth. I'm not tempted to have sex with my best girlfriend, however dear she may be. :laugh: All those little acts of demonstrating the priority you are willing to put on someone, IMO, goes only to your spouse and same-gender friends after marriage.

 

Sure our actual choices matter and one can always shut down a "friendship" that's gathering speed in the wrong direction, but there's something to be said for not giving the impression that a possibility exists if it doesn't. Why respond positively to all those little "feelers" I mentioned if you're not aiming to become closer and closer, more and more intimate with the person sending out the feelers?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes lunch is just lunch. I agree with you about defining oneself as the primary connection with her husband. But I just can't get on board with expecting a wolf under every rock.

 

I'm not going to bar dh from forming or maintaining friendships with others, even if it is with the opposite sex. I know how possessive behavior turns me off, so I'm not about to do it to him.

 

We both have to trust that what we have together is worth more to both of us than any new enticement. There's no place for anything smacking of jealousy or possessiveness.

[Scarlett]

Capable, yes. But a virtuous wife is a virtuous wife because of decisions she makes in her mind, not because she's never been afforded any opportunity to stray. Ditto, a virtuous husband. Does that mean I look for opportunities to stray? No, of course not. That would mean that something was already "off" in my thinking. But it also means that I'm monitoring myself and am going to respond accordingly to keep myself out of trouble. I expect my dh to be the same. if I felt like I had to monitor him or be afraid of his own monitoring of himself, then I would already be thinking that there is something off in his thinking and in our connection. And if he ever did stray, I would be blaming him and him alone. Our commitment needs to be to each other regardless of who flashes a leg or extends a lunch invitation. Obviously I don't care if someone errs on the side of caution and says no to every invitation to lunch but in our situation, we would miss out on some great people who happen to be the opposite gender.

 

BTW - personal experience here. I used to go out to lunch all the time with male coworkers. Since I worked in a mostly male field, I would have been pretty lonely at lunch if I didn't. Most lunches were a group of us grabbing something at the nearby mall but sometimes due to people's deadlines would end up being one-on-one. But one day one new coworker asked me to go to lunch and then specifically that he wanted to go to a separate place. I thought it a bit odd but didn't think too much of it - until we got to this cute little romantic bistro. I don't totally know if my spidey sense was right, but I felt really uncomfortable and talked non-stop about how much I adored my husband! He never asked me out to lunch again and things always seemed a bit awkward after that. I did go out with other coworkers though and never again felt like someone was trying to cross a line. My husband could trust me to monitor and respond appropriately to the situation.

I don't think you and I disagree on this issue.

[Aelwydd]

:iagree:

 

Hey, Rebekah -- we're finally agreeing with each other on this thread!!! :D

 

:party:

I think Texas just froze over. In August no less. :)

[Catwoman]

I don't want to disrespect that viewpoint, I just don't understand it. If my spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him. All to herself. *I*, *I*, *I* don't believe my husband's parts will ever unintentionally fall into someone else's. If he intends to do that, he can just go!

 

I know there are many people who cheat on their spouses as a matter of course, and who actively look for opportunities, but I would guess that in the majority of cases, things start out pretty innocently and without any thought of cheating on their spouse (like casually re-connecting with an old girlfriend or boyfriend on FB or whatever,) and then build from there. I think that's what some of the ladies here are talking about. Obviously, if a man or a woman starts trolling the local bars, looking to get lucky, that's something else entirely.

 

It's very easy to be cavalier and say that if your spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him -- I used to say the same thing. But over the years, I have realized that it's a lot different when it actually happens. I have been incredibly fortunate to have my dh and I truly believe I can trust him not to stray, but some of our friends haven't been so lucky, and I can tell you that they were absolutely devastated when they caught their spouses cheating on them. It's not so much the sex thing, as it is a betrayal of trust. 

[Guest]

 

BTW - personal experience here.  I used to go out to lunch all the time with male coworkers.  Since I worked in a mostly male field, I would have been pretty lonely at lunch if I didn't.  Most lunches were a group of us grabbing something at the nearby mall but sometimes due to people's deadlines would end up being one-on-one.  But one day one new coworker asked me to go to lunch and then specifically that he wanted to go to a separate place.  I thought it a bit odd but didn't think too much of it - until we got to this cute little romantic bistro.  I don't totally know if my spidey sense was right, but I felt really uncomfortable and talked non-stop about how much I adored my husband!  He never asked me out to lunch again and things always seemed a bit awkward after that.  I did go out with other coworkers though and never again felt like someone was trying to cross a line.  My husband could trust me to monitor and respond appropriately to the situation.  

 

See, this makes total sense to me, both in the going out casually with male co-workers and the weirdness with the one particular individual. I used to work in a law firm B.C.  Going out to lunch with others, sometimes men, sometimes alone, was common. I did it all the time. But it didn't have any underlying "woo-woo" factor to it. It was so clearly just having food at Bertuccis while we talked about how Mr. Leitiss was going to have a coronary any day now from worrying about commas or lack of commas in a legal document. It was so clearly all in good fun and not weird at all. But there was one law clerk I could not go to lunch with.  It would have been buying trouble. :D

[Catwoman]

I think Texas just froze over. In August no less. :)

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Carrie12345]

It's very easy to be cavalier and say that if your spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him -- I used to say the same thing. But over the years, I have realized that it's a lot different when it actually happens. I have been incredibly fortunate to have my dh and I truly believe I can trust him not to stray, but some of our friends haven't been so lucky, and I can tell you that they were absolutely devastated when they caught their spouses cheating on them. It's not so much the sex thing, as it is a betrayal of trust.

I regret that I sound cavalier. Please know I'm really not. It happened to my own parents, so I've experienced it from the child's perspective, and I don't take that lightly.

 

I still stand by it, though. And I asked for dh's thoughts. He feels the same way on his end.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

Sure our actual choices matter and one can always shut down a "friendship" that's gathering speed in the wrong direction, but there's something to be said for not giving the impression that a possibility exists if it doesn't. Why respond positively to all those little "feelers" I mentioned if you're not aiming to become closer and closer, more and more intimate with the person sending out the feelers? 

I think we were typing at the same time.  i prefer to wait for my spidey-sense to go off before shutting down what most of the time are perfectly neutral relationships.  I've shut down a number of relationships over the years that did set off a sense of something weird.  So has dh.

 

I had one woman tell me that she was waiting for my dh to tire of me.  Dh shut her down quickly.  

 

So we do respond to threats to our marriage but not vague shadows.  Again - I have no problem is someone chooses to set wider boundaries in their marriage, but I would have missed out on having a lot of friendships that have been perfectly virtuous for many many years.  

 

ETA - my relationships with men are not at all comparable to dating.  We don't get into feelings and touch-feely stuff at all.  We discuss ideas and books and theology and politics and. . .    

[Guest]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes lunch is just lunch. I agree with you about defining oneself as the primary connection with her husband. But I just can't get on board with expecting a wolf under every rock.

 

I'm not going to bar dh from forming or maintaining friendships with others, even if it is with the opposite sex. I know how possessive behavior turns me off, so I'm not about to do it to him.

 

We both have to trust that what we have together is worth more to both of us than any new enticement. There's no place for anything smacking of jealousy or possessiveness.

 

I agree with you. (See my post above about lunch with co-workers.) I don't bar dh from doing what he wants. But I would not hesitate to let him know I wasn't cool with something like this if it came up, kwim? I don't monitor dh's interactions; I've hardly ever even seen his e-mail inbox, never have looked at his phone or ipad, and can't really even account for where he is in a given day as he works "on location" all over town. I'm not bothered by any of those things, and they would all be true for him as well. Still, if he said he was asked to lunch by so-and-so, I would have no problem saying I wasn't a fan of him carrying it out. 

[Catwoman]

I regret that I sound cavalier. Please know I'm really not. It happened to my own parents, so I've experienced it from the child's perspective, and I don't take that lightly.

 

I still stand by it, though. And I asked for dh's thoughts. He feels the same way on his end.

 

I hope I didn't sound like I wouldn't kick my dh to the curb if I caught him cheating on me -- I definitely would (and he knows it!)  I just meant that it's easier to say it than it is to do it. :)

[Aelwydd]

I hear you, Quill. Nothing unreasonable about your feelings at all in such a case.

[gardenmom5]

I don't want to disrespect that viewpoint, I just don't understand it. If my spouse wants to have sex with someone else, she can have him. All to herself. *I*, *I*, *I* don't believe my husband's parts will ever unintentionally fall into someone else's. If he intends to do that, he can just go!

ah, the joke I saw.  a middle age husband was looking at his wife who had aged after 25 years, and was no longer the hot young babe he married.  he commented she hadn't kept up her end of the bargain.  she agreed she wasn't a hot young thing anymore, and if he really wanted to be married to a hot young thing, she'd be happy to make sure he was living in the same basement dive apartment and driving a beater car like he did when they got married.  it ends with him expressing appreciation for how she puts things in perspective for him.