Two timers

[Old Hippie]

"...The "never" tell policy doesn't work though. What if the wife is your sister? Your mother who remarried? If the husband has a GF, then blood (or very close friendship) is thicker than water. You "may" be doing wrong to someone close to you if you don't tell. And yes this might cause friction but thats the nature of the beast you are dealing with...."

 

Ok, this makes a bit more sense, as family is involved, and you might presumably help with any financial loss. I still might not get involved, unless there were other problems., no need to wreck a "storybook" marrage.

 

I still tend to think there would be resentment and problems as a result, but being family, they might not be as severe. But as far as the woman just being a friend...I would not get involved, nothing good will come from it, believe me.

[Chillers]

Hi AF16

 

The religious ideal I was talking about is nicely summed up in the following quote:

 

"Historically, monogamy was much less practiced than polygamy (specifically polygyny). Mostly because of European expansion, monogamy is more popular than it was ever before."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

 

It is my belief that monogamy is inherently unhealthy. As children we are continually bombarded with lessons on the virtues of monogamy, that's why people think its right. This kind of marriage seems to have really taken off after about 300 AD - it is essentially a Christian thing. Due to the reach of Roman and then British colonialism the worldwide adoption of this "morality" is startling.

 

Many males and many females are in monogamous relationships under duress.

 

Thai culture for example has suffered greatly from this form of ideological invasion. They were never officially colonized but their ideals, like most of the world were put through the Christian mincer. The world has been collectively cluster fucked by men with white collars.

 

Now I live in the real world, I don't want to hurt my girl so I don't "cheat" on her. But this is NOT because it is the <right> thing to do. Any deal that we make about sexual behavior is polluted by this historical crap. We can't make a fair deal coz as I have said before:

 

Most people don't know why they are monogamous.

 

They have been indoctrinated.

 

Now I don't "cheat" because we are friends and I have said I wouldn't. Sex is not that important to me so I can overlook the issue for now. But the chances are that the cult of monogamy will eventually poison our friendship as it does so many others. If we do stay together we will be like empty shells, ghosts, only together because we believe it is the right thing to do - not because of any kind of deep friendship that goes beyond superficial crap like carnality.

 

I'm sorry but I think the whole thing is puerile. A relationship is about a friendship between 2 people that may or may not have sex, forget love and other nonsensical and indefinable terms.

 

Do I think you should tell your mate?s woman he is cheating on her? Well, that depends. If she is in danger (e.g. he's having unprotected sex with a girl/guy with AIDS) then there is a good case for a yes. But most of the time I'd have to say no.

 

Oh ok - what if you yourself want to root the bird? You CAD! I guess if you are that type of guy you might think that's a valid reason to dump the mate... so you can doink the girl.

[BSTaucer]

AF16 said:

Old Hippie said:

Ok, last post, then you go on ignore...yes, different rules for me, and all Punters. Kid you are a fool messing around in a world you know nothing about. The Bar/nightlife/Punter game is full of lies, hypocracy, deceit riddles, mysteries etc, that you know nothing about. Don't delve in this worlrd, the hypocracy here will destroy you...As I said, this is not about having a different opinion, it is about stating you would intentionally do harm to someone, when it was none of your business. The idea that you put the wife's interests up somewhere on high and that you would tell her to save her from the evils of a husband who may have cheated 1-2 times, is serving your own do gooder interests, not hers...but different rules for you also right?

 

As I said, many guys cheat for different reasons, you have no clue what is going on in that house/family/marrage. You will gain niothing from ratting, the wife and kids will come to hate you, and many around you who know will also distance themselves from you...you have nothing to gain but your own selfish intersts...ok, been fun, now I am ignoring you...

 

Yes diffrent rules for you. On this BB you and others can call red flags and dump the bithc, but when someone would say to your wife 'hey red flag he fucks around' it's wrong because it fuck up _ Your _ life.

 

What's wrong is that you fuck behind your wifes back, and you obviously think she will find it so horrible that she would break up with you, but all you can think of is how bad the person telling her is?

 

Dear Boy,

 

Let's start with this shall we? You wrote...

 

"Yes diffrent rules for you. On this BB you and others can call red flags and dump the bithc, but when someone would say to your wife 'hey red flag he fucks around' it's wrong because it fuck up _ Your _ life."

 

 

I should think the paramount difference is obvious indeed. Givng word on the girl who is lieing to your mate, may well SAVE him from further heart ache and financial loss or perhapes even ruin. In this senario, one party stands to benifit.

 

In your senario of tattling like a little school girl, all parties stand to lose all, and no one will be the better for your having done so. But then one could argue that you did what you thought was right, and feel good about yourself for having done so. So one would then logically determine that it is indeed "ALL about you" with no concern for the other parties. Rather selfish on your part I should think.

 

Your statement of

 

"... 'hey red flag he fucks around' it's wrong because it fuck up _ Your _ life."

 

is indeed far off the board, for as a result of your squeeling, you shall indeed be "F****** up" the lives of all involved including those of you and your wife's. Your marrage may even suffer as a result. This arguement being raised by the others, (Who inceidently may have experience in this type matter, where as you do not) is not about the punter lad, it is about all parties involved, including you and your wife. You fail to grasp this simple concept.

 

As this is a Thai board, I should point out, that telling a Thai woman her husband is cheating, may dash well result in violence, or possible death. Do you wish to see a man dead or injured, and your "friend" in jail? What if they have children? Good God lad, do you ever think at all?

 

I would be derelict if I failed to warn you about interfering in such matters, as others have warned you. I believe "Old Hippie" said "...you are in a world you know nothing about..." This is increasingly more evident with each of your subsequent posts.

 

As you have stated you do not engage in the various entertainment venues on offer, or engage in activity outside your marital boundries, might I suggest you refrain from the conversations involving such.

 

Best Regards-BST

[Nervous_Dog]

<<Toppacatta has apparantly a deal with her spouse saying they can both fuck around. Ok then, no problem>>

 

But you ONLY know that because she tells you her under her anonomiouis name. I bet she doesn;t tell her brother etc. And WHY should she? None of their, nor your business, but you seem to think other peoples business is yours to interfer with!

 

DOG

[Old Hippie]

ND,

 

Don't think Taucer said that, I am ignoring the other guy, so no idea if he did...but this is exactly the point for the little rats who want to go blabbing to the wife, they simply don't know the whole story. They may end up blabbling like a little bitch, trying to save their "friend" only to have that friend knee them in the balls and tell them to mind their own business, and end up losing the friend they are trying to "save..." It is the old saying when you want to help someone, remember 2 things, 1)...the road to hell is paved with good intentions...2) No good deed goes unpunished...some guys forget that shit, and have their own selfish interests in mind..."different rules..."

[Nervous_Dog]

OH - how long you been around to know everyone uses the quick reply? I am quoting Born Again 16

 

DOPG

[Old Hippie]

Sorry, I just wanted to sound like a self rightious dim witted shit head, who was meddling in other people's business, and ignoring the obvious while serving his own interests, even though it really is none of my damned business to do so...frankly, I don't see the appeal of doing so...

[MaiLuk]

It is my belief that monogamy is inherently unhealthy.

 

 

Chillers,

 

 

You provided a link to the Wikipedia. The wikipedia has been expanding exponentially and is amazing.

 

Anyhow, what follows is pure rambling everyone is advised to skip.

 

I?ve always had a theory that the reason why many human societies have rules relating to monagamy is that it is biologically necessary. Otherwise a male could impregnate hundreds of females. These females would then be left with the extremely difficult task of raising a child on her own. Polygamy has the same biological basis (in my theory) because not just anyone can take a bunch of wives. Only a wealthy dude such as the Zulu stud who has 200 head of cattle and who can support a half dozen wives ends up being polygamous. The poor guy in the shack next store with only two cows gets one wife. It makes sense biologically for the rich Zulu to have more than one wife and kids.

 

And this is the underpinning of the ?morality? behind prohibitions against extra marital sex. You should only have sex within marriage (or within a monogamous or polygamous relationship) because the inevitable pregnancies demand a committed couple to care for the children. The religious demands followed from this necessity. To make sure everyone behaves, it was decided that God himself will strike you dead if you commit (use Jimmy Swaggart?s voice here) forrrrr-ni-CATION.

 

Then along comes condoms and birth control. Which means we have trumped biology. And completely removed the underpinnings of the claimed morality of married only sex. Since biology no longer applies (due to use of condoms), the morality is obsolete.

 

 

 

There is no morality attached to sex IMO. Sex is completely neutral from a moral standpoint. People who believe otherwise are suffering under an outmoded biological based morality. They fail to take into account that we now have condoms and therefore unwed pregnancies are easily avoided. (Yes i know the world is currently full of unwed pregnancies but that is another story and don?t mess up my argument with details OK?)

 

Since unwed pregnancies are avoidable the need for the moral prohibition against unmarried sex is history.

 

 

So that was my theory and was happy thinking this way.

 

But then I saw a link to ?Non-human animal sexuality? in that Wikipedia ?Monogamy? link you provided. And my theory has been undermined.

 

First off the wikipedia link points out that animals are sexual opportunists (i.e. they will fuck just about anything). Even cross species action is not out of the question. Here is a pic . Notice the one that is on the receiving end is smiling.

 

Second, here is a quote from the link about monogamy:

 

(scientific understanding of) animal behavior has been revolutionized by DNA fingerprinting, which has revealed many species once viewed as monogamous are in fact not monogamous at all, but promiscuous ... Barash said numerous recent studies have shown that many animals and birds, such as eagles, geese, beavers and gibbons, previously believed to be faithfully monogamous aren't. "A lot of hanky-panky is going on," he added. "There has been quite a revolution in scientific understanding of the lives of animals..." University of Washington summary, April 2001

 

Evidence from genetic testing has been devastating to those seeking monogamy in the animal kingdom; even many birds, long prized as examples of fidelity, turn out to have a high incidence of extra-pair couplings [EPC's]. Furthermore, now that researchers have turned their attention to female sexual behavior, they are finding more and more examples of aggressive adultery-seeking in "the fairer sex." Amazon.com extract

 

When we examine the genes of baby birds, even those species long thought to be absolute paragons of monogamous fidelity, we find that 10, 20, sometimes 30 percent of the offspring are not genetically connected to the socially identified father. Social monogamy (what biologists still call, somewhat quaintly, a pair bond) is not the same as sexual monogamy. Several decades ago experimenters vasectomized redwinged blackbirds in the hope of controlling their numbers. But many females, ostensibly mated to only those vasectomized males, laid eggs that hatched! Something funny was going on. But only now, with the accumulation of literally dozens of research studies using DNA data, do we know for sure: Females, even females in species long thought to be sexually faithful, often are not... Even swans aren't monogamous. ...

 

We now know that in numerous species, females go prospecting on the territories of adjacent males, especially when their own mate is off at work, foraging or patrolling the neighborhood perhaps looking for his own EPCs. Sometimes, to be sure, females are coerced into mating, but it is clear that even mated females are often sexual adventurers in their own right, actively soliciting EPC's from males who are not theirs. ... There are some species, including lions and a number of primates, in which adult males are likely to kill young they have not fathered. It has been suggested that in such cases females may have evolved to be sexually receptive to more than one male as a way of reducing the risk eventually faced by their offspring. ... The evidence is now undeniable: Monogamy among animals is more myth than reality.

 

 

 

 

So how does the above mess up my theory? It appears that there is no biological necessity for a sexually monogamous couple. There is only a biological necessity for a sufficient number of males who:

 

1. Believe they must be faithful to their woman, and

2. Are therefore easily fooled into raising other males children

 

If you have enough of these type of males, then affairs are possible and the children get taken care of. The species survives.

 

What? You want to know about the evolution/survival question? Yes of course you are right to ask. If these males are raising other males? children and not their own, then their bloodlines should die out over time since there is no survival benefit to doing that. They are not passing their genes along. And there should not be these types of males around anymore.

 

Perhaps the easily fooled males are themselves banging the neighbor?s woman and passing their genes that way. Or maybe since the monogamous relationship (that isn?t really monogamous since the female is covorting around in the woods with other males) lasts long enough so eventually one or more of those kids actually belongs to the male that remains monogamous.

 

And maybe the true purpose of a male having intelligence is to figure out how to get his seed spread around and not for the purpose of raising kids in a monogamous setting. But i'm digressing.

 

 

Back to my original theory. I now see there must have been some other basis for the claimed morality of marital only sex. Because it is not biologically important after all for a male to raise his own offspring with his woman. In fact, it is imperative (biologically) that the male get his seed injected into the woman next store, since his own woman may be pregnant with someone elses kid. The biological imperative here is the opposite of what I originally thought. Sex with the girl down the street is essential to survival of your bloodline. So why does the prevailing morality go against this? Maybe someone can explain where this idea of the morality of monogamous sex originated cause I?m stumped.

[soongmak]

What's wrong is that you fuck behind your wifes back, and you obviously think she will find it so horrible that she would break up with you, but all you can think of is how bad the person telling her is?

 

Got to agree with you here AF16! What's wrong with you OH? You can be so resentful to girls that you wanted to rat out girls to the immigration service just because they won't go out with you, while on the other end you say that you shouldnt rt on guys who are two-timin'. Smacks of hypocrisy to me!

[Old Hippie]

"....you wanted to rat out girls to the immigration ..."

 

NO! WRONG! I explained an example where a THAI guy I know here had a problem and was considering ratting her out to INS, in the end, the wife of the guy she was screwing ratted her out, she is gone now! I have said, that I had no problem with him ratting her out, the bitch did him and many people wrong, and screwed up a business deal for a lot of people, that resulted in many people losing money, so revenge was warrented. If I were in his postion, I would have done it, I believe in revenge! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

 

As for ratting out bar girls, I explained that all already, please re-read what ever post you claim to be refrencing. I do see nothing wrong with saving a guy from financial ruin by telling him if his GF BG is lieing to him, IF HE ASKS!

 

I am also well aware, that in one case, any motive I might have, is pure personnal revenge, against the punter, not the girl...but then I have a personnel interest in causing someone pain, it is my own evil self serving motive, not the desire to do right, or to help someone. What possible motive could you have for ruining an entire family, and most likely do damage to yourself in the process?

 

The idea of just going and telling a guys wife and breaking up his family, and causing all parties involved to hate you, is wrong, perhapes you think it hypocritical, I don't...and frankly, the world runs on hypocracy, get used to it.

 

I also don't agree with going and telling the guy "knock it off, or I will tell your wife" as it is forcing your morality on someone else.

 

Ratting on a bar girl saves someone from misery and possible financial ruin/heartache etc...going and Ratting on a cheating husband or wife, causes heart ache, and financial ruin, screwed up kids etc, you have no idea what is going on in that marrage, it could have been a one time thing, or maybe you misinterpreted something, why stick your nose in? Other posters have said this already...

 

As I said, in the end, you will end up the hated one...hell, the other party may never believe you anyway, they may accuse you of wanting the guys wife, then what will your wife say? trust me guys, this is a powder keg, and it seems some of you have no clue what you are dealing with.

 

What a few of you don't seem to understand is, just going and ratting on a guy has far reaching consequences, which I don't think any of the "johnny dogooders" even considered.

 

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! and don't misrepresent something I posted long ago! I had nothing to do with ratting anyone out to INS, and I resent you saying I did!