Jump to content

Two timers


FAT_AUSSIE

Recommended Posts

AF16 said:

If your wife hold out or thinks sex is for procreation only you see if you can live with that or you say that it's not working for you. If you can not come to an agreement you part ways.

 

It's about respecting the other.

 

No, no , no! Respect for the other means having respect for your self (not in a narcissistic kind of way, already too many ppl have trouble with this). If your wife fucks only once a month or once in 6 months or worse you expect the guy to be faithful? That seems ridicilous to me. IF the wife has respect for the hubby she can surely BY HEART understand that he would like to fuck anyway. If she is frigid for some reason that does not mean he has to be dry TOO. Totally UNFAIR. The same goes for vica versa. So you say even in this case if the two love each other they should part ways and there is no other solutions. Sorry very limited view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nervous_Dog said:

I don't think she likes me :((

 

These damned dogs you kick them and they still come back for pets....Dogs are such emotional beings...OK Doggy Dog come here... on my lap...I will bring some cookies!!!

 

We will see, if you are a good doggy you can come to my spanking party too! Don't burry the bone though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumsoda said:

 

Interested to hear TC's comments on..."cheating with the dick, not the heart"

 

Where do you sing up for that one?

 

Sex is sex. Love is love. Women mix the 2 up: sex and love With that they make sex is sex 'overabundant'. To fuck an other woman usually means for a wife that you love the fucked one too. So she will sure let you know that in some way. Going to the hookers is more clean cut sex then with lovers or sexpartners. The last thing is also a lot more complicated. The question is whether you want the complication. In Doggy's written case of his friends it sounds fine with me the guy cheats with his dick only. Nothing wrong with that. But it sounds to me that this has been discussed between the two beloved. So who is there to judge that? It is non of your business to stick your nose in there. If you want some more advice where you BETTER stick your nose in you can PM me...LOL But it this has not been discussed and agreed upon; what does the wife perceive? That's more important. It can be a lot easier to deal with that man go to whores and more difficult to accept a third party as a lover. But others cant even stand the thought of hookers, Dirty. Disease. Are scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<thinks sex is for procreation only you see if you can live with that or you say that it's not working for you. If you can not come to an agreement you part ways.>>

 

So just because occassional he wants his erectic member to be inside a willing female and ejeculate, he should leave his wife/bestfriend/children?

yeah that makes sence - NOT

 

DOG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topcatta said:
AF16 said:

If your wife hold out or thinks sex is for procreation only you see if you can live with that or you say that it's not working for you. If you can not come to an agreement you part ways.

 

It's about respecting the other.

 

No, no , no! Respect for the other means having respect for your self (not in a narcissistic kind of way, already too many ppl have trouble with this). If your wife fucks only once a month or once in 6 months or worse you expect the guy to be faithful? That seems ridicilous to me. IF the wife has respect for the hubby she can surely BY HEART understand that he would like to fuck anyway. If she is frigid for some reason that does not mean he has to be dry TOO. Totally UNFAIR. The same goes for vica versa. So you say even in this case if the two love each other they should part ways and there is no other solutions. Sorry very limited view.

 

I answered that. If you can not live with it, dicsuss it, if you can not agree on something that sattesfies both, break up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nervous_Dog said:

<<thinks sex is for procreation only you see if you can live with that or you say that it's not working for you. If you can not come to an agreement you part ways.>>

 

So just because occassional he wants his erectic member to be inside a willing female and ejeculate, he should leave his wife/bestfriend/children?

yeah that makes sence - NOT

 

DOG

 

If it's unacceptable to his wife, yes that's what he should do. If he values staying with his children and wife more than sex he should stay faithfull. No one said choices should be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words let your wife in on deciding things. The reason for not telling her is that she might say, bye bye. The reason for not telling her is that you don't want her to be allowed to decide with you, you know you will not be allowed, so you lie.

 

How is that respecting your wife and how is that respecting your self, when you allow your self to lie and cheat because you don't want to face hard consequenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF16 said:

In other words let your wife in on deciding things.

Yet you do not consider her saying that you can have sex only once a month one sided? Hmmmm.

 

Regarding your point about a solution equitable to all in that hypothetical marriage example. How do *you* know that the wife has not said to the husband that she allows him to shag hookers as long as he does not embarass her. How would you know? Her telling others would lead to her embarassment, and if he were a good husband, he would NOT use it as a defense for the same reasons. And would you consider that a solution to this "problem"?

 

Or is it really just hookers you hate?

 

Ya see, that's the problem with this "enforced morality" stuff. You simply do not know the whole story and therefore are not in a position to make judgements.

 

Even the 1986 SCOTUS agrees, with White, supported by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O'Conner, saying in Bowers v Hardwick (a case about sex and morality and legality): "Even if the conduct at issue here is not a fundamental right, respondent asserts that there must be a rational basis for the law and that there is none in this case other than the presumed belief of a majority that (something) is immoral and unacceptable. This is said to be an inadequate rationale to support the law."

 

Cheers,

S-legalbegal-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...