Acceptance

[James121]

2 hours ago, vega57 said:

You're making quite a few assumptions here, James. 

 

Oh and, by the way...I don't support anyone's decision to cheat because I see cheating as a selfish act where there are other options available.  It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm asexual.  There are a lot of sexuals out there who also wouldn't support his decision to cheat, either. 

Yes there are some assumptions. However by virtue of the fact that none of us have had the opportunity to speak with mr and Mrs ironhamster for several hours, we are all making them. You see cheating as a selfish act, I see having sex with someone during engagement and stopping it after the contracts are signed as grossly selfish. There are probably many asexuals out there that wouldn’t have supported her decision to have sex with him all the way to the point that the marriage had taken place aren’t there?

[Snao Cone]

2 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

Conclusion: Feelings suck. Who would have thought

High five to that, buddy.

[vega57]

17 minutes ago, James121 said:

She may not have been aware that it was called asexuality but she must have known she didn’t like or wasn’t keen on sex. Ironhamsters account of it drying up immediately after the ring was placed on her finger tells paints a grim picture. It was planned and executed.

SOME people know that they wouldn't like sex from the time they were 12.  They've stayed true to themselves, and have NEVER had sex.  SOME people may not know if they'd like sex at 19.  They might try it and after trying it a few times, realize that they don't like it.  Still others might try it and wouldn't mind it ONCE IN A BLUE MOON.  And still others can take it or leave it. 

 

And everything in between. 

 

He CLAIMS that everything "dried up" immediately after he put the ring on her finger and that the relationship wasn't consummated for about a year after that.  If he's as sexual as he claims he is, I can't for the life of me, figure out WHY they didn't have intercourse for a year.  I would think that at some point, he would have HAD to ask her. 

 

Did he?  And, if so, what did she say?  And if he DIDN'T ask her, why the h*ll not? 

[vega57]

32 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

My point was that even if you're unaware of being asexual, you're most likely well aware of not being interested.

Not true. 

[MrDane]

15 hours ago, IronHamster said:

I think it is reasonable to have the expectations of marital intimacy that at least match premarital intimacy.  

Yes, as long as you allow things to change as time goes by. This doesnt just apply to sex. If my partner liked to travel before and travelling was something we talked about/looked forward to, then it is okay to expect it to continue after. If my partner suddenly changes or comes to realize that now travelling sucks, then I have every rigth to feel disappointed about our mutual dream future being bend severely. Cannot force her to travel though, but could find someone else to see the world with.

[vega57]

23 minutes ago, James121 said:

Yes there are some assumptions. However by virtue of the fact that none of us have had the opportunity to speak with mr and Mrs ironhamster for several hours, we are all making them. You see cheating as a selfish act, I see having sex with someone during engagement and stopping it after the contracts are signed as grossly selfish. There are probably many asexuals out there that wouldn’t have supported her decision to have sex with him all the way to the point that the marriage had taken place aren’t there?

First of all, we don't sign marriage "contracts"; we sign marriage licenses. 

Secondly, they didn't have "sex" during their engagement.  His wife was a virgin and sex (a.k.a. intercourse or PIV as it's commonly known these days) DID take place after marriage, OBVIOUSLY, because they had children. 

 

I've read several books about cheating/adultery, plus I used to haunt a few infidelity forums.  I can also tell you from my own experience that cheaters OFTEN re-write the relationship's history.  The cheater exclaims, "We NEVER have sex!", while the betrayed partner's head spins around and she says, "What do you MEAN we "never" have sex?  We have sex about 2 or three times a week, and we've been doing it that much for the past 11 years!  The only time we DIDN'T have sex that often was for 6 weeks after the birth of our 3 children!"  One story I read was about the wife who had been cheating for 18 months.  In counseling, after her husband discovered her wayward ways, she said, "You NEVER buy me flowers!"  Luckily, he made almost ALL of his purchases with a credit card.  He went home that evening and at the next session, he presented every credit receipt that he had for the flowers he had bought her over their 15 year history.  There were 108 receipts for flowers for her. 

 

Yes, cheaters often re-write history. 

[vega57]

6 minutes ago, MrDane said:

Yes, as long as you allow things to change as time goes by. This doesnt just apply to sex. If my partner liked to travel before and travelling was something we talked about/looked forward to, then it is okay to expect it to continue after. If my partner suddenly changes or comes to realize that now travelling sucks, then I have every rigth to feel disappointed about our mutual dream future being bend severely. Cannot force her to travel though, but could find someone else to see the world with.

Feeling disappointed about it is one thing.  Cheating on your partner because of the change is a horse of a different color.....

[James121]

20 minutes ago, vega57 said:

SOME people know that they wouldn't like sex from the time they were 12.  They've stayed true to themselves, and have NEVER had sex.  SOME people may not know if they'd like sex at 19.  They might try it and after trying it a few times, realize that they don't like it.  Still others might try it and wouldn't mind it ONCE IN A BLUE MOON.  And still others can take it or leave it. 

 

And everything in between. 

 

He CLAIMS that everything "dried up" immediately after he put the ring on her finger and that the relationship wasn't consummated for about a year after that.  If he's as sexual as he claims he is, I can't for the life of me, figure out WHY they didn't have intercourse for a year.  I would think that at some point, he would have HAD to ask her. 

 

Did he?  And, if so, what did she say?  And if he DIDN'T ask her, why the h*ll not? 

If you ask, you apply pressure. If you apply pressure you are a sex pest or man who is led by his dick or any other name or phrase that people label you with. I didn’t ask for 5 years. I was too scared to because I wanted to be that good husband who supported his wife and not apply pressure. 

As for why they didn’t consummate the marriage for a year...she didn’t need to? The contract was signed. No need to continue with this sex thing now? Who knows.

[James121]

3 minutes ago, vega57 said:

First of all, we don't sign marriage "contracts"; we sign marriage licenses. 

Secondly, they didn't have "sex" during their engagement.  His wife was a virgin and sex (a.k.a. intercourse or PIV as it's commonly known these days) DID take place after marriage, OBVIOUSLY, because they had children. 

 

I've read several books about cheating/adultery, plus I used to haunt a few infidelity forums.  I can also tell you from my own experience that cheaters OFTEN re-write the relationship's history.  The cheater exclaims, "We NEVER have sex!", while the betrayed partner's head spins around and she says, "What do you MEAN we "never" have sex?  We have sex about 2 or three times a week, and we've been doing it that much for the past 11 years!  The only time we DIDN'T have sex that often was for 6 weeks after the birth of our 3 children!"  One story I read was about the wife who had been cheating for 18 months.  In counseling, after her husband discovered her wayward ways, she said, "You NEVER buy me flowers!"  Luckily, he made almost ALL of his purchases with a credit card.  He went home that evening and at the next session, he presented every credit receipt that he had for the flowers he had bought her over their 15 year history.  There were 108 receipts for flowers for her. 

 

Yes, cheaters often re-write history. 

They are definitely a contract 

[MrDane]

Just now, vega57 said:

Feeling disappointed about it is one thing.  Cheating on your partner because of the change is a horse of a different color.....

Yes! And the correct thing to do was to mention the dissapointment and talk about it. Not to cheat! Never to cheat! 

 

“I thought you liked... and I am very sad that you dont, since it is very important to me to...”

[MrDane]

I wonder if @IronHamster is ever going to say “ my bad! I did something wrong. I was weak and I should have done things differently. Nobody should cheat on their spouse!”

 

He mentions a lot of other things though. Perhaps I didnt read this thread well enough. Can anyone point me to where he is sorry for what he did? Not sorry for what his wife made him do?

[vega57]

10 minutes ago, James121 said:

If you ask, you apply pressure. If you apply pressure you are a sex pest or man who is led by his dick or any other name or phrase that people label you with. I didn’t ask for 5 years. I was too scared to because I wanted to be that good husband who supported his wife and not apply pressure. 

As for why they didn’t consummate the marriage for a year...she didn’t need to? The contract was signed. No need to continue with this sex thing now? Who knows.

Oh James....

 

Asking isn't necessarily applying "pressure".  Depends on WHAT you ask, HOW you ask and HOW OFTEN you ask.  When it comes to asking for change, you get to ask in a "reasonable manner" one or twice.  If your partner won't budge, it's up to YOU to make some decisions.  Don't ask by saying, "Why won't you 'fuck' me?"  Ask in a mature manner:  "We need to talk about something important, and I hope we can work together to figure this out....yadda, yadda, yadda"  You might get the result you want.  You might not.  After a few weeks or even months , you present your 'case' once more.  Give it a time limit this time.  If the time limit expires without change, then it's up to you to take "reasonable" action. 

 

And no....cheating isn't "reasonable" action. 

[vega57]

6 minutes ago, MrDane said:

I wonder if @IronHamster is ever going to say “ my bad! I did something wrong. I was weak and I should have done things differently. Nobody should cheat on their spouse!”

 

He mentions a lot of other things though. Perhaps I didnt read this thread well enough. Can anyone point me to where he is sorry for what he did? Not sorry for what his wife made him do?

Nope. 

[vega57]

16 minutes ago, James121 said:

They are definitely a contract 

No, they are not. 

 

But if you think it's a contract, what does the contract say about sex? 

[Camicon]

8 hours ago, James121 said:

Well that’s a win for me because I was getting bored of repeating myself to you as you have no capacity to see it from any other angle than your own. The evidence by the way is within the thread. Just take a look and see who engaged who first and how you spoke to me (quickly camicon runs back to previous posts to edit or delete). There’s no crying you did it first, I simply responded to your accusations of me being rude and dismissive. This is the worst type of hypocrisy.

There's so much iron and salt in this post, I could start my own line of supplements.

 

2 hours ago, Grinchmer said:

My point was that even if you're unaware of being asexual, you're most likely well aware of not being interested.

Not necessarily. Just as there are innumerable reasons a person may not realize they are asexual, there are innumerable reasons a person may think that a lack of sexual desire is either temporary or just how everyone else feels.

[James121]

12 minutes ago, Camicon said:

There's so much iron and salt in this post, I could start my own line of supplements.

 

Not necessarily. Just as there are innumerable reasons a person may not realize they are asexual, there are innumerable reasons a person may think that a lack of sexual desire is either temporary or just how everyone else feels.

Very witty! Brought a smile to my face. But you can be witty and a hypocrite at the same time.

[James121]

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

No, they are not. 

 

But if you think it's a contract, what does the contract say about sex? 

It may not be officially labelled ‘a contract’ but it’s treated as such. 

The contract is not specific when it comes to sex. To have and to hold are your vows and this is the only real mention of sex.

Now before you jump the gun though (it’s not hard to predict what’s coming next), yes, ironhamsters wife had sex with him and therefore kept to the contract (to have and to hold). He (ironhamster) has and held his wife. So what it really boils down to is your own morals, what a reasonable person would expect and how a reasonable person would interpret the wording to have and to hold. 

Mrs ironhamster has been totally unreasonable and I would never have sex with a girl, marry her in a church, use her body to produce some children for me and then pull the plug on sex. I wouldn’t and just couldn’t do it to someone and I would have no right to. It’s disgraceful. We can all sit here and make excuses about how she didn’t know about her asexuality and how this marriage has led to her discovery but I don’t buy that because I’m not stupid.

Now let’s pretend for one second that I was totally. Mrs Ironhamster discovered she was an asexual shortly after the wedding. As coincidental as that is let’s pretend it was true.

what she should be doing now is saying, Mr ironhamster, I don’t like sex. I have discovered I am asexual. I appear to have allowed you to marry me believing something different. Let’s get a divorce, I won’t take a penny of your money, your pension, your business and I will leave the children here with you in the family home. At that stage I think I would have to say ‘as shit as it may be ironhamster, she has been honest with you’.

[Camicon]

24 minutes ago, James121 said:

Very witty! Brought a smile to my face. But you can be witty and a hypocrite at the same time.

If I'm a hypocrite then I sure you can provide some kind of evidence. Until you do I will treat your accusation as the fecal rot they are.

[James121]

39 minutes ago, Camicon said:

If I'm a hypocrite then I sure you can provide some kind of evidence. Until you do I will treat your accusation as the fecal rot they are.

My evidence is in the thread. Engaging me first, being rude first and then crying that I answer back. It’s so weak 

[Snao Cone]

This thread has averaged one post every 15 minutes.

[Tyke]

23 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

This thread has averaged one post every 15 minutes.

It only comes up in my notifications when you post on it. Could you please stop....?

[Snao Cone]

1 hour ago, Midland Tyke said:

It only comes up in my notifications when you post on it. Could you please stop....?

You're well aware that this is going to encourage me to post here.

[Tyke]

2 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

You're well aware that this is going to encourage me to post here.

I am? I am!

 

[vega57]

5 hours ago, James121 said:

It may not be officially labelled ‘a contract’ but it’s treated as such. 

it's either a contract or it isn't.  There is no in-between. 

It'

Quote

 

The contract is not specific when it comes to sex. To have and to hold are your vows and this is the only real mention of sex.

 

Ohfercryinoutloud.  The phrase "to have and to hold" is legal jargon known as the Habendum Clause.  It's used in the conveyance of PROPERTY.  Wives used to be seen as the property of the husband.  It does not mean sex.  It does not allude to sex, nor does it imply sex. 

 

Quote

Now before you jump the gun though (it’s not hard to predict what’s coming next), yes, ironhamsters wife had sex with him and therefore kept to the contract (to have and to hold).

No.  She didn't keep to the contract "to have and to hold".  She kept to her promise or agreement. 

 

Quote

He (ironhamster) has and held his wife. So what it really boils down to is your own morals, what a reasonable person would expect and how a reasonable person would interpret the wording to have and to hold. 

It doesn't boil down to "morals".  A "reasonable" person doesn't have to interpret the phrase.  The courts of the land have already done that. 

 

Quote

Mrs ironhamster has been totally unreasonable and I would never have sex with a girl, marry her in a church, use her body to produce some children for me and then pull the plug on sex. I wouldn’t and just couldn’t do it to someone and I would have no right to. It’s disgraceful. We can all sit here and make excuses about how she didn’t know about her asexuality and how this marriage has led to her discovery but I don’t buy that because I’m not stupid.

But WOULD you have sex with a girl, marry her in church,  and then use her body for your own masturbatory purposes (because your testicles were 'tight' and you simply wanted a release and believed that it was up to your wife/partner to let you use her body to 'give' you that release), or use her body to relieve stress or use her body to 'relax' so you can sleep or use her body while thinking about the hot blond in accounting or because you were bored or because you wanted to brag to your friends about how long the two of you "did it",  or because you thought it was your "duty", or because you wanted to feel like a 'stud' or so you can feel good about yourself that someone is willing to have sex with you...?  The list is endless.  Any of THOSE reasons can be even MORE "disgraceful". 

 

Quote

 

Now let’s pretend for one second that I was totally. Mrs Ironhamster discovered she was an asexual shortly after the wedding. As coincidental as that is let’s pretend it was true.

what she should be doing now is saying, Mr ironhamster, I don’t like sex. I have discovered I am asexual. I appear to have allowed you to marry me believing something different. Let’s get a divorce, I won’t take a penny of your money, your pension, your business and I will leave the children here with you in the family home. At that stage I think I would have to say ‘as shit as it may be ironhamster, she has been honest with you’.

 

Oh puh-LEEZ...  That's just more b.s. 

[Galactic Turtle]

Wow this thread is still going.

 

They're probs gonna end up divorced anyway. *shrugs*

[vega57]

5 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Wow this thread is still going.

 

They're probs gonna end up divorced anyway. *shrugs*

Hopefully soon....

[Philip027]

Quote

I wonder if @IronHamster is ever going to say “ my bad! I did something wrong. I was weak and I should have done things differently. Nobody should cheat on their spouse!”

Unlikely, because the dude considers himself a moral hero for what he did and was deluded enough about it to think he'd get support for it here.

[James121]

58 minutes ago, vega57 said:

it's either a contract or it isn't.  There is no in-between. 

It'

Ohfercryinoutloud.  The phrase "to have and to hold" is legal jargon known as the Habendum Clause.  It's used in the conveyance of PROPERTY.  Wives used to be seen as the property of the husband.  It does not mean sex.  It does not allude to sex, nor does it imply sex. 

 

No.  She didn't keep to the contract "to have and to hold".  She kept to her promise or agreement. 

 

It doesn't boil down to "morals".  A "reasonable" person doesn't have to interpret the phrase.  The courts of the land have already done that. 

 

But WOULD you have sex with a girl, marry her in church,  and then use her body for your own masturbatory purposes (because your testicles were 'tight' and you simply wanted a release and believed that it was up to your wife/partner to let you use her body to 'give' you that release), or use her body to relieve stress or use her body to 'relax' so you can sleep or use her body while thinking about the hot blond in accounting or because you were bored or because you wanted to brag to your friends about how long the two of you "did it",  or because you thought it was your "duty", or because you wanted to feel like a 'stud' or so you can feel good about yourself that someone is willing to have sex with you...?  The list is endless.  Any of THOSE reasons can be even MORE "disgraceful". 

 

Oh puh-LEEZ...  That's just more b.s. 

1) Well it’s a contract then.

2) it’s legal jargon says the historian who knows everything

3) you are just another person who apparently knows everything there is to know about what being sexual is like. are you sexual or asexual?

[vega57]

1 minute ago, James121 said:

Well it’s a contract then.

Nope.  It's not a contract for how much sex a couple should have.

[James121]

2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Nope.  It's not a contract for how much sex a couple should have.

Yep there’s a contract not to cheat and to have intimate relations. Marriage is primarily born from religion, try checking what the bible has to say about it.