Jump to content

Is it ok if your partner gets their sexual needs met elsewhere?


Paneeda

Recommended Posts

Quote

In the case of sex, that they care about you enough to do something selfless for your benefit. You haven't forced them to, or manipulated them. They want to, because they care about your feelings.

And yet, the experience still falls flat in a way when you know they aren't into it, doesn't it?  At least that's the general experience I seem to hear from many of the sexuals in mixed relationships I see on this board.  I'm pretty sure I've even seen you saying something more or less to this effect.

 

That's exactly how I would feel about my parent coming to my ball game if I knew for them it was like pulling teeth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

And yet, the experience still falls flat in a way when you know they aren't into it, doesn't it?

 

That's exactly how I would feel about my parent coming to my ball game when I knew for them it was like pulling teeth.

It depends, with the partner, if they seem to be enjoying it in their own way. It's not as good as ravening desire, but someone enjoying getting you off isn't going to be unpleasant, and certainly better than 'no - I'm fine with you being miserable as long as my principles are intact'.

 

You must've been an extraordinarily precocious child, or your parents were extremely childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say I have childish parents, if anything they are very much the opposite -- but it was very clear to me when people were not interested in something I was interested in.  From what I hear though, as an Aspie this is pretty much par for the course.

 

I learned from a pretty young age to stop trying to get them interested in my interests, because faked interest is easily detected and doesn't really make for fulfilling interaction.  I just don't see the point in faking things; a lot of hurt feelings and resentment comes from it, and it's so unnecessary.  I will take upfront-ness any day of the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James121 said:

And if a sexuals choice is to seek sex outside the marriage?

That's the sexual's choice.  And if the asexual doesn't want to deal with that because they're afraid the sexual will fall in love with the third person, it's the asexual's choice to leave the relationship.  They both have choices.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, paneeda.

I think the question is if you are okay with your partner getting crushes on other people. I wouldn’t agree that a sexual will always leave an ace for someone sexual, but for us sex almost always carries some risk of emotional involvement or even falling in love.

In long-term relationships crushes on other people can happen, and many people can wait out the “storm” without any great damage to their relationship. Whether or not you want to subject your relationship to the risk of your partner’s more frequent crushes is your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I wouldn't say I have childish parents, if anything they are very much the opposite -- but it was very clear to me when people were not interested in something I was interested in.  From what I hear though, as an Aspie this is pretty much par for the course.

 

I learned from a pretty young age to stop trying to get them interested in my interests, because faked interest is easily detected and doesn't really make for fulfilling interaction.  I just don't see the point in faking things; a lot of hurt feelings and resentment comes from it, and it's so unnecessary.  I will take upfront-ness any day of the week.

Back to the children: It is a matter of where you put your focus and what you say. I dont love horses, but I love seing how my daugther ligths up when she goes riding. I love to see how focused she gets on making the next difficult jump or a parade-thing. I can relate it to things in my own life, which has nothing to do with riding, but being focused, happy and trying to acheive/succeed. Sometimes you do start to feel a genuine interest while you are there or with them. I would never watch a horseshow without her. She knows. 

 

Back to the wife: I love when I feel how she shows interest in what makes me happy, though it is not something she would do if it wasnt for my sake. She loves me. This is not fake. She loves seing me happy. This is not fake. She is okay with some sex, but wouldnt actively, on her own ‘go there’ without me. I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Back to the children: It is a matter of where you put your focus and what you say. I dont love horses, but I love seing how my daugther ligths up when she goes riding. I love to see how focused she gets on making the next difficult jump or a parade-thing. I can relate it to things in my own life, which has nothing to do with riding, but being focused, happy and trying to acheive/succeed. Sometimes you do start to feel a genuine interest while you are there or with them. I would never watch a horseshow without her. She knows. 

 

Back to the wife: I love when I feel how she shows interest in what makes me happy, though it is not something she would do if it wasnt for my sake. She loves me. This is not fake. She loves seing me happy. This is not fake. She is okay with some sex, but wouldnt actively, on her own ‘go there’ without me. I know.

That's not the same sort of thing, because clearly you still get something out of going.  I'm talking about the situations where people don't even get that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a rare parent who didn't get something out of seeing their child enjoying themselves, surely. And most children would be disappointed by their parents not being there which in itself is the parent getting something out of it by not disappointing their child.

 

Besides, it's not a parent's role to get something out of every situation. Some things they do for their kids, however much they'd rather not. If a new mother decided her principles didn't allow her to feed her child because it was boring and messy, when she could be playing CoD, would that be acceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It would be a rare parent who didn't get something out of seeing their child enjoying themselves, surely.

I don't think it's as rare as you think.  Even then, this still wouldn't be the same thing as genuine interest in whatever it is the kid is doing.

 

Quote

If a new mother decided her principles didn't allow her to feed her child because it was boring and messy, when she could be playing CoD, would that be acceptable?

Not comparable and you know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However rare or not it may be, ultimately, kids are not there only to be cared for when their parent finds it interesting, and supporting their activities is just as much caring for them as feeding them.

2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Not comparable and you know it.

I don't I'm afraid. Why isn't it comparable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If parents don't feed their kid, they can potentially die of starvation, which obviously falls under parental neglect (some would call it outright murder).

 

It is not a criminal offense in any way to not attend your kid's ball game.  Maybe at worst you'll think of it as morally remiss, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

 

Come on, I know you aren't this obtuse.

 

Quote

However rare or not it may be, ultimately, kids are not there only to be cared for when their parent finds it interesting, and supporting their activities is just as much caring for them as feeding them.

Can preach about The Way It Should Be all you want, but unfortunately, there is no particular mandate on this matter that parents all have to agree to follow when they become parents.  Some will feel that as long as they are keeping the kid fed and a roof over their head (basically, that their *needs* are being met), they have already went above and beyond their end of the bargain and that if anything, the kid owes THEM for what they have already been given.

 

I have met many of these types; it's not a rarity.  I think you would be shocked at just how many parents don't really give a rat's ass what it is their kids are doing so long as it isn't getting either of them in trouble with the law or anything else similarly dire.  Parents are still adults with their own lives and interests and disinterests, and that doesn't end just because they became parents.  It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

If parents don't feed their kid, they can potentially die of starvation, which obviously falls under parental neglect (some would call it outright murder).

 

It is not a criminal offense in any way to not attend your kid's ball game.  Maybe at worst you'll think of it as morally remiss, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

By definition, being morally remiss is inherently wrong, and something doesn't have to be a criminal offence for it to be wrong, either - tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) being the obvious example.

 

29 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Some will feel that as long as they are keeping the kid fed and a roof over their head (basically, that their *needs* are being met), they have already went above and beyond their end of the bargain and that if anything, the kid owes THEM for what they have already been given

And social services will be knocking on their door, because if that's literally all they're getting, the kids will be having severe behavioural problems, and probably not turning up to school. Emotional neglect - which is what ignoring your children's activities comes down to - is just as harmful as physical neglect. 

 

Here's how the 'not going to the ball game' scenario plays out.

 

Little Johnny lives and dreams soccer, and plays in the school team. He wants to watch professional matches. Over the course of a season, his school team does really well, and they're in the final of the local tournament. All his mate's dads are there every week, driving the team to fixtures, helping organise practices, cheering their sons on from the side. Johnny repeatedly asks his dad to come and watch because he wants to show him how good he is at soccer.

 

But Johnny's dad doesn't even turn up for a couple of hours, once in the whole season, because he's not interested in soccer. He'd rather watch basketball on the TV instead. So when Johnny looks across to the sidelines, all the other kid's dads are there, and interested and involved, but not his. He's going to wonder why his dad's desire to watch basketball is more important to him than taking notice of what his son wants. He's going to see where he falls in his father's priorities - lower down than a basketball match he could watch any time. Johnny is not going to feel loved or valued, especially when he looks at how all his friends' dads are there, and wonder what's wrong with him. And that feeling leads to all sorts of self esteem problems, neurological development disorders (all peer reviewed research) and dysfunctional adulthood. Clearly that's from a sustained pattern of putting parental interests over the child's, but that's the logical conclusion from your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In one word, yes.  Yes.  It is ok.  The morality of modern culture requires us to accept body autonomy.   It is your partner's body and you have no right to be upset if they go fuck others.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

By definition, being morally remiss is inherently wrong,

Eh, disagree.  Morals are subjective.  What may be morally remiss to you may be perfectly fine to another.

 

Quote

And social services will be knocking on their door, because if that's literally all they're getting, the kids will be having severe behavioural problems, and probably not turning up to school.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Derp, it's late and I don't have my fallacies straight.

 

Quote

Emotional neglect - which is what ignoring your children's activities comes down to - is just as harmful as physical neglect. 

Disagree.  Trust me, Little Johnny is not doomed to a life of misery and failure just because his parents didn't care about one of his hobbies.  Enough physical neglect, on the other hand, will leave the kid dead.  World of fucking difference.

 

Quote

In one word, yes.  Yes.  It is ok.  The morality of modern culture requires us to accept body autonomy.   It is your partner's body and you have no right to be upset if they go fuck others.  

Everyone has the right to feel as they do, and they also have the right to call out that sort of behavior for what it is -- cheating.

 

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

.  Trust me, Little Johnny is not doomed to a life of misery and failure just because his parents didn't care about one of his hobbies.  Enough physical neglect, on the other hand, will leave the kid dead.  World of fucking difference.

 

It's not about his hobbies. It's about him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

By definition, being morally remiss is inherently wrong, and something doesn't have to be a criminal offence for it to be wrong, either - tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) being the obvious example.

 

And social services will be knocking on their door, because if that's literally all they're getting, the kids will be having severe behavioural problems, and probably not turning up to school. Emotional neglect - which is what ignoring your children's activities comes down to - is just as harmful as physical neglect. 

 

Here's how the 'not going to the ball game' scenario plays out.

 

Little Johnny lives and dreams soccer, and plays in the school team. He wants to watch professional matches. Over the course of a season, his school team does really well, and they're in the final of the local tournament. All his mate's dads are there every week, driving the team to fixtures, helping organise practices, cheering their sons on from the side. Johnny repeatedly asks his dad to come and watch because he wants to show him how good he is at soccer.

 

But Johnny's dad doesn't even turn up for a couple of hours, once in the whole season, because he's not interested in soccer. He'd rather watch basketball on the TV instead. So when Johnny looks across to the sidelines, all the other kid's dads are there, and interested and involved, but not his. He's going to wonder why his dad's desire to watch basketball is more important to him than taking notice of what his son wants. He's going to see where he falls in his father's priorities - lower down than a basketball match he could watch any time. Johnny is not going to feel loved or valued, especially when he looks at how all his friends' dads are there, and wonder what's wrong with him. And that feeling leads to all sorts of self esteem problems, neurological development disorders (all peer reviewed research) and dysfunctional adulthood. Clearly that's from a sustained pattern of putting parental interests over the child's, but that's the logical conclusion from your position.

My mother never once came to watch any of my track or swim meets.  She never came to any of my basketball or softball games.  I never faulted her for it because I knew she was working.  If she happened to have a day off of work and I had a game or a meet, I had no issue with her staying home and sleeping.  Plus, we didn't have a car, so it was much more difficult for her to get to my events. 

 

The truth is, that you don't know HOW little Johnny is going to feel.  He may not care if his dad goes to any of his games.  He may not even WANT his dad to go to any of his games.  Plus, in this day and age where BOTH parents work, kids seem to be a bit more accepting that their parents won't be at MOST of their activities.  I know that I didn't get to ALL of my daughter's track meets or my other daughter's tennis tournaments. And they were both in gymnastics and karate. I got to SOME of them, and they were appreciative of WHEN I could get there.  Some kids don't want their parents there because the kid would be 'too nervous'. 

 

I also know that I wasn't the ONLY parent who didn't attend every event.  In fact, about HALF of the parents weren't there.  And all of the kids had to maintain an 80% average in ALL of their subjects in order to stay on the teams.  From what I learned, almost ALL of the kids surpassed that average. 

 

How well the kid(s) will handle the absent parent will depend on the situation and depend on the kid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

In one word, yes.  Yes.  It is ok.  The morality of modern culture requires us to accept body autonomy.   It is your partner's body and you have no right to be upset if they go fuck others.  

Unless of course, there's a VOW not to...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not about his hobbies. It's about him.

Explain?

 

(And why does this sound so similar to the whole "rape isn't about sex, it's about control" rhetoric?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vega

 

There's a big difference between going to half your offspring's events, and doing the just the basic minimum of shelter, food and clothing because they're insufficiently interesting, which is what Philip is arguing is fine.

 

Philip

 

Children don't see a parent caring or not caring about soccer, they see a parent caring or not caring about *them* as people. Having a parent who apparently doesn't care about you is terrifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids "see" a whole lot of things that aren't necessarily accurate.

 

Just because some kids can't tell the difference between a parent not caring about what they're doing and a parent not caring about them, doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.

 

And really, if someone is going out of their way to make sure you have your basic needs met and a roof over your head, yet you somehow interpret that as them still not caring about you, you honestly come off as a bit of a spoiled brat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Vega

 

There's a big difference between going to half your offspring's events, and doing the just the basic minimum of shelter, food and clothing because they're insufficiently interesting, which is what Philip is arguing is fine.

Tele, you posted about little Johnny and his father not going to his son's game because of his lack of interest in the game, and how that *would* impact little Johnny.  In all honesty, there's too much information missing to determine if what Johnny experienced was "emotional neglect".  For example, did Johnny's father ask Johnny how he did in he game when Johnny came home?  Does Johnny's father participate in any other activities that Johnny is involved in (including school)?  What about Johnny's mother?  Does SHE show up to any of Johnny's games? 

 

Emotional neglect is pretty hard to prove.  I mean, almost anyone can say that they were "neglected" simply because the other person didn't do what the alleged neglected party wanted them to do. 

 

In the hypothetical example you gave, a case for emotional neglect wouldn't hold water. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So the kids should just get over it, fools that they are?

Actually, yes!  Doing everything that a kid wants can actually cause the kid to turn into somewhat of a narcissist. 

 

Kids have to be taught how to deal with disappointments.  It's part of the maturity process. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a Harvard case study, it was aimed at helping Philip understand what I was talking about.

 

You're surely not agreeing that it's okay for parents to, for instance, point blank refuse to go to their kids' soccer matches *purely because they don't like soccer*? That's the basic issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Actually, yes!  Doing everything that a kid wants can actually cause the kid to turn into somewhat of a narcissist. 

 

Kids have to be taught how to deal with disappointments.  It's part of the maturity process. 

How early should this start? 'No! We've read the Hungry Caterpillar once, the narrative was repetitive, the characterisation weak, and it was riven with heteronormative assumptions about butterflies. It's boring and you should remember the end anyway, because I do. I'll read you this C++ manual instead, because personally, I find it riveting and I need to go over a chapter for a project at work tomorrow'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

How early should this start? 'No! We've read the Hungry Caterpillar once, the narrative was repetitive, the characterisation weak, and it was riven with heteronormative assumptions about butterflies. It's boring and you should remember the end anyway, because I do. I'll read you this C++ manual instead, because personally, I find it riveting and I need to go over a chapter for a project at work tomorrow'?

Tele, now I think it's YOU who is moving the goalposts. 

 

In your first example, little Johnny wasn't being forced to do something that *he* found to be uninteresting.  In the second example (above), the child is being forced to do something s/he doesn't want to do. 

 

The teachings begin early in life: 

 

No, you can't have any candy 10 minutes before dinner.

No, you can't sleep over at a friend's house on a school night.

No, I won't be able to take you and your friends to the mall today because I have some personal errands I want to do (even if they involve leisurely strolling through a bookstore)

 

Once people become parents they don't stop having needs/wants/tastes/likes/dislikes of their own.  The child doesn't ALWAYS come first. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So the kids should just get over it, fools that they are?

Pretty much.  You can't really fake enthusiasm, at least not convincingly, and it's disingenuous to try.

 

Quote

You're surely not agreeing that it's okay for parents to, for instance, point blank refuse to go to their kids' soccer matches *purely because they don't like soccer*? That's the basic issue.

They can refuse for any damn reason they want.  They're the adult, here.

 

Believe it or not, it's rather common for kids to have different interests from their parents.  I'm a total computer and video game nerd.  My mom absolutely cannot relate, so she just lets me do my own thing in that regard.  I can tell she's 100% not interested.  I actually prefer it this way, compared to her faking interest on my behalf.  What would actually hurt would be if I found out years down the road that she only pretended to be interested in what I do, because then it would feel like I've been lied to.

 

Quote

How early should this start? 'No! We've read the Hungry Caterpillar once, the narrative was repetitive, the characterisation weak, and it was riven with heteronormative assumptions about butterflies. It's boring and you should remember the end anyway, because I do. I'll read you this C++ manual instead, because personally, I find it riveting and I need to go over a chapter for a project at work tomorrow'?

They wouldn't put it quite to that extent, but you bet your ass that some parents express reluctance over reading them the same kiddy book again and again, and after a certain point they might just very well put their foot down and say "no, you can read it yourself now"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they should always come first, just that the parent's interest in the activity itself shouldn't be the defining factor in whether the parent is supportive. This is Phillip's position.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vega, could you try not exaggerating everything I say ad absurdum in order to have any counter argument at all? It's starting to get tedious.

 

I'm getting the feeling that if I said the sea is blue, there'd be a hardcore claiming  I was wrong, purely because it's me saying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You're surely not agreeing that it's okay for parents to, for instance, point blank refuse to go to their kids' soccer matches *purely because they don't like soccer*? That's the basic issue.

Yes, I AM agreeing that it's o.k. not go because they don't like soccer, BUT, it would depend on other factors as well.  How much time does the parent spend with the child in other areas?  Has the parent explained to the child their dislike of soccer, and perhaps WHY they dislike it?  Would the parent at least drop the kid off/pick the kid up for practices/games?  Does the parent ask them/talk about/participate in other areas of the kids life? 

 

My youngest daughter LOVES horror movies (Saw, Saw II, The Grudge,  Friday the 13th, etc.)  I am sooooo NOT a fan!  I'd flat out REFUSE to watch these things with her.  But I'd go into her room during commercials and chat with her and she'd tell me all about the movie.  I'd bring her soda or juice and popcorn, if she wanted.  Sometimes she'd absolutely 'torture' me with the gory details, lol!  It was all in good fun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...