wow people - I head to bed last night totally up to date with this saga, then this morning BOOM........ 2 more pages !!!!!!!
[QUOTE=noodletoy;975996][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3] is it possible they had discussed this little emotional dalliance before you came forward? [/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
WTF, Are you telling this right ????? They talked about this BEFORE all this happened ????? Is this some sort of test ?????
Are you just a wee pawn in a game that these two chicks are playing ?????
Yikes, good luck on the double-date! Sounds terrifying.
[QUOTE=LordPistacchio;976135]Semantically correct. But then altruism isn't truly possible.[/QUOTE]
The only new update is that my wife and OW are arranging a double date with me/wife and OW/douchebag for tomorrow evening. I'm terrified.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]that sounds like a totally horrible idea. is your wife a secret sadist?[/SIZE][/FONT]
You know, If I ate popcorn, I'd be pigging out on it, reading this thread. Good thing... I don't, and I'm not. :)
Good on you/your wife for discussing the issue.
My husband and I are very open in our communications, and we also understand that "attraction" is basically a chemical reaction (hello, pheromones!), and means absolutely NOTHING. "Love" on the other hand, is all about wanting the other person to be happy, and is really big on self-sacrifice. Don't confuse the two.
Should either of us have an attraction issue, we fess up to it to each other. Yes, it does happen. No, it is NOT a symptom of a marriage problem. The solution to it is generally distance, and/or open discussion with spouse, which can put it in perspective.
Once you keep "secrets" ... things tend to go downhill fast. Being discreet about dealing with uncomfortable feelings isn't necessarily "secrets", but at some point, getting that aired out will help.
Yes, it is perfectly possible to:
A) Have "attraction" to more than one person at a time, and
B) Love more than one person (ask any parent) at a time.
The question, therefore, is what is your priority? This would be a good focus for your counseling sessions, in my opinion.
I'm going back to not eating popcorn, now. :)
[QUOTE=cori93437;975139]Except that what you are talking about doesn't work across the board for all members of the same sex.
That's why it's called a generalisation. It's different from a blanket statement.
btw, any time someone brings credentials into a discussion like that, it makes them look silly. just a tip
[QUOTE=Sabre;976269]That's why it's called a generalisation. It's different from a blanket statement.
btw, any time someone brings credentials into a discussion like that, it makes them look silly. just a tip[/QUOTE]
Making assumptions about people based on the set of genitals between their legs makes you look silly regardless of whether you want to call it a generalization or a blanket statement, people with credentials don't do it... unless they're shills.
That was my point. ;)
you know, i have to be honest, if my other set up a double date like that i'd be terrified too, and say 'no. no. nuh uh. no. NO. let's go have sex for a few days.'
"@twa2w- if the women are getting more than the men, you can easily have 20 happy bonking women and 60 happy bonking men...your math-fu is weak "
All I can say to this is that there are three kinds of people in this world - those that can add and those that can't ;-)
I can't help people who are inumerate.
[QUOTE=cori93437;976277]Making assumptions about people based on the set of genitals between their legs makes you look silly regardless of whether you want to call it a generalization or a blanket statement, people with credentials don't do it... unless they're shills.
That was my point. ;)[/QUOTE]
How about this one: humans with penises between their legs tend to be stronger than humans with vaginas.
See? There's nothing silly about generalisations. They just make people upset.