My husband finds the Gorbag types to be laughable.
He doesn't see any of these as "forbidden fruits" but rather "not-food." It's like being paleo. Grains are no longer nutritious, so a cookie preening itself in front of you is basically like deciding whether or not to chew on some tin foil for it's "forbidden-ness" -- it's just laughable.
[QUOTE=zoebird;1103592]My husband finds the Gorbag types to be laughable.
He doesn't see any of these as "forbidden fruits" but rather "not-food." It's like being paleo. Grains are no longer nutritious, so a cookie preening itself in front of you is basically like deciding whether or not to chew on some tin foil for it's "forbidden-ness" -- it's just laughable.[/QUOTE]
My husband is the same... He's sort of like "Wow... offering yourself sexually to a complete stranger at the (insert random place/gym), way to shoot for the stars girl... you must have great self esteem AND herpes!" LOL
Not that my husband isn't a bit of a flirt himself.
But it's more of a charm kind of flirting.
Completely harmless, and I find it acceptable.
He does it equally whether I'm in the same room with him or not, and I think that's a good measure.
We all like a bit of and ego boost now and then... but really, when it comes down to it, your ego is the only thing that needs to be stroked to get the benefits.
If anything else happens benefits be dammed, bad things are likely to ensue.
[QUOTE=zoebird;1103592]My husband finds the Gorbag types to be laughable.
Of course, because you are confronting him with it, so it would have been very unwise of him not to laugh it away...:p
Yeah, I think the ego-boost of it is the best part. You know you are still attractive to others, but you go home and have the real fun-times with the person who knows and cares about and enjoys you. And, you have a lexicon, so you'll know that everyone gets pleasure. And, you know, if you are feeling wild you can do your mobility work and try a new position. LOL
False assumption. :) Just because you assume that men are dishonest around women -- likely because you are -- doesn't mean it's universal.
My husband has long called men who behave as you describe yourself behaving as "cads" and -- more often -- "jokers."
This is really only for those people for whom it is not cultural for them to be non-monogamous, btw. He quite liberally notes that some cultures have different social structures (open relationships), and in cultures that generally don't, open relationships are acceptable.
Technically speaking, our relationship *is* open. Our process is that if we are interested in someone else, that we discuss it with the other openly ahead of time to ascertain whether or not there is benefit in exploring that relationship, as well as what the risks may be to both of us and our relationship. Thus far, each of us has explored relationships once -- neither one moving to sexual engagement. We both realized early-in that the relationships were not that interesting/valuable to us (more so than the one we are in). We also are not interested in 3-somes, as both of us have asserted this to each other.
It turns out that people can be equals and intimates in this regard.
That being said, we both consider this rather silly behavior of this girl (who might, upon learning that someone is married back off -- which often happens with my husband and myself) and we consider even sillier the idea of 'sneaking out' and 'forbidden fruits.' It shows a great personal and sexual immaturity, in my opinion, and lacks the actual accountability that relationships require.
You asked "what would grok do?"
Most "groks" lived in small social groups. Everyone would have known that grok had a girl on the side -- and this probably would have been accounted for in the community in some way. And, each person in the community would have accountability and roles based on whatever that social structure is.
If you look at open-relationship cultures -- such as those with first wives, second wives (strict heirarchies), it's very clear who has which responsibilities to whom, where, and how. If someone breaks out of the order in some way, then there is a cultural response to it -- there's a clear way to move toward reparation.
In an open relationship in our modern world, there is the same.
First, there is no shame in sharing of girlfriends. The idea of being the "other woman" to a married man may still have a smack of shame in our culture, and the married man may still be considered deficient in some way (due to our cultural ideas about monogamy), but the reality is that when it is in the open, both between the married couple and their larger community, should something come to pass -- such as a divorce or another child or what have you -- then there can be a community-based shifting to make certain that accountability standards of care are met (that everyone's needs are met, man, woman, woman, child, community).
The problem with the sneaking is that the man can be held accountable in his community, but the woman can't (if she's a secret), and likewise, her needs cannot be met within and by the community in the accountability process. She is a pariah, and that is not a great place to be for her -- emotionally speaking.
In "grok's" time, while there might have been and probably was less shaming for men and women around this open process, there would have definitely been social processes in place to make sure that everyone's larger, personal and communal needs are met.
I know that in traditional cultures of the pacific islands, there is this concept of "va" or the space of relationships. "Va" has obligations and responsibilities of both parties -- and it extends between both parties (their dual-"va") and the larger community's "va."
Any harming that happens -- accidental or purposeful -- in the process of human relationships, between individuals (grandmother/granddaughter for example), then the community's "va" can help support the reparation of the individuals "va" and likewise, if the individuals' "va" has communal reprocussions, then it is the "va" between them that needs to be repaired.
These cultures are fairly close to how "grok" may have lived, and they have very clear community guidelines for managing "va." They also had serial monogamy and polyamory/polygamy elements in their cultures (prior to the advent of christianity) and there were containers of "va" to support this.
but, what breaks the "va?" Not being *open* about it. If you "sneak" around and are caught, then you have broken faith -- or harmed the "va" between yourself and the other partner, your children and family members, and your community. You have also broken the "va" between yourself and the person with whom you were sneaking around with and her whole family. The whole thing completely mucks up the "va."
Which means that both families and both communities have to come together to repair the "va" -- everything goes out into the open, everything is balanced out in some way (there's a long negotiation process, usually), and there is exchanging gifts (sometimes even having children from other families trade families for a while to repair the "va" between the families), and so on.
So, yes. To me, anyone who behaves in this silly way is a "joker." They break something that is very important -- the emotional, relational spaces between people which allow us to live together well and function as family society.
And I'm fairly certain "grok" would find someone sneaking about to be a "joker" too.
That was a very insightful read. Thank you :)
Yep, very interesting read z[B]oebird[/B], just let me say that I am glad that I am not living under the moral conditions in your culture and that I very much enjoy my life as a "joker"! After all, even the woman here mostly accept that a man have the right to seven woman and that even the bible say so - the catholic bible – so our moral is somehow different from yours, and I hope it stays that way in the future also… ;)
hahaah "my husband say!"
I don't know if I feel more pity for men who lie to their wives about being attracted to other women, or for men who are literally only ever attracted to their wife. That second condition sounds very strange and impossible and not-for-mammals to me or something. I see how it's possible though, because images, impressions and memories of my wife inform the arousal part of my brain, so that when meditating on something like, "mmm asses," it is just hers that my mind is calling into my memory/visualization. So, I see how it is bio-chemically and neurologically possible, but it still sounds like a state of slavery to me.
Regarding my position, thoughts, feelings whatever, on my wife having sex with some other dude- obviously this is something to consider in my own feelings of my own infidelity.* But, when we "talk about it," (her squaring her jaw and saying, "it's like...I dunno") she swears that it is not possible for her to be aroused by other men, while I swear that this can't be true and is madness, and is not my condition. So, were she to take a man, that would be more treacherous than me with a woman.
I have some friends though that I think, if they really want to bang my wife, and she really wanted it, I would think, "ok whatever," like how I feel about sharing food with my brothers. (I grew up with 3 brothers)
*I am not going to cheat on my wife. I was curious how now-ascending, newly physically fit primal men coped with/responded to the fact that now they embody hotness in their environment, where previously they did not, and how this has affected their monogamous relationships, and wanted to commiserate with these men.
[quote]Regarding my position, thoughts, feelings whatever, on my wife having sex with some other dude- obviously this is something to consider in my own feelings of my own infidelity.* But, when we "talk about it," (her squaring her jaw and saying, "it's like...I dunno") she swears that it is not possible for her to be aroused by other men, while I swear that this can't be true and is madness, and is not my condition. So, were she to take a man, that would be more treacherous than me with a woman.[/quote]
yes, it's ALWAYS more treacherous to a man when it's his woman who sleeps with others. i'm trying real hard not to eyeroll, i hope i get brownie points
she says that because she loves you and either doesn't want to hurt your ego or else she genuinely feels, at this time, that she'll only be aroused by you
i guarantee that'll change in a new york minute the minute she finds out your penis was in another vagina