Advice on Wife Texting Her Boss

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:
Ok, so happy is a bit of a stretch. But I concur that when I’m with a man and my love is being acknowledged and appreciated, I don’t even look at anyone else, much less engage them.

But how about this - when you have more than one child you love them both, differently but equally, yes? Why can’t you love more than one person? Who decided that love was in limited supply, that you only have so much to give, and in order to love another person you have to take your love away from someone else? That’s not real love, it’s “conditional emotional investment”. [/quote]
Okay I was kidding before, but this honestly does not compute.

Real love is a conditional emotional investment. Giving it to two people at once is merely a betrayal to them both. At least from a man’s perspective. Whatever God created the male brain didn’t program an option for him to be okay with his partner loving someone else at the same time. In fact he hard wired in the urge to enact a brutal Viking death on the other male in such cases.[/quote]

Good to know where you stand - for personal future reference :wink:

But I’m still skeptical about love as a “limited” supply. Why do people stop loving each other? Did they ever truly love to begin with? Is being in love with more than one person simply infatuation with the illusion your emotions provide(i.e. lusting after what you think they can offer you?)

Agape. Is it possible for a human to be capable of this type of love.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Oh, and this:

Men too! There are all sorts of silly immature men out there, petulantly bemoaning that they can’t have what they want! And not all of them are good looking. [/quote]
Well this is definitely true. I’m good looking though.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
I don’t think Jay is sleeping well. He told Raven he’s divorced yet in his facebook picture he’s with a woman who is most likely his wife (probably the older one). This means he’s scared Raven will talk to his wife. It’s also a tip off to guilt.[/quote]

Whether he’s married or not, the main guilty party here is OP’s wife. She’s the one who strayed. (Or didn’t. Op has no proof anyway…) A woman who values her marriage will reject flirting/sex advances.

Like I said, it’s always easy to go for whoever '‘stole’'your other half, but it achieves nothing when your relationship was already in trouble.
[/quote]

Yes, EXACTLY. Male advances have no power over a happy woman.[/quote]

Au contraire mon frere :wink:

Two things:

  1. Women are NEVER 100% happy - there is always a chink in that armor which can be exploited.

2)Women make emotionally based decisions. Emotion can me manipulated.

Given these two FACTS, it is possible that when the stars properly align, a window of cheating potential CAN (and often does) get exploited.

[/quote]

NO ONE is ever 100% happy, but only a child expects to be.

[/quote]Plenty of women out there with that childish expectation who “want the fairy tale” - ESPECIALLY the attractive ones, as they feel they “deserve” it. [quote]

Personally, I would not want a man who wanted me knowing I was committed to someone else. Obviously you’ve met some women who feel differently, but that’s a skewed sample.

[/quote]LOL at my “skewed sample”. We’ve covered this ground before, hon. And the criteria for a man wanting a woman has NOTHING to do with her availability, or lack thereof. Rather it has more to do with her hip to waist ratio, her tits and her facial symmetry. MANY (not all of course) women WANT to feel WANTED. And they don’t get that from their husbands. The old saying “for every hawt supermodel you see, I’ll show you a guy who’s tired of her shit”, is VERY VERY true. Women, especially attractive women, are particularly vulnerable. Especially as they get a little older. MANY (not all) lack the self esteem to age gracefully and make “mistakes” (that they later sweep under the rug, justify and confabulate away) to fill their emotional needs. [quote]

I believe that my mind is responsible for the guidelines within which my emotions are allowed free rein. All major life issues work this way: I don’t go to bars and leave children out in the car. I don’t simply blow off work, I call in sick if need be and make sure nothing essential is missed in so doing. I don’t overspend.

[/quote]I assure you, Em, that my mental image of you, gathered through several years of online interaction, is the EPITOME of responsibility and frugality. With a bit of sexy and “responsible excess” thrown in there for good measure. :wink: As for your mental guidelines that contain your emotions, methinks you are overestimating yourself a little (predictably and adorably so I might add)… You are a woman, not a robot.[quote]

Relationships are the same way. I don’t cheat, period. It doesn’t matter about opportunity; I value my integrity more than the highs I can presumably get from exciting men looking for cheating woman.

[/quote]

I believe you. I know that your integrity would NEVER allow you to go out with the intention of cheating. But one can never say with absolute certainty what one would or would not do when the fell clutch of circumstance raises it’s ugly head.

But as I’ve said before over the years of our respectful debates about the sexes, MY experience has been with many woman who’s actions have often not been in lockstep with their “proclaimed values”. Maybe you’re different, maybe you’re not, but until you’ve spent eight hours with a man of exceptional understanding with opportunity present, I don’t think you can say for sure. I know what you can “SAY”. But we’ll never know what you’d “DO”. No matter what you’re intellect (prefrontal cortex) tells you, your emotions (deep limbic system) and instincts (amygdala) are what’s really running the show. Deny it all you want. But every man who understands women and understands seduction KNOWS this to be true. YOU (your conscious mind) is NOT who we are communicating with, I assure you.

This also has nothing to do with your integrity. You, as a woman, would be absolutely operating entirely within your biological/evolutionary programing. If the right switches get flipped, in the right sequence and with the right intensity, it’s like opening a complex combination lock - the legs just magically open…[/quote]

It has to do with all sorts of things that start with my integrity and the decisions I make about life. I curb my instincts and drives continually, it is necessary to do so in order to live a fulfilled life. Hunger, sleep, sex – all of these must be repressed to one degree or another if I want to look the way I want to look; perform optimally at work, home, and in the gym; and maintain the quality of intimate relationships I feel I need.

I also believe that if other men can so easily turn my head, I am with the wrong man and my next set of decisions needs to be the consideration of change on that front. THEN, perhaps a return to the man with the mad seduction skillz.[/quote]

Integrity and responsibility ( response-able - the power to choose your response).

No one can take these two things from me - they are character defining concepts. And lack of - is the reason people stray.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I assure you, Em, that my mental image of you, gathered through several years of online interaction, is the EPITOME of responsibility and frugality. With a bit of sexy and “responsible excess” thrown in there for good measure. :wink: [/quote]

I was thinking about this as I worked out this morning, and if there hadn’t been other people there, I think I’d have laughed aloud. So smooth!

If ever we meet and are both unattached so there are no moral impediments for me, and you think I’m attractive enough that the experience wouldn’t be repugnant to you - though I don’t think that would be the case - will you try to seduce me, please? Because I think that would be a most excellent experience, and one the likes of which I’m certain I’ve never had.

But you’d have to go in with low expectations, because regardless of skill, I don’t see sex resulting.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I was thinking about this as I worked out this morning, and if there hadn’t been other people there, I think I’d have laughed aloud. So smooth!

If ever we meet and are both unattached so there are no moral impediments for me, and you think I’m attractive enough that the experience wouldn’t be repugnant to you - though I don’t think that would be the case - will you try to seduce me, please? Because I think that would be a most excellent experience, and one the likes of which I’m certain I’ve never had.

But you’d have to go in with low expectations, because regardless of skill, I don’t see sex resulting.[/quote]
This is one of those moments where it pays to be a man. I would love to AC’s dos equis-esque facial expression upon reading this.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
I don’t think Jay is sleeping well. He told Raven he’s divorced yet in his facebook picture he’s with a woman who is most likely his wife (probably the older one). This means he’s scared Raven will talk to his wife. It’s also a tip off to guilt.[/quote]

Whether he’s married or not, the main guilty party here is OP’s wife. She’s the one who strayed. (Or didn’t. Op has no proof anyway…) A woman who values her marriage will reject flirting/sex advances.

Like I said, it’s always easy to go for whoever '‘stole’'your other half, but it achieves nothing when your relationship was already in trouble.
[/quote]

Yes, EXACTLY. Male advances have no power over a happy woman.[/quote]

Au contraire mon frere :wink:

Two things:

  1. Women are NEVER 100% happy - there is always a chink in that armor which can be exploited.

2)Women make emotionally based decisions. Emotion can me manipulated.

Given these two FACTS, it is possible that when the stars properly align, a window of cheating potential CAN (and often does) get exploited.

[/quote]

AC. I gotta agree with the women on this one. Some women, possibly even most (more than half) are completely untouchable if they are happily in a relationship. This is coming from a man, like you, with a way over-blown ego.

Btw, LOL at my post above. I don’t have the slightest idea what I was talking about. Hopefully it would make sense if I went back and got the context. Scary if not.

[quote]theBeth wrote:
Good to know where you stand - for personal future reference :wink:

But I’m still skeptical about love as a “limited” supply. Why do people stop loving each other? Did they ever truly love to begin with? Is being in love with more than one person simply infatuation with the illusion your emotions provide(i.e. lusting after what you think they can offer you?)

Agape. Is it possible for a human to be capable of this type of love. [/quote]
I know what you mean. I used to feel like a person couldn’t truly lose their love for someone if they had really loved them in the first place, and if they did, then it wasn’t actually love. I think that was probably just extremely naive of me though.

Also interestingly I don’t feel like I would have any issue whatsoever with my partner being with any number of other women. Just men. I mean I guess that makes perfect biological sense.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

Also interestingly I don’t feel like I would have any issue whatsoever with my partner being with any number of other women. Just men. I mean I guess that makes perfect biological sense.[/quote]

Yep.

Generally speaking.[/quote]

And yet, when you say something like, “Hey! We both can have sex with as many women as we want – that is totally fair!”, … somehow…

This got way too grown up-y for my taste.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

Also interestingly I don’t feel like I would have any issue whatsoever with my partner being with any number of other women. Just men. I mean I guess that makes perfect biological sense.[/quote]

Yep.

Generally speaking.[/quote]
I think this makes the man look inadequate. I had an old girl coworker who made out with another girl at a party. her boyfriend was really pissed off at her.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CircaThursday wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

Also interestingly I don’t feel like I would have any issue whatsoever with my partner being with any number of other women. Just men. I mean I guess that makes perfect biological sense.[/quote]

Yep.

Generally speaking.[/quote]
I think this makes the man look inadequate.

[/quote]

Why?

You’re failing to see the opportunities potentially available here. Big time failure.

Think and learn, youngster. Think and learn. Looks like you could use a personal trainer.
[/quote]
I dont have experience with that anyway. nevermind.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I assure you, Em, that my mental image of you, gathered through several years of online interaction, is the EPITOME of responsibility and frugality. With a bit of sexy and “responsible excess” thrown in there for good measure. :wink: [/quote]

I was thinking about this as I worked out this morning, and if there hadn’t been other people there, I think I’d have laughed aloud. So smooth!

If ever we meet and are both unattached so there are no moral impediments for me, and you think I’m attractive enough that the experience wouldn’t be repugnant to you - though I don’t think that would be the case - will you try to seduce me, please? Because I think that would be a most excellent experience, and one the likes of which I’m certain I’ve never had.

But you’d have to go in with low expectations, because regardless of skill, I don’t see sex resulting.[/quote]

I would enjoy that very much. If we were ever fortunate enough to be touched by serendipity, regardless of whether our rendezvous became physical or not, I’m sure that “the seduction of EmilyQ” would rank among my finest and most treasured memories. Sounds like the title to a racy romance novel, doesn’t it? LOL

How’s the Picasso? :wink: