Escorts ... and I don't mean the ones by Ford !

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Except that's exactly how people normally imply such things. I explained it in my pervious post and you seemingly ignored it. So I suppose we'll just have to beg to differ.

You think her saying (not even saying, hinting what ever that means) "I understand you have sexual needs and I would understand if you felt you wanted to go somewhere else" equals "It is ok for you to sleep with hookers, but don't tell me you are" ... are you kidding me?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

are you kidding me?

No. That's how we do it on planet Earth.

Nevyn

IF it has been stated that if is understandible (not ideal mind) that he goes else were , surely it is better he does go to professionals thus ensuring emotional
detachement and while it may be seen as infediltiy he is in the turest sense being loyal to her and not risking falling in love with someone else.

If you had to choose between Fidelity and Loyalty in a realtionship which would it be? for this couple it is loyalty and love.

Zombrex

Thaed wrote:

IF it has been stated that if is understandible (not ideal mind) that he goes else were , surely it is better he does go to professionals thus ensuring emotional

3 points

A) STDs ... the odds of getting an std off a hooker are much higher than the average woman in the street. He has never suggested that he has thought about that or that he has discussed the risks with his partner. He will bring back into the relationship any infections he gets. Does she know this?

She doesn't know he is going to hookers for sex, she might have something to say about that.

C) She doesn't even know he is going anywhere else for sex. He has never told her he is, and all she has ever said is that she would understand if he wanted to, which is my experience is more a request for reassurence that he doesn't want to than permission to go out and do it.

Nevyn

which is my experience

yes yours does not mean this is infact the case here.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

A) STDs ... the odds of getting an std off a hooker are much higher than the average woman in the street. He has never suggested that he has thought about that or that he has discussed the risks with his partner. He will bring back into the relationship any infections he gets. Does she know this?

I’d imaging this is certainly the case with the variety of prostitute you find on the street (also because they will often be there in the first place to support a drug habit) but if you were to compare STD rates between a prostitute in a brothel and your average one-night-stand, I don’t know if your point would be as valid.

She doesn't know he is going to hookers for sex, she might have something to say about that.

I would certainly accept that the use a prostitute may not be advisable, but as Thaed suggested there may be practical reasons for this.

C) She doesn't even know he is going anywhere else for sex. He has never told her he is, and all she has ever said is that she would understand if he wanted to, which is my experience is more a request for reassurence that he doesn't want to than permission to go out and do it.

It may be simply a request for reassurance, but there’s also a very good chance that it is actually implicit, and unofficial, permission - this sort of arrangement in relationships happens all the time in the real World.

And ultimately while he may be lying, deluding himself or even just plain wrong, the original poster is still in a far better position to judge this than either one of us.

Zombrex

Thaed wrote:

yes yours does not mean this is infact the case here.

No it doesn't but it highlights that fact that the poster cannot be sure what his girlfriend is actually saying to him with that statement, so assuming that she is ok with him sleeping around is not a good idea without further discussion. She might be giving him permission, she might not.

And I would point out that it is an assumption on our part that the OP has even assumed himself that his girlfirend is ok with his actions. My reading of his post is that he feels his girlfriend would not be ok with it, but he is doing it anyway, because he has justified it in his own mind. He says "I know exactly what would happen if she found out" which implies it wouldn't be good.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote:

My reading of his post is

I think anyone reading this thread is very much aware of your position on this topic. Those are you views and what you deem to be accpectible for yourself
and in your life.

But others including the person in this tricky situation see it otherwise.

In other cultures and in times past here it would have been acceptible for
a man in this situation to have a mistress.
Which would be a bigger breach in fidelity as he would have to spend a lot more time with her and a bigger drain on the households/marriage/couples finaces.

Yes we are broguht up with the ideal that you meet and fall in love with one
person who is and does everything for you , but there are times this is not possible and unconventional relationships at times call for unconventional measures to continue.

Zombrex

Thaed wrote:

But there are times this is not possible and unconventional relationships at times call for unconventional measures to continue.

I have no problem with unconventional relationships as long as all those involved in the relationship know and agree to what is going on. That is clearly not the case here.

There are only 3 questions here -

1 - Does the girlfriend know that her partner is sleeping with hookers?
This seems very unlikely, based on what he has told us.

2 - Would she be very upset by knowing that
This seems very likely, based on what he has told us.

3 - Does this guy have the right to cheat (sex behind her back without her permission) on his girlfriend, risking hurting her physically and emotionally, just because she is unable to give him sex?
I say no.

Evil Phil

The Corinthian wrote:

It may be simply a request for reassurance, but there’s also a very good chance that it is actually implicit, and unofficial, permission - this sort of arrangement in relationships happens all the time in the real World.

Hmm, actually TC has a point here. She may be saying 'It's okay but don't tell me about it'. The OP is in the best situation to judge. I'm sure she's not happy about it and would rather he could sleep with her (I'm sure he would too) but then again, maybe not. There is an issue of convenience hovering over all of this and I'm not entirely sure its for his.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

There are only 3 questions here

Actually there are plenty more than three questions. You’ve overlooked the distinct possibility that his girlfriend has indeed given him tacit permission, due to the extreme circumstances of their physical relationship. You ignore that for her the relationship as a whole may be far more important than his sexual fidelity. And you can’t seem to understand the very common practice of people turning a blind eye where they would prefer a white lie to the truth or specifically don’t want to (officially) know.

I say no.

The problem is that your position is based entirely upon your experience and your opinion and you seem unwilling or perhaps unable to conceive that other people may not share your simplistic World view.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually there are plenty more than three questions. You’ve overlooked the distinct possibility that his girlfriend has indeed given him tacit permission, due to the extreme circumstances of their physical relationship.

I base my understanding on what he has told us ... there is a possibility that his girlfriend is in fact a big fat guy call Harry, but I think he would have mentioned that, as I think if she had given him permission he probably would have told us such, and also not suggested that she would be very upset if he told her.

The Corinthian wrote:

You ignore that for her the relationship as a whole may be far more important than his sexual fidelity

I don't ignore that, it has never been suggested. That is your assumption, that this girl would rather have a boyfriend screwing around on her than be alone.

The Corinthian wrote:

And you can’t seem to understand the very common practice of people turning a blind eye where they would prefer a white lie to the truth or specifically don’t want to (officially) know.

Again, this is your assumption, not based on anything he has told us, that she would rather not know her partner is cheating on her. What are basing this on? Do you know a lot of women who are happy to let their boyfriends cheat on them lest they lose them?

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem is that your position is based entirely upon your experience and your opinion and you seem unwilling or perhaps unable to conceive that other people may not share your simplistic World view.

My simplistic world view that people should not cheat on their partners?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I base my understanding on what he has told us ... there is a possibility that his girlfriend is in fact a big fat guy call Harry, but I think he would have mentioned that, as I think if she had given him permission he probably would have told us such, and also not suggested that she would be very upset if he told her.

He has told us that he believed she implied such permission, which is consistent with the scenario I’ve suggested.

I don't ignore that, it has never been suggested. That is your assumption, that this girl would rather have a boyfriend screwing around on her than be alone.

If she has given tacit permission (which the OP has claimed) then it is a fair assumption.

Again, this is your assumption, not based on anything he has told us, that she would rather not know her partner is cheating on her. What are basing this on? Do you know a lot of women who are happy to let their boyfriends cheat on them lest they lose them?

Yes. Men and women. It’s not that uncommon.

My simplistic world view that people should not cheat on their partners?

They shouldn’t cheat. And they should live happily ever after too, but there you go. Life’s not as simple as your principles would like.

Evil Phil

Wicknight wrote:

Do you know a lot of women who are happy to let their boyfriends cheat on them lest they lose them?

There's not a lot of women who are physically incapable of having sexual intercourse tbh. That's pretty drastic and if it is (as the op said) purely physical then there's probably not a lot she can do about it so perhaps this is the best option for her. On the other hand if it is psychological, and iirc somebody has stated that the pain she is feeling is unusual for her complaint, then this maybe more convienent for her rather than deal with the issues causing her problems.

There's nothing stranger than folk. While intially my reaction was 'How could he?' I'm starting to see how they both can.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

He has told us that he believed she implied such permission, which is consistent with the scenario I’ve suggested.

No he hasn't. He has told us she said she would understand if he wanted to. That is not the same thing. In fact they are in a different ball park.

The Corinthian wrote:

If she has given tacit permission (which the OP has claimed) then it is a fair assumption.

No its not! Even if she has given him permission there is no where in that that implied she doesn't want to know, or that she would be happy with him seeing hookers. Again, all your own assumptions you are bringing into this.

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes. Men and women. It’s not that uncommon.

Its pretty uncommon.

The Corinthian wrote:

They shouldn’t cheat. And they should live happily ever after too, but there you go. Life’s not as simple as your principles would like.

It seems that you are desperatly searching for a "happily ever after" senerio out of all this, some way that you believe what this guy is doing is ok and the girl will not be hurt out of this relationship.

By far the most likely senario here, ignoring all your personal assumptions that she is ok, is that this guy is cheating on his girlfriend, and when she finds out she will be very very hurt. Happens all the time, unfortunatly, and is far more common than the "blind eye" relationships you seem to hope for.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

No he hasn't. He has told us she said she would understand if he wanted to. That is not the same thing. In fact they are in a different ball park.

You obviously don’t understand what implying something means.

No its not! Even if she has given him permission there is no where in that that implied she doesn't want to know, or that she would be happy with him seeing hookers. Again, all your own assumptions you are bringing into this.

It’s not an unfair assumption, and I’ve seen it happen exactly that way. However I have always said it is an assumption. The only difference is that it appears to be a scenario that the OP believes is occurring, and he’s a better judge of the situation than you or I.

Its pretty uncommon.

And as I said it’s not all that uncommon. And the older you get the more you see it, TBH. Nonetheless, you seemingly now accept that it does happen at all, which I suppose is progress.

It seems that you are desperatly searching for a "happily ever after" senerio out of all this, some way that you believe what this guy is doing is ok and the girl will not be hurt out of this relationship.

By far the most likely senario here, ignoring all your personal assumptions that she is ok, is that this guy is cheating on his girlfriend, and when she finds out she will be very very hurt. Happens all the time, unfortunatly, and is far more common than the "blind eye" relationships you seem to hope for.

Look, I’ve always allowed for the scenario that this guy is lying to us or, most likely, himself and generally a ****.

However, I can also see the distinct possibility that he is telling the truth in what’s going on. Is breaking up the best thing for either one of them in the long run - it could well be, if she’s unable to turn a blind eye and has to confront the infidelity, this may be worse than breaking up now. Or it might not. And he may never officially get caught. And she may prefer to allow him this arrangement than not at all. Again, it happens all the time.

The reality is that all we have to work from is what he’s said, and to otherwise jump to conclusions is an imposition of our own views of right and wrong rather than what is actually going on or even best for each party. I’m not hoping that either case is the reality, I simply believe that given the limited facts here and the bizarre arrangements that couples often have, that we are in no position to moralize on his actions. If you look back on my initial posts in this thread, this has been my bone of contention.

And in this regard, you’ve been pretty sanctimonious to date.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

The only difference is that it appears to be a scenario that the OP believes is occurring, and he’s a better judge of the situation than you or I.

No he doesn't. No where does he imply he has permission, other than the permission he has given himself. In fact he implies that she would be very unhappy if she found out.

The Corinthian wrote:

And as I said it’s not all that uncommon. And the older you get the more you see it, TBH. Nonetheless, you seemingly now accept that it does happen at all, which I suppose is progress.

Sigh ... I never said it didn't happen, only that you have absolutly no reason to believe that it is happening in this case. In fact the idea that she is better off not knowing was never even hinted at by the OP, it is something that you brought into the argument, based on purely your own assumptions.

The Corinthian wrote:

Is breaking up the best thing for either one of them in the long run - it could well be, if she’s unable to turn a blind eye and has to confront the infidelity, this may be worse than breaking up now.

What are you basing that on appart from your own personal feelings and assumptions. Seriously it sounds like you are saying this poor little girl could not cope without a man in her life, even if the man is cheating on her :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

And he may never officially get caught.

Or he may get caught when he gives her syphilis.

The Corinthian wrote:

The reality is that all we have to work from is what he’s said, and to otherwise jump to conclusions is an imposition of our own views of right and wrong rather than what is actually going on or even best for each party.

But your entire argument is based on your own assumption that there is a strong possibility that she is happy about all this. There is no evidence for this, it goes against what the OP has said, and it goes against common sense (seriously TC how many women do you actually know who are happy their husbands or partners are cheating on them).

The Corinthian wrote:

I simply believe that given the limited facts here and the bizarre arrangements that couples often have, that we are in no position to moralize on his actions.

He has implied that she would freak if she found out. Therefore he knows what he is doing would hurt her, but has justified it to himself Therefore he is purposely running the risk of hurting his partner for his own gain. That is not a good thing. That too moral for you.

Zombrex

TC your entire argument seems to be along the lines of

I should not think what he is doing is bad because I do not know for sure that the girlfriend is not happy that he is cheating on her (and he is cheating on her, even if she would be ok about it, because he has not told her he is doing it)

I am sorry but in my mind that is ridiculous.

It would be like someone saying "You should not judge a person who hits their wife because you do not know for sure that the wife didn't say it was ok to do so"

I am sure out there in the world there are couples who get off on that kinda stuff, but I wouldn't let that fact stop me from assuming that if a guy is hitting his wife, she is probably not happy about it, any more than I would let the fact that some couples have open relationships stop me from thinking if a guy is sleeping with hookers behind his wifes back and affraid to tell her he is, then his wife would probably not be happy about it.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

No he doesn't. No where does he imply he has permission, other than the permission he has given himself. In fact he implies that she would be very unhappy if she found out.

Actually where she tells him repeatedly that she would understand if he did is read by him as tacit permission and while arguable from our perspective, it is not unreasonable.

Sigh ... I never said it didn't happen, only that you have absolutly no reason to believe that it is happening in this case.

I’ll qualify my point; you were conveniently ignoring that it could happen. And there is more reason to believe that it is happening from what the OP has said in this case than your version.

In fact the idea that she is better off not knowing was never even hinted at by the OP, it is something that you brought into the argument, based on purely your own assumptions.

I’ve already said in an earlier post that her claim that she would understand if he did, but would prefer if he didn’t. Can quite reasonably be read as permission to cheat as long as she doesn’t hear about it. And, most importantly, that appears to be how the OP has understood it.

So do you honestly believe that the OP revealed that information to us in the belief that she would be officially or unofficially intolerant of infidelity? Or that it was meant as tacit permission? Seriously, which do you think he meant?

What are you basing that on appart from your own personal feelings and assumptions. Seriously it sounds like you are saying this poor little girl could not cope without a man in her life, even if the man is cheating on her :rolleyes:

I don’t know. I’ve simply suggested it as a possible scenario. Of course, neither do you - but you have essentially presented only once scenario as fact.

Or he may get caught when he gives her syphilis.

Indeed. Or he may never get any STD. But I never said that his present course of action was the wisest, only that I’m not in a position to judge him.

But your entire argument is based on your own assumption that there is a strong possibility that she is happy about all this. There is no evidence for this, it goes against what the OP has said, and it goes against common sense (seriously TC how many women do you actually know who are happy their husbands or partners are cheating on them).

More than one. Good few men who do so too. And you’ll find as you grow older you’ll realize that relationships are not so black and white.

He has implied that she would freak if she found out. Therefore he knows what he is doing would hurt her, but has justified it to himself Therefore he is purposely running the risk of hurting his partner for his own gain. That is not a good thing. That too moral for you.

It’s too simplistic.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

It would be like someone saying "You should not judge a person who hits their wife because you do not know for sure that the wife didn't say it was ok to do so"

I once had a girlfriend who asked me to hurt her during sex. So I told her she’d put on weight.

Some women, and men, are into some weird and violent stuff, TBH. And while I might think a husband is most likely beating his wife in a particular situation, I wouldn’t assume it. You would. Probably every time.

Seraphina

The Corinthian wrote:

I once had a girlfriend who asked me to hurt her during sex. So I told her she’d put on weight.

i've seen you mention that story before.
do you like it?

Victor

In other cultures and in times past here it would have been acceptible for a man in this situation to have a mistress.

However the rules were/ are likely to be clearer. Having a (as in one) mistress / concubine / whatever puts at least some restrictions on the matter.

The Corinthian

Seraphina wrote:

i've seen you mention that story before.
do you like it?

It's one of my preferred anecdotes, but I try to come out with it no more often than once a year. Is there a reason for the question?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Some women, and men, are into some weird and violent stuff, TBH. And while I might think a husband is most likely beating his wife in a particular situation, I wouldn’t assume it. You would. Probably every time.

I would assume that if I saw or knew someone was being hurt that it is a bad thing, yes I would and proud of the fact.

It must be a wonderful world of blissfull ignorance that you live in TC, where every time you see someone doing something bad you can choose to ignore it because there is a possibility (how ever slim) that actually it is ok. Next door neighbour is hitting his wife, shouldn't say anything, she might like it. Friend's boyfriend is sleeping around, shouldn't tell her she might be happy not knowing. Someone at work is stealing money from company, shouldn't tell anyone because the company might already know and be fine about it. Wacko Jacko is coming over to your house to sleep with the kids, shouldn't put a stop to it, it might be perfectly innocent, who is to say

Sigh :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I would assume that if I saw or knew someone was being hurt that it is a bad thing, yes I would and proud of the fact.

If you knew they were being hurt. Not if you simply assumed so based upon little or no evidence. You’re essentially saying that if you saw a married woman with a black eye it must be because her husband is beating her, because women don’t get black eyes in any other way.

It must be a wonderful world of blissfull ignorance that you live in TC, where every time you see someone doing something bad you can choose to ignore it because there is a possibility (how ever slim) that actually it is ok.

Except in this case the possibility is not slim and others in this thread have accepted this. There is a distinct possibility that what I have suggested is indeed the case. I’ve explained why. Others have explained why. You simply can’t accept that because it goes against your own rather dogmatic World view.

Next door neighbour is hitting his wife, shouldn't say anything, she might like it. Friend's boyfriend is sleeping around, shouldn't tell her she might be happy not knowing. Someone at work is stealing money from company, shouldn't tell anyone because the company might already know and be fine about it. Wacko Jacko is coming over to your house to sleep with the kids, shouldn't put a stop to it, it might be perfectly innocent, who is to say

Why don’t you pick a few more ‘man of straw’ examples?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

If you knew they were being hurt. Not if you simply assumed so based upon little or no evidence. You’re essentially saying that if you saw a married woman with a black eye it must be because her husband is beating her, because women don’t get black eyes in any other way.

We know this guy is sleeping with hookers. We know that the girlfriend does not know this is happening. You are assuming that if she did know she would be happy about it. Therefore what this guy is doing is not bad. That is just like saying if you saw a woman getting hit you would assume she was happy about it.

Human nature tells us that if someone is getting hit they are probably not happy about it, just like human nature tells us that is a partner is seeing hookers behind his partners back, she is probably not happy about it. This is even backed up by what he has actually told us, his implication that she would freak out if he told her

The Corinthian wrote:

Except in this case the possibility is not slim and others in this thread have accepted this. There is a distinct possibility that what I have suggested is indeed the case. I’ve explained why. Others have explained why. You simply can’t accept that because it goes against your own rather dogmatic World view.

No there isn't, only in your mind. It has never even been hinted at by the OP and in fact goes against what he has told us. Others on this thread have accepted that she would be upset if she found out but have argued that he has a right to do it anyway.

The Corinthian wrote:

Why don’t you pick a few more ‘man of straw’ examples?

Hey it is your logic TC, don't blame me if you can pick and choose when you apply it.

Why, when faced with a challange to their logic does everyone on this website start shouting "Straw man!" and then convenantly ignore what is being put to them, that their logic is nonsensical .. do you even know what a 'straw man' is?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

You are assuming that if she did know she would be happy about it.

No he is assuming it. And such relationships are not uncommon, as you’ve been repeatedly told by numerous other people. You simply do not want to accept that.

And as I’ve repeatedly said, he may be wrong, deluded or even plain lying, but from the little we know, we cannot judge him.

No there isn't, only in your mind. It has never even been hinted at by the OP and in fact goes against what he has told us. Others on this thread have accepted that she would be upset if she found out but have argued that he has a right to do it anyway.

What on earth are you on about? Two other posters have proposed the same thing I have:

Thaed wrote:

If you had to choose between Fidelity and Loyalty in a realtionship which would it be? for this couple it is loyalty and love.

Evil Phil wrote:

Hmm, actually TC has a point here. She may be saying 'It's okay but don't tell me about it'.

No one is disagreeing, including me, that she would be upset if she ‘found out’. So how does anything that you said in the above statement contradict me?

Hey it is your logic TC, don't blame me if you can pick and choose when you apply it.

It’s not my logic. That’s why it’s called a Man of Straw argument. You pick ridiculously extreme examples that actually contradict what I’ve said:

“Next door neighbour is hitting his wife, shouldn't say anything, she might like it.”

If I know my neighbor is hitting his wife, that would imply that I know what context he’s hitting her in - or how do I know in the first place? If I know because I’ve witnessed marital abuse, then I’m perfectly entitled to judge. However, if she appears with a black eye one day, I cannot assume that he’s beating her. If this continues I may be suspicious and driven to investigate, but even then I cannot jump to conclusions.

“Friend's boyfriend is sleeping around, shouldn't tell her she might be happy not knowing”

I’m in a far better position to know if she would be unhappy knowing because she does not what him to cheat or simply does not want to know, because she is my friend, not a third hand description on an Internet bulletin board.

“Someone at work is stealing money from company, shouldn't tell anyone because the company might already know and be fine about it.”

No because even if tolerated by co-workers this is not acceptable in any scenario I know of. The ‘turning a blind eye’ relationship scenario is, on the other hand, acceptable to many couples and not that uncommon.

“Wacko Jacko is coming over to your house to sleep with the kids, shouldn't put a stop to it, it might be perfectly innocent, who is to say”

Michael Jackson is on trial for sexually abusing minors. I think I could be forgiven for not chancing a slumber party.

do you even know what a 'straw man' is?

It would appear, from the above, you do not.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

No he is assuming it. And such relationships are not uncommon, as you’ve been repeatedly told by numerous other people. You simply do not want to accept that.

Er, no he is not. Have you actually read his posts at all?

You introduced the idea that she might want to know now about it, based on your own experiences, ironically while giving out about me basing my assessement on my own experiences.

The Corinthian wrote:

If I know my neighbor is hitting his wife, that would imply that I know what context he’s hitting her in

No it doesn't. You know the neighbour is hitting his wife because he has just told you, just like you know the guy is cheating on his gf because he has just told you. Would you assume, "jes I better not say anything about this or object because I don't know for sure that the wife doesn't secretly want him to hit her, and I might ruin a perfectly good relationship based on physical violence" :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

If I know because I’ve witnessed marital abuse, then I’m perfectly entitled to judge.

The guy has told us he is cheating on his girlfriend. He has implied that she would be upset if she found out. It is only your assumption that she is actually happy about it that is stopping you from "judging", and assumption based on your own experiences, not hers.

The Corinthian wrote:

However, if she appears with a black eye one day, I cannot assume that he’s beating her. If this continues I may be suspicious and driven to investigate, but even then I cannot jump to conclusions.

Now who is using the StrawMan. The only way that you would not be out raged when she appeared with a black eye is if she didn't get it from her husband. As soon as you know that she did, you by your own admission would "judge".

[/b]There is no question that this guy is not sleeping with hookers.

But by your warped logic you would have to wait to make sure that you check with the wife first, that she actually did not want her husband to beat her. And by your even more warped logic, we shouldn't actually ask the wife does she not want her husband to beat her, we should assume the husband knows what is best for her because he knows her better than anyone here!!

Completely ridiculous.

The Corinthian wrote:

“Friend's boyfriend is sleeping around, shouldn't tell her she might be happy not knowing”

I’m in a far better position to know if she would be unhappy knowing because she does not what him to cheat or simply does not want to know, because she is my friend, not a third hand description on an Internet bulletin board.

Still you should probably check with the boyfriend first, he does know her better than you :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

No because even if tolerated by co-workers this is not acceptable in any scenario I know of. The ‘turning a blind eye’ relationship scenario is, on the other hand, acceptable to many couples and not that uncommon.

So you would act when your lack of imagination cannot come up with a suitable justification :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

Michael Jackson is on trial for sexually abusing minors. I think I could be forgiven for not chancing a slumber party.

Why TC? There there not a perfectly plausable justification for what he did? Why suddenly all the moral judgements on poor old Michael Jackson?

TC you have no problem getting up on your high horse when it suits you. But all of a sudden someone objecting to a guy sleeping with hookers behind is girlfriends back is too moral for you :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Er, no he is not. Have you actually read his posts at all?

I have and he is. Others have also read his posts and come up with the same conclusion.

You introduced the idea that she might want to know now about it, based on your own experiences, ironically while giving out about me basing my assessement on my own experiences.

I have hardly introduced the idea given he suggests both that she has given him a green light on infidelity and that she would prefer not to know. That is his justification for both the infidelity and not telling her. Or are you saying he gave no justification?

No it doesn't. You know the neighbour is hitting his wife because he has just told you

Has he told me why or did he just let it slip over dinner at the club? :rolleyes:

The guy has told us he is cheating on his girlfriend. He has implied that she would be upset if she found out.

He has implied that she would also understand his cheating, I notice you focus on only half of what he said repeatedly.

It is only your assumption that she is actually happy about it that is stopping you from "judging", and assumption based on your own experiences, not hers.

No one is saying that she is happy with the situation. Only that she might prefer it to the alternative of losing him.

Now who is using the StrawMan. The only way that you would not be out raged when she appeared with a black eye is if she didn't get it from her husband. As soon as you know that she did, you by your own admission would "judge".

No, I would become suspicious and investigate. I would not pass judgment in as cavaleer a fashion as you.

But by your warped logic you would have to wait to make sure that you check with the wife first, that she actually did not want her husband to beat her.

No I would ask her how it happened. For all I know she might be an amateur boxer. You on the other hand would report him with no further knowledge or evidence.

Still you should probably check with the boyfriend first, he does know her better than you :rolleyes:

In this thread the boyfriend knows better than us because he actually knows her. Please tell me that you are not so stupid that you failed to see my point.

So you would act when your lack of imagination cannot come up with a suitable justification :rolleyes:

If my imagination is not up to scratch, you come up with a scenario rather than make such a churlish retort.

Why TC? There there not a perfectly plausable justification for what he did? Why suddenly all the moral judgements on poor old Michael Jackson?

Were I to hear a gunshot, walk into the room where it came from and see a man with a gun in his hand standing over a dead body, there may be a perfectly plausible justification, but not without investigation. During that investigation, the man would be either incarcerated or monitored closely.

As with a murder investigation and court case, where a defendant is typically jailed or closely monitored, you have to err on the side of caution for the public good. While a structural examination on a building’s integrity is made, tenants are not admitted, again this is erring on the side of caution for the public good. This is simply common sense. However it should not be confused with judgment.

How are you serving the public good by passing judgment without trial?

TC you have no problem getting up on your high horse when it suits you. But all of a sudden someone objecting to a guy sleeping with hookers behind is girlfriends back is too moral for you :rolleyes:

As I said, too simplistic. You make a snap judgment based upon your own opinion. All I’ve done is presented another likely (whether you like it or not it is likely here) possibility. Others can see this possibility, you cannot. It says more of you than the OP, TBH.

The Corinthian

Look, forget it. Let's just say you're right and be done with it.

If you want to live in your little bubble, thats your affair. I've wasted enough of my time.