Angry..do you see this as ok?

determined_new_ms

MeganKate wrote: »

I dont fully understand what you are saying (the use of ur and u are a little difficult to read), but I am not immature, I have a full adult understanding of sex and the needs of both men and women. Life is about compromise and fair enough if it works for you, but I think you do need to be a little more open minded about people (both men and women) with high sex drives

sorry I was replying on my phone so kept making typos. I guess we are both arguing the same point but from different sides of the fence. I did find what you said quite provoking. I am completely open minded, in fact the level of liberalism I argue drives some of my friends and family to distraction.

What I do know without a shadow of doubt is I do have a relationship where if either me or my partner were unhappy with a decision we had made we could go back to the table and revisit and recompromise.

Having a high sex drive does not mean you automatically watch !!!!!!. How do you know how high mine or my partner's sex drive are? Don't make assumptions. Being open minded means accepting others have opinions different to you and that's ok, not that you agree with !!!!!!. For some it is and for some it isn't. You can be a right right-winged nazi who uses !!!!!! - is that open minded???

MeganKate

Gingham_R wrote: »

Actually you did, depending on your definition of 'stray'. You said he'd 'go behind her back'.

As we were talking about watching !!!!!!, I would have thought it would have been obvious that I mean that he would 'go behind her back to watch !!!!!!', otherwise I would have needed to list every single situation about every circumstance that he could ever go behind her back to do (go to the bookies, go for a sneaky pint, go and play golf, etc etc) I will try and do that next time, but my posts might be a bit longer..

Gingham_R

Lotus-eater wrote: »

They are as real as the actors you see on the telly, is that alright? Of course they are real people, but the person they are portraying on the tv isn't them, it's a personality they put on (acting)

Some of the actors are turned on, some aren't, I find it difficult to tell sometimes tbh, some are very good actors.

You're really nit picking because you want to get over your case about the abuse of women in !!!!!!. Which I have no interest in debating on this therad, I was debating the use of !!!!!! in relationships.

With respect, I'm not nit picking. There is a not subtle difference between the acting on tv and the acting in pornography. A fight on a film is not really a fight for example. Sex on a film is not really sex. They're not acting that they're having sex. I've spelled this out quite clearly so I won't continue.

I was also responding to the assertions that there was 'nothing wrong' with pornography by pointing out that it is not only the issues between a couple in play.

And I am not doing it because I want to get over any case about the abuse of women in the sex industry. I was doing it because people kept making false statements and it irked me. Particularly because they were, at times, aimed at belittling women who considered pornography in their relationship damaging and I felt that was unjust. We all have different views on this and there is no need to make statements that aren't true, nor to belittle anyone who feels differently.

Gingham_R

MeganKate wrote: »

As we were talking about watching !!!!!!, I would have thought it would have been obvious that I mean that he would 'go behind her back to watch !!!!!!', otherwise I would have needed to list every single situation about every circumstance that he could ever go behind her back to do (go to the bookies, go for a sneaky pint, go and play golf, etc etc) I will try and do that next time, but my posts might be a bit longer..

You're assuming that 'stray' does not include watching pornography, but to some women that breaches trust and therefore can be defined as straying.

MeganKate

Gingham_R wrote: »

You're assuming that 'stray' does not include watching pornography, but to some women that breaches trust and therefore can be defined as straying.

You've lost me now!!!

Lotus-eater

MeganKate wrote: »

You've lost me now!!!

Me totally as well, everyone seems to be agreeing with me now, but still arguing with me:rotfl:

I need to go and do something more interesting anyway. Laters

MeganKate

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Me totally as well, everyone seems to be agreeing with me now, but still arguing with me:rotfl:

I need to go and do something more interesting anyway. Laters

I'm going to go and watch some !!!!!!...

Gingham_R

MeganKate wrote: »

You've lost me now!!!

I'll try to be clearer.

You said that he'd 'go behind her back' if he didn't have access to pornography (or if I remember correctly sex with his partner 5 times a day?)

Then you said you never said he'd 'stray'.

I'm pointing out that 'straying' and 'going behind her back' can be seen as exactly the same thing. Straying is about infidelity. Some people consider using pornography to be as 'unfaithful' as using sex lines or webcams or chatting someone up or having a snog with someone or sleeping with someone or any variation thereof.

In other words, 'going behind her back' may have meant pornography to you and you may see that as not being unfaithful but to some of the women on here, reaching orgasm by watching other women who are naked or having sex IS being unfaithful.

Lunar_Eclipse

MeganKate wrote: »

Er no, I said are you prepared to make up for [him not being allowed to watch !!!!!!] by having sex with him instead. I didnt mention that he would stray if she didnt.

So are you suggesting that men should have less sex so that they need it less? whats wrong with just going with what their bodies tell them? you only live once after all, might as well enjoy it!

I think it depends on how you define straying. I now see that you must have been referring to secret !!!!!! use in the following comment, but that's not how I interpreted it at the time (I thought infidelity in person, although some will also think !!!!!! is straying of course) ... "I would personally much prefer to know what my man was doing than for them to go behind my back (which, believe me, they will)"

And no, I'm not suggesting anything, I was just saying I'd heard that abstinence (ie exercising self control that others mentioned) lowers male sex drive, which has been used to explain/justify the use of !!!!!!.

MeganKate

Gingham_R wrote: »

I'll try to be clearer.

You said that he'd 'go behind her back' if he didn't have access to pornography (or if I remember correctly sex with his partner 5 times a day?)

Then you said you never said he'd 'stray'.

I'm pointing out that 'straying' and 'going behind her back' can be seen as exactly the same thing. Straying is about infidelity. Some people consider using pornography to be as 'unfaithful' as using sex lines or webcams or chatting someone up or having a snog with someone or sleeping with someone or any variation thereof.

In other words, 'going behind her back' may have meant pornography to you and you may see that as not being unfaithful but to some of the women on here, reaching orgasm by watching other women who are naked or having sex IS being unfaithful.

Thats about as clear as mud because it was my entire point.

It may be just my opinion, but I cannot believe that anyone would see a partner watching !!!!!! as 'being unfaithful' !

How far does it go? would he be allowed to look at an attractive woman walking past? what about an attractive woman wearing a short skirt ? or god forbid topless on a beach!!!! :eek:

To be honest if that is how some women (or men?) are with their partners, there is no wonder people are unfaithful! mind, I wouldnt just be unfaithful I would run a mile from a partner who controlled me to that extent!