A recent thread pushed this issue to the surface: In most relationships there is a pursuer and a pursued. But it's a variable...

Currently it is much more likely, at least in my mind, that the pursued will 'surrender the pink' to the pursuer much, much sooner than he/she would surrender his/her Social Security number. Make of that what you will.

It is very likely that the majority of women prize their virginity as much as men do, which is to say, not at all...

That recent thread seemed to be wrapped up with the idea of "I won't sleep with the other person until I know that person is serious." In other words, an offering of proof had to be made. Don't tell me you love me, SHOW me!

And that's good sense. But how much proof is necessary? Dinner and a movie was pretty much the price back in the late 70s, early 80s. (True story: on my second date with a young lady, when I kissed her goodnight at her door, she stopped me in my tracks by asking, "Hey, when are we going to have sex?")

A prevalent theme in the thread conversation was 'don't cheat, it's not cool and could have negative consequences...' But I put forward the point that for most humans, this means don't get caught cheating, because you may not enjoy the consequences. If sexual philandering wasn't so damn prevalent, why are there so many 'working women'? Why are there so many happy ending massage parlors frickin' everywhere! (Okay, maybe not in Utah... Can that be true?)

There is an argument that cheaters use: "Hey, it was just some pleasant friction I paid for, it meant nothing!" And maybe it meant nothing to the person paying the money and uttering the excuse, but it more than likely meant something to the partner who just found out you were going some place else for your sexual friction. And the cheater gets to blame the partner for 'overreacting'...

Trust... Faith... Honor...

Hey, we're flawed, but we should never stop trying to be someone else's Prince or Princess. "Falling in Love" can't read and didn't go to law school, but it knows what it wants and when it wants it.

Here's the controversy: do you need proof if you know how to trust? And if your trust is ever abused, can you ever trust again?

I've been cheated on. It isn't pleasant. I could say a lot more, but I'm not in a position right now to say it. I do expect the man I'm with now to be monogamous. I can say that I would never and I mean NEVER cheat on someone. People say "never say never." Even my boyfriend knows I'd never cheat. My ex knew the same thing.

Wow, a *lot* in that little missive to ponder...

It was eye-opening, as a fairly new returned missionary yet out of the church, to go on a date with a non-mormon adult woman, and have that first date end up at my apartment with clothes off. I was stunned (pleasantly so) that sex didn't have to be the culmination of a long relationship and a temple marriage, but that it was something two adults could enjoy without having to go through all the other stuff first. I learned fairly quickly that the "trust" you speak of can come *from* being physically intimate, and that it doesn't have to be there before it. Quite an eye-opener.

I stayed single for 11 more years, and though I had steady girlfriends, I enjoyed "playing the field." Partly because I was intentionally rejecting the mormon demand of "marry early." Partly because I was enjoying the variety, freedom, etc. One of those almost resulted in marriage, but though we liked each other, we mutually agreed that we'd drive each other crazy if we got married, and nixed those plans.

Then I met my now wife of 23 years. It wasn't "magic" at first sight. It was a building up of trust, affection, intimacy, and outright love over time. But once I'd reached that point, there was no question for me -- this was the woman I wanted to spend my life with, have kids with, and screw as often as possible. She felt the same. And so we committed to that.

I've met women *since* then that I found physically attractive, that I became emotionally attached to, that I really enjoyed being around. Some of them made it clear that they would pursue sex without commitment, others that they'd love to explore a "relationship," and would be happy if I dumped my wife. I didn't do either. Not because I'm a saint (far from it). Not because I wasn't interested in at least sex with them(far from it). But simply because I love my wife, and wouldn't do anything to hurt her -- and that would hurt her. Even a "paid for friction" would, even if totally "meaningless." The trust is that I won't do things to hurt her, she won't do things to hurt me. And we don't.

I'm a male, and if truth be told, I would love a scenario where I could have the devoted wife at home, and still have meaningless sex with any woman I find attractive. It's just that I *can't* have that, because the latter would ruin the former. Since I cherish the former so much, I shun the latter. Doesn't mean I don't think about it now and then. And since I'm honest with my wife about *everything* (brutally so), she knows when I run across someone I'd enjoy hopping in the sack with, and don't do it...which increases her trust in me.

She's my princess. I try to be her prince, she thinks I am even though I admit to my flaws. After 23 years, that still amazes me :)

"Sigh..."

Can you explain what "knowing how to trust" is? How do you know

how to trust? Is it a five step program or a bit more complicated?

"Knowing how to trust" is what you see in a three year old who jumps from the side of the pool towards her mother or father's outstretched arms.

Why does one kid jump without hesitation, while another kid stands there fidgeting, demanding that dad or mom step closer, closer, closer?

It's a 'faith' thing, it's believing in good triumphing over evil despite the cold, hard knowledge that it doesn't always.

If someone wanted to debate the trust issue and take that point of view that it's worthless to 'trust', he/she wouldn't lack for fodder to support that view. And certainly many of us operate in some facets of our lives using the principle of "trust, but verify"...

It could just come down to some people being too lazy to check up on what their significant others report to them, and the lazy ones excuse themselves by claiming to 'trust' their partner.

I once was given reason to not trust a partner and it was very, very exhausting, to me, anyway, doing all the probing and checking and verifying. Not to mention, sad.

I like what I have now, a partner I have faith in, whom I trust and whom I seek to honor.

Maybe it's too much like Santa Claus...?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like what I have now, a partner I have faith in,
> whom I trust and whom I seek to honor.

Very, very much...Me, too...


> Maybe it's too much like Santa Claus...?

Nah...Santa Claus is the exact equivalent of the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. Fun for little kids...but not someone even an older child (let alone an adult) would want to build their life with...

As elderolddog says: "...a partner I have faith in, whom I trust and whom I seek to honor" is (at least in my opinion) of fundamental importance in life.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's too much like Santa Claus...?

Naw, not at all.
Your partner is real. You have ample evidence to back up your conclusion, "This person merits trust." You don't really need "faith," either -- you have evidence this person is trustworthy.

That doesn't mean they will always be...but a track record of being so in the past makes that a lot more likely than a track record of NOT being trustworthy...:)

Very well said, ificouldhietokolob. In my life experience this is absolutely true!

and it was very, very exhausting, to me, anyway, doing all the probing and checking and verifying. Not to mention, sad."

Oh my, my story. You've all heard it. The bishop set me up to check up on my gay boyfriend. I was even supposed to check up on his masturbation habits. I put untold miles on my car. It was a hell I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I had to let go after I had been married to him for a while and realize I couldn't control him, that I couldn't save him. I quit checking on him and lived my life. Even when I found out he was cheating, I didn't follow him. I wanted him to stay and I let him do whatever. I felt I needed him to help raise the kids.

When I became "single" again, I decided I would never date again unless 1 of 3 people became available. The main one did, who I felt I could trust in many ways and one was to have sex with, someone who wouldn't make fun of me for being so inexperienced, etc.

Both of my sex partners have had many other partners. It actually took me quite a while to totally trust my old boyfriend after he came back into my life because of what I'd been through. I do now. I think the thing that helped me was I had to decide that I had value and that if he did cheat, if he did leave, I'd be just fine, and that he was damn lucky to have me. Yes, I feel damn lucky to have him, too. He gave me back my dignity after what I had been through.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2015 10:01AM by cl2.

I don't understand the question. Do I need proof of what if I know how to trust?

I know HOW to trust already; the question is, is the person in front of me worthy of that trust?

And I'm not sure I need trust to have sex. I just need to feel safe. I guess what I mean is "I have to trust that you won't suddenly decide to beat the crap out of me, or kill me". That kind of trust. I do require trust to have a relationship, but I do not require a relationship to have sex.

Does that answer your questions?

I see relationships in an interesting light for several reasons. The first reason is that I have never been in a relationship, the second is that I haven't found anyone in my life that I completely trust, and the third is being gay (only reasoning in this is that unwanted pregnancies are not any issue, but it has no other reason to factor in beside that).
Now, I haven't been in a relationship, but I have had a lot of time to think about what I would want in one. Honestly, I would prefer to be in a monogamous relationship. However, I would not limit a partner to this. If he were to find another person that he had interest in, then I would be fine with him exploring that relationship to see which of the two relationships was more comfortable for him and encourage him to go in that direction. If it could be worked out, I would also be fine in a polyamorous exploration of that relationship where all parties are involved with each other (I don't like the idea of a relationship where one person has a partner that another in the relationship is not also in a relationship with, if that makes sense).
The reason that I would be fine with this type of relationship is because I feel that it is more important to be open about these sorts of exploration and that it can encourage more trust and honesty in a relationship, and that it has the potential to bring people closer together. I guess I will have to find out when I actually get the chance to have a relationship with someone.
The last thing that I will say is that once the idea of kids are on the table, then I would expect a relationship to stay in its current format (monogamous, or in its current polyamorous shape without the potential of adding anyone else, though as I said I would prefer monogamous).
Sorry if my take on things is weird or insulting to anyone, but it is the way that I currently see things, though I am sure my thoughts on it will change in the future...

I wouldn't cheat simply because I could not live with it. Of course I wouldn't want to hurt my husband, but ultimately, cheating would eat me up and make me feel differently about my marriage relationship - like I was not a loyal best friend to my husband and I couldn't live with it. Plus, it's such a slippery slope... You make one allowance, and before you know it, you're making more. Just get divorced. The problem is people want to have their cake and eat it too.

"And if your trust is ever abused, can you ever trust again?"

Isn't that the point of life? Giving people the benefit of the doubt, being abused and coming back for more. I've never had my trust abused sexually, but I've had my trust abused plenty of other ways. I trust people who don't deserve it all the time and people think I'm a chump for doing so. If you're a low down dirty dog, I'll still be your friend.

It's all about the way feeling ties to intent. I want for you, not for me. That feeling-intention is my ideal, the place where reality meets the road. I don't always get there of course. If you can selflessly want for the whole world after the world craps on you a million times, you've found the Holy Grail.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trust... Faith... Honor...

These are generic and ambiguous words in my opinion.

> Hey, we're flawed, but we should never stop trying
> to be someone else's Prince or Princess. "Falling
> in Love" can't read and didn't go to law school,
> but it knows what it wants and when it wants it.

I think we should never stop trying to be a loving partner to one loving us.

Putting up with a Prince or Princess probably sucks.

Background check (for a long term relationship).

I'm serious. Someone I was involved with embezzled from a state agency, lied about grad education (did NOT) have advanced education. Do a credit check, all of it. Protect yourself and do not join finances if you need to protect your money/retirement...

Love cannot repair character flaws, past behavior, burned bridges... Please be cautious.

Sex only? Protect yourself and your health. Don't assume it's love; that takes time and all types of varied circumstances to know how your partner functions in the world...

harshing the mellow...

I like what we have and how we got it. My glass is darn near full, from my perspective.

But as the saying goes, "your mileage may vary."

Well,I have a question. If your significant other purposely does not want to know and has given tacit approval for you to live your life as long as you never destroy their fantasy world, what then?

Is it wrong to live a life you would be happy in them joining, if only they could get past the hang ups of conventional thinking?

It wouldn't seem to be a union of equals. You're being "honorably" cheated, or at least short changed out of something that you're obviously missing or going to miss.

This may be the exmo-TBM paradigm.

I agree.... I wouldn't want a relationship like that . It

implies the old adage "what you don't know won't hurt you".

It precludes any intimacy. It doesn't sound like love to me

and it doesn't sound trust promoting. If there is no trust

there can be no love. If there can be no love its just

... what?

sounds like SO wants to be married to Dee Nile.