Married, no extras, regrets?
mr_33
Florida
Any other married guys here who have regretted getting extras?
So far I've resisted temptation, but every time I go I reconsider.
As far as my definitions: I consider penis out of the pants to be an extra. A HJ in the pants are just a good LD. Not sure about a HJ using a hand in the pants, that's a grey area! :)
So far I've resisted temptation, but every time I go I reconsider.
As far as my definitions: I consider penis out of the pants to be an extra. A HJ in the pants are just a good LD. Not sure about a HJ using a hand in the pants, that's a grey area! :)
29 comments
Personally, I take the advice of an old boss of mine...keep it in your pants and your AOK.
I remember reading T-pain's secret to his marriage was to go to the strip club with his wife. They would have threesomes to keep their sex life interesting but he would never bring a women he wife did not want.
I really don't want to judge men who both (a) have a married partner (the WIFE) but also (b) have sex with other women. Really, it's their choice, and I think a forum like this one here should support men's choices in these matters. What I'm asking, instead, is, how do you get away with it? Not only, as regards getting away with fooling your wife; but also, as regards, getting away with talking to yourself, perceiving yourself. Is there guilt? Worry? More stress? Less? No big deal? Huge deal that you have to organize your entire life around?
See where I'm going? I'm interested in the practical consequences (and I really HOPE nobody turns this into a morality-bashing or morality-trumpeting thread, because I'm genuinely interested in some of the answers).
1. Food when hungry; 2. liquid when thirsty; 3. oxygen when deprived of such; 4. temperature regulation (heat when cold and the converse); 5. sleep/rest when tired; 6. escape from painful stimulation and 7. sex when "horny."
For thought, if you were hungry and your wife/partner/SO was not, would it be OK for you to eat on your own if a) your eating did not diminish her quality of life (you didn't eat the last bit of food in the house), b) your eating alone did not prevent you from enjoying a meal with her when you were both hungry? c) you didn't contract any disease while eating that you subsequently transmitted to your SO? Would it matter if you ate alone or with a friend?
When I pose a similar line of questioning to all the other biological drives (except #7, sex) I arrive at a similar conclusion-- it seems to be OK to quench your thirst, breathe air, take a nap, put on a sweater when cold, etc. without the participatation or permission of a SO as long as your actions have no (or limited) impact on the other's rights and quality of life.
However, when we arrive at #7, sex, we seem to apply a different set of social standards. There may well be very good reasons for this different set of standards: the need to control reproduction (something that birth control has resolved to a certain extent; 2) the implications of sexual liaisons for emotional attachment and relationship commitment. But if those reservations can be circumvented--- why not? I know its a rationalization and most rationalizations have flaws but it is worth consideration if you are in a relationship where your sexual needs are not being met (and some might argue that novelty, as in partners or activities, is a powerful need in the sexual domain) and you are contemplating an affair or a SC or SP visit.
And I thought Plato was a great philosopher. I think I like your thinking! :-)
It can get to be a big deal. The other day I was simultaneously exchanging text messages with two dancers and talking to my wife on the phone. I was getting confused who was who.
I thought a hobby was supposed to be fun - this is getting to be like work.