Absentee(s)

Molly says...

^^^^^^^

ITYM "Wife"

 

I bet you over compensate as usual and chose one that's far too big for
you

 

Bollocks. My "wife" is not some girlfriend with or to whom I have
no commitment. My wife and I share a contract, a bona fide legal
contract. In my case, we also share many other commitments
including offspring.

My wife is not my property, but most of what we share *is* and
some bloke trying it on with her just might ultimately cause
enough trouble to destroy that for any one of many potential
reasons. Violence is not the answer, but I would not be best
pleased at such a threat to me and my family.

 

Christ, who going to tell him about Steve Hislop?

 

Christ, who going to tell him about Steve Hislop?

 

When you've had it done, can I **** you? Just to satisfy my curiosity..
and so I can brag about taking your cherry

 

What age is your wife ?

If she's over 18, then why do you consider it _your_ 'duty' to protect her
chastity ?

My SO is thirty. One of the mates whom I invited to her 30th, has since
been chatting her up via e-mail. It amuses her. She shows me the mails,
and puts me in 'Bcc:' when she replies.

I don't feel the need to go and kick seven bells out of the guy.

 

I went for a piss, and then reread your post ..

If someone physically threatens SO, I'll do my best to rip the ****'s head
off. That's because I have physical 'power' in that respect which is
greater than SO's.

The 'I'll beat up any guy who chats her up' approach, doesn't seem all that
far removed from the 'weak-willed girls' image which many men seem to have
of women, sort of, if I'm not there to stop her straying, she'll do
something 'silly' and go with another man.

Women aren't possessions, and don't need 'protecting' from other men's
advances. If she's open to some guy chatting her up, then there's
something missing in her relationship with the 'current' bloke.

The days of women being 'chattel', sadly don't appear to be gone, as your
point that the 'legal contract' which you have with your wife, seems to
make you think that you have the right, if not the duty, to act to
'protect' that.

 

Lol, yes, new keyboard on way here too!

 

<much snippage>

Well I'm glad we've still got you.

never noticed a thing dear ;o)

 

Bitch ;op

 

No worries ) which reminds me....when are you coming up here so we can go
shopping!!

 

he's going through a sex change too?

 

I can't answer that, she might kill me for it.

Over to your other reply...

 

Indeed. Whilst negative (and often violent) reactions can be expected when
the 'threat' is physical, too often, 'advances' are seen as an attack not
just on the integrity of the couple, but on the integrity of the woman
herself. This is because for a great many men (the overwhelming majority,
in fact, even if only on a subconscious level), a woman is seen as
'existing' only in relation to the man.

On a slight tangent, ever noticed how when a car is won on game shows, the
'host' always hands the keys to the man ? Ever noticed how infrequent it
is to see the woman at the wheel of a car when both partners are inside?

 

heh. Ooo.. Partial top-post.

"Violence is not the answer"

I did say "Violence is not the answer".

Fully agree. But this is not what I said, what I am talking about
is when some bloke makes unwanted advances, knowing the woman is
married. This is a contentious issue and anyone who thinks they
have a relationship which is *that* strong it would survive any
advances from any outsider has my sympathies.

Put it another way.. I am 45 years old and I have known *many*
married couples during my adult life. I know of *none* where at
least one partner has not strayed on at least one occasion.

Now I know I live in my own own little world here, but even I can
read the divorce stats for the UK. I can also imagine that not
every damaged marriage will always end in divorce, so how many do
we *think* end in 'till death do us part' having stayed
completely monogamous?

Me living in the real world is simply a reasonable part of
keeping my marriage intact and protection of a valuable part of
my life.

However, my SO if free to do as she likes, so much so I feel
embarrassed saying it. How could it possibly be otherwise and how
could I call it a "marriage" if either of us were a prisoner in
any respect, and however slightly?

"chattel" as you say, and protecting my marriage are not
necessarily one and the same imo. Forget the contract, if it
makes it easier (due to my clumsy explanation), look at it this
way..

My wife and I have a partnership in life and I trust her 100%,
but if someone else comes along and tries to unsettle that
partership then "he" is taking the piss.

I don't like people who take the piss.

 

Then you didn't read or understand it properly.

I said "... for any one of many potential reasons", the most
severe I can imagine being rape. But what about the guy who comes
on to the "wife", gets a rejection and then tells the world it
was the other way around? That *is* damaging to a reationship,
even if there is absolute trust within it, because it affects
those around you when it becomes public knowledge. "No smoke
without fire", etc.

There are many other examples where one selfish unprovoked act
*could* cause problems within a relationship.

I fully agree, but you'd have to ask my wife for her opinion.

 

echo off

 

Actually it was a play on words. A bloke who is handy around the
kitchen and ironing board is sometimes told that he would make someone
a good wife???

Oh never mind.

 

Strewth Cane, hang on, let get a cherry first.