okay so maybe i am a little bit immoral and selfish but...

I've just begun to read Tagged's soap opera, and I'm amused by my misapprehension that she was a man.

This has gotten SO weird...

My take, for what it's worth:

Tagged is, as Chai says, young and excited and posts all kinds of things about her young and exciting and not always so safe life. I've spent time urging her away from drug-addict club owners (he was a club owner, wasn't he? something like that) and lauding her own decision to get clean, etc.

I think this thread wasn't started for any particular bragging sort of thing (at least not any more than "hey I got a new car!" or "hey I got a new dog!"), just sort of checking in and "hey this is what's going on with me these days" and starting a conversation.

This kind of thing -- checking in, sharing tidbits from life, talking about it -- happens rather a lot around here.

The conversation became a bit lecture-y. Some people said so. Then it became a defense of the lecture-y vibe. Fair enough. Then it got into some weird level with joefromchicago applying an approach rarely seen in the Relationships & Marriage forum (almost rarely as he is seen in the Relationships & Marriage forum) to prove that Tagged is... something.

Young and excited, sure. Probably ill-advised to continue the relationship, sure. Clueless -- well no, not really. She's expressed pretty much all the same caveats herself as have been expressed to her. That's part of why I have a high tolerance for her youth and excitement -- they're paired with a certain intelligence and self-awareness, she's just gonna talk about things a bit before making up her own mind. The ones who push my lecture buttons are the ones who seem to really not get various aspects of why something is a) dangerous, b) futile, c) self-destructive, d) whatever. I think Tagged gets this stuff, and that Swimpy nailed it here:

Tagged Lyricist probably embellished, as we all sometimes do. She probably also was being self-indulgent by posting this, as we all sometimes are. Let her move on. She has other topics she is interested in.

When I was young, and between marriages, I greatly appreciated women like Tagged. That means I was just as "bad" as she is. I don't want to moralize--because, frankly, I don't care--but, despite the fact that she's only 21 (and that's as good an excuse as any), I wonder what rules she does follow.
She did indicate some insecurity in her response to Osso's reference to that possibility. I wonder, if I may, if she's bipolar. I know a young manic-depressive woman who cannot pass up any opportunity when she's up, and can't enjoy any when she's down. I say this only because because Tagged's "enthusiasm" seems so immense.
This unwarranted suggestion should get her back.

good idea wandeljw

I got to wondering about something. In this case I'm wondering beyond the cliche of "oh, it's different over here (or there,depending on where you are)

What that cliche consists of is this idea that in various and different parts of the world, it's just "expected" that men have affairs, and it's really no problem.

Now, before anyone jumps on me, yes I do realize that customs and such are different all over. I'm sure customs vary strong even within a country, or for instance, in the US, can vary a lot even being in a different area of the same state.

OK, putting aside that, I really have a problem believing it's all just hunky dory as far as extramarital sex.

If I was, let's say an Italian wife, there is no way I would not be angry if I found out my husband was having an affair.

Now, the argument could be that an affair is not something that you would go out of your way to find out about, kinda a "don't ask, don't tell"...Well, isn't that a cowardly thing to do?

"Yes, I'd be upset, so I just don't ask, and I just don't think about it" That's pretty bad.

or, if you do suspect or know, I find it hard to believe that the wife is 100% ok with that, or even 80%....if she was 50% ok with it, I'd be surprised.....

people are people, no matter where you are and although there are those who truly don't care if their spouse goes outside the marriage, it's surely not that many.

Each of you right now picture your spouse in bed with another person, and I mean in detail........Are you ok with that picture?

It seems more likely to me that since this has been going on for so long, there is a fatalistic attitude toward it. "Well, it's always been this way, there's nothing that can be done"

I'm only dwelling on the woman side here, as that's what I know.

Beyond the anger, if my husband cheated on me, one of the first things I'd ask is "Why am I not enough to satisfy you? We chose each other. If I wasn't going to be enough, you shouldn't have bothered with me.

Men are not by nature monogamous?

So what? You make a choice to be with someone in marriage, you live by that choice.

We're not bonobos.

I guess that's my "voice."

Oh, and I'm on this forum because J_B lured me here. That's right, I got lured!

The next time I have lunch with you and J_B, remind me to tell her not to take this forum too seriously and that some of us should not even be on this forum.

... and the concept that anyone does or doesn't belong on any forum or shouldn't respond to any thread really pisses me off.

Chai, I am monogamous, but that does not preclude my desire to sleep with certain other women; it just means that I will not do so because I do not want to lose my wife.
In rural southern Mexico (a bit less so in urban Mexico), men (the non-Indian ranchers) have concubines on their ranches (they generally live in town with their wives, but on their ranches they have "Indian" women and their children). The (Ladino) ranchers' wives know this and feel bad (like your Italian wife) and complain about it when they get together, but they cannot do anything about it because of their economic dependence on their husbands. As this dependence declines, as in the U.S. and urban Mexico, women enjoy the ability to kick their cheating husbands out and gives husbands a material motivation to live up to their marriage vows.

And I hope you stick around!

It so is. :-)





Glad to see ya here, though. (I admit, forums per se are pretty much meaningless to me since I operate out of "new posts.")

J_B, is anyone actually saying that anyone does or doesn't belong on any given forum? Nimh's point was about lack of context with Tagged's total posts -- not just the ones here. I think that's a valid point. For example, I've lit into Diana78 et al (forget her other name[s] right now) on a new thread of hers in a way that would make no sense without having read the sum total of her stubborn refusal to listen to any and all reason.

I'm certainly not saying that Joe doesn't belong here -- always happy to see him.

No, I'm still bugdust about 'outsiders' in concept, if not reality. It's an old rant of mine, as you know. It wasn't directed at you, or even Nimh exactly, just the clubby tone that takes over every so often.

JW, you're as entitled to be here as anyone, please don't feel otherwise.

Well, it's not always so rural, JLNobody, I happen to know several Mexico City business men who travel sometimes with their mistresses and other
times with their families to meetings.

When French president Mitterand died, his mistress along with his
two children was present at the funeral. Everyone knew of her including
Mitterand's wife.

Marcelo Mastroianni, Luiciano Pavarotti are just two of the many famous Italians who had openly numerous mistresses.

Bottom line: Some wives tolerate their husbands infidelities for whatever
reason, some don't and take the consequences. Nonetheless, it is something one has to decide individually for themselves.

Hilary Clinton, the great emancipated feminist leader she wanted to be,
stood by her man, when millions of other women wouldn't have. It
was up to her, and her alone, to decide.

As for tagged, I enjoy her spank and I like reading her.

"Bugdust," I like.

Yeah, I completely agree about the "outsiders" thing as a general concept. Come one, come all, ain't no private club.

CJ, I agree. With urban Mexicans there is much infidelity. It's a macho habit. Among rural Mexican men, however, it is almost an institutionalized requirement of manhood. I've have seen people praise Mexican urban men for their fidelity, but I've never seen that in rural Mexico.
It's very easy to exaggerate--I guess it's in the nature of generalization.

Don't you think Hilary stayed with Bill for the political advantage of doing so?

Now, that's a very good question, JL.

Oh yeah, I know about them...that is true because they are really prisoners.

Right here, some Mexicans that live here who are from a way rural area bring their wives with them and treat them the same.

If you were to ask them where their husband works, they wouldn't know. Ask them were their husbands are right now, they don't know.

They don't speak a word of english, do not drive, do not even go to the supermarket. Their husbands TAKE them and make the choices. They don't hold any money, and don't really know where anything is besides their immediate area.

Mostly uneducated, they don't know about, or are afraid to use, resources. Their husbands do what they want because they have no where to go.

I'm not saying all are like that, but there's no accurate way of telling how many. Like many other things in the world, it's a secret society.

I was more addressing circumstances in modern, industrialized areas.

I'd really like to hear just one woman in this forum, regardless of where they live now, where they were born, or what their circumstances are, come here and say "I'm basically OK with my husband having sex with a 21 year old girl that he met while out of the country"

I'm just gonna step out and say it....I think it's a bunch of PC crap talking about why so and so did thus and such, going through this mental masturbation as to why under certain circumstances when the stars are aligned in a certain way one might see how this might be something if not desireable, at least not that terrible.

Let's ask the wife of the spainard what she thinks.

Is it politically advantageous do you think? (Other than with the religious right and she's not likely to get much support there anyway)

Sorry, was responding to the Hilary/Bill thing.