Another common characteristic that men want me to ignore
In Older men, younger women and casual encounters, I wrote about my frustration with older men who ignore the age range I put in my ads. Sapiophile has called me on some of what I said, and I'll be posting in the next week or so about ways that a guy can reasonably respond to a woman's profile or post even if he doesn't fit all of her criteria. But today, I'd like to talk about the other most common thing that I specify and men ignore.
I don't do cheaters. I don't actually think that I, personally, have a significant moral debt in cases of cheating where I might be "the other woman", but I don't want to get involved in it for a variety of selfish reasons. First, if I'm fucking a cheater, I know I'll think less of him. Since, by definition, I want to be impressed by the people I'm fucking, and feel good about them, this is a bad thing. Second, I would feel dirty knowing that when we finished, he'd have to wash the smell of me off his hands before going home to his partner. Yuck. And third, I'd think less of myself for lowering my standards, and I therefore assume that he, too, would think less of me. True or not, this would impact my self-valuation, and I like to value myself highly, so this is not an exciting prospect to me.
Because of all this, I say up front in my ads and profiles that I won't bother with cheaters. I'm down with nonmonogamy in a variety of forms, but I am vastly uninterested in being involved in a "behind someone's back" sort of scene.
Nevertheless, I hear back from (cheating) married men a lot. This actually seems sleazy to me, because of my feelings about cheating in the first place. (Why would you want to lie to the person you've chosen to share your life with? The truth is, I know it's always more complicated than that, but I just can't get past that hurdle.) Lots of women don't specify one way or the other about the marriage issue, and it seems reasonable to me to approach them, but if a woman cares enough about it to mention it in her ad, it's simply bad form, in this case, to try to convince her. Unlike in the instances of, say, age or location, this one is a personal ethics call, and you ought to respect her desire to avoid that trap.
Comments
Unlike in the instances of, say, age or location, this one is a personal ethics call, and you ought to respect her desire to avoid that trap.
Totally agree.
The thing is, though, rarely do they just say "I'm cheating, but won't you make an exception for me because I'm awesome?" For every cheating spouse, there's a story. The wife who has cut off sex from him completely. The husband who is temporarily out of the picture but will probably be back soon. The spouse who doesn't provide the kind of sex yours truly thinks he needs. I sympathize with most of the stories, but the end result remains the same.
Then there are also the "grey area" cheating spouses. The "don't ask/don't tell" ones. The ones who say their spouses "know" but it was never discussed. In the past, I've been more flexible on these, willing to listen to the story and consider it. But I've learned my lesson...
Posted by: sapiophile | February 25, 2006 9:46 AM
Just to clarify: Some married people are openly poly. I'm sure you know that, but the way you wrote this could imply otherwise.
Posted by: Cos | February 25, 2006 10:43 AM
Cos: Yes, and people who are consensually nonmonogamous aren't usually cheating, which I hope makes the distinction in my take on this fairly clear.
Posted by: ClueChick | February 25, 2006 10:51 AM
Cos,
The way you wrote your comment implies a desire for precision that's hard to achieve in English. I suggest, in the future, using only Loglan, which will make it easier to communicate your thoughts to some people.
If you know what I mean.
Posted by: Seeking Precision | February 26, 2006 1:20 PM
Seeking Precision: the "(cheating)" parenthetical wasn't in the original version of the post. It really was misleading - I know a lot of people wouldn't consider the possibility that anyone married might not be monogamous. With the parenthetical added, it's much clearer.
Posted by: Cos | February 28, 2006 12:17 AM
Cos: So you also missed the part where she said "I'm down with nonmonogamy in a variety of forms"?
Posted by: sapiophile | February 28, 2006 5:59 PM