 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| That is a rather sweeping generalization. |
|
|
|
 |
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Mates don't do that to mates. |
I would prefer the view that mates don't behave like jealous cavemen if their friend and former flame happen to hit it off. You either deal with it like a mature adult, or, if you can't handle the sight of them together, you may have to go your own way – and that's your problem, really, not theirs.
All very well to say "there's plenty of other fish in the sea", but love doesn't follow social conventions. I think it's hard enough to find love in this world without being bound by stupid rules like "mates' exes are off limits". |
OK, apparently Billy wasn't the instigator in the separation. You could probably then assume he still has feelings for her? This being the case, he should be happy & wish Garry & his ex all the best??
And who mentioned 'love'? How do you know it wasn't just sex? If it was 'love', it might be a little different, with the whole 'you can't help who you fall in love with' situation, but if it was just a shag? Go shag someone else. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Again, if between two consenting adults, it's just not his business. Whoever left the relationship. She's not his wife any more. She owes him nothing. As for his friend, he shouldn't need his friend's blessing.
I know this comes across as a really liberal approach, but I don't see how any of this makes sense unless you take an ultra-possessive view of relationships.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I guess it's got to do with compassion. If your mate is upset that his wife has left him, I guess I'd like to think that friendship is more important to you than getting a root.
But hey, not everyone has compassion I guess. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Again, if between two consenting adults, it's just not his business. Whoever left the relationship. She's not his wife any more. She owes him nothing. As for his friend, he shouldn't need his friend's blessing.
I know this comes across as a really liberal approach, but I don't see how any of this makes sense unless you take an ultra-possessive view of relationships. |
Why does it have to be possessive? Like Luvdids said, it's about compassion.
If you mates wife leaves him and he's upset, he needs your support as a mate. $£$%^%%$ his ex who he still has feelings for is hardly being supportive, it's being an asshole.
You're not being liberal, you're just being a douche.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I just think you're hanging on to outdated ideas of moral behaviour.
Admittedly, I don't know the specific dynamics of this case (and neither do you, internet gossip aside). Maybe, as you say, Brownless was in the pits and Lyon chose to have it off with his ex instead of being there to support him. Maybe then I'd agree with you. But what I don't agree with is the blanket social rule that a friend's ex is untouchable. I disagree with that completely and I think, in time, my view will seem a lot more normal and reasonable than the alternative one.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I doubt a lot of your views will ever seem normal and reasonable. 
I'm not suggesting the ex is untouchable, but there has to be a time period involved. Let the upset ones wounds heal so they're ready and able to move on first, not rub salt (or your dick) into it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I just think you're hanging on to outdated ideas of moral behaviour.
Admittedly, I don't know the specific dynamics of this case (and neither do you, internet gossip aside). Maybe, as you say, Brownless was in the pits and Lyon chose to have it off with his ex instead of being there to support him. Maybe then I'd agree with you. But what I don't agree with is the blanket social rule that a friend's ex is untouchable. I disagree with that completely and I think, in time, my view will seem a lot more normal and reasonable than the alternative one. |
I really hope your wrong
morals, decency, feelings, compassion, working at a relationship, all these things are good.
You want to **** around, cool, but don't hurt someone else doing it. Did you read my earlier post or ignore it?
The families holidayed together, the wives were best friends too, it's very recent, billy didn't see it coming, billy is shattered, Gary either aledgedly jumped in with the ex (was this already in the wind?) or set her up with his mate. Billy is hurt, disappointed, angry, they are valid emotions, this was not a brief fling, it's the end of a marriage with children involved. YES THINK OF THE BLOODY CHILDREN.
All that free love bullshit is just that, bullshit, someone always gets hurt because you can't take emotion out of it, and often, someone is still in love.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I doubt a lot of your views will ever seem normal and reasonable.
I'm not suggesting the ex is untouchable, but there has to be a time period involved. Let the upset ones wounds heal so they're ready and able to move on first, not rub salt (or your dick) into it. |
Yep
David have you shared this view with Lola? Seems pretty sad to have a relationship with such an easy out as, ah well honey, happy for you to move on if you feel the urge.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | you can't take emotion out of it |
Unless, as would appear to be the case to some, there's no emotion to begin with?   |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I doubt a lot of your views will ever seem normal and reasonable.
I'm not suggesting the ex is untouchable, but there has to be a time period involved. Let the upset ones wounds heal so they're ready and able to move on first, not rub salt (or your dick) into it. |
Yep
David have you shared this view with Lola? Seems pretty sad to have a relationship with such an easy out as, ah well honey, happy for you to move on if you feel the urge. |
I have, actually, and she was in your camp until I pointed out that one of her close friends (who she really admires) more or less did this exact same thing (broke up with her boyfriend of four years and then got together with his best friend). I don't know how her ex felt about it at the time, but they're all still friends and still work together on various art projects. She didn't have an answer to that one. 
But you seem to be going even further with this and suggesting that there's actually something wrong with breaking up if you no longer feel you want to be with someone. I don't think my view on that is particularly radical at all. Do you think long-term couples should stay together if they don't love each other any more? It's more complicated if you have kids, but even then breaking up is usually the right thing to do if you've tried everything else.
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | I just think you're hanging on to outdated ideas of moral behaviour.
Admittedly, I don't know the specific dynamics of this case (and neither do you, internet gossip aside). Maybe, as you say, Brownless was in the pits and Lyon chose to have it off with his ex instead of being there to support him. Maybe then I'd agree with you. But what I don't agree with is the blanket social rule that a friend's ex is untouchable. I disagree with that completely and I think, in time, my view will seem a lot more normal and reasonable than the alternative one. |
I really hope your wrong
morals, decency, feelings, compassion, working at a relationship, all these things are good.
You want to **** around, cool, but don't hurt someone else doing it. Did you read my earlier post or ignore it?
The families holidayed together, the wives were best friends too, it's very recent, billy didn't see it coming, billy is shattered, Gary either aledgedly jumped in with the ex (was this already in the wind?) or set her up with his mate. Billy is hurt, disappointed, angry, they are valid emotions, this was not a brief fling, it's the end of a marriage with children involved. YES THINK OF THE BLOODY CHILDREN.
All that free love bullshit is just that, bullshit, someone always gets hurt because you can't take emotion out of it, and often, someone is still in love. |
The fact that you don't even know who slept with who makes this just vague gossip and hearsay. How can you possibly know how Billy feels, who initiated the breakup or whether it was a long time coming regardless? Perhaps this marriage was terminal years ago. We just don't know, so we're purely in the realm of hypotheticals here.
I'm happy to talk about how hypothetical Billy or hypothetical Gary should have acted, sure. But beyond that we're discussing generalities, and it's the generality that mates don't screw around with mates' exes that I was arguing against.
PS I don't agree with an embargo either, Stui. I agree that there are some situations and some certain times where it would be wise for all parties not to go there, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. If John and Betty decide to break up on a Wednesday and John decides to have a date with Betty's friend Sally on Friday night, that's not necessarily a selfish or immoral thing to do. It depends on the situation, but I think instances where it's clearly wrong would be in the minority.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not totally hearsay, a friend of mine knows Billy (first hand) and called him this morning. So, although it wasn't me, it was as close as you get - not like it was a friend of a guy at work who lived next door etc.
Billy didn't initiate the break up. Garry banged Billy's estranged wife (not even divorced wife). |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I doubt a lot of your views will ever seem normal and reasonable.
I'm not suggesting the ex is untouchable, but there has to be a time period involved. Let the upset ones wounds heal so they're ready and able to move on first, not rub salt (or your dick) into it. |
Yep
David have you shared this view with Lola? Seems pretty sad to have a relationship with such an easy out as, ah well honey, happy for you to move on if you feel the urge. |
I have, actually, and she was in your camp until I pointed out that one of her close friends (who she really admires) more or less did this exact same thing (broke up with her boyfriend of four years and then got together with his best friend). I don't know how her ex felt about it at the time, but they're all still friends and still work together on various art projects. She didn't have an answer to that one.
But you seem to be going even further with this and suggesting that there's actually something wrong with breaking up if you no longer feel you want to be with someone. I don't think my view on that is particularly radical at all. Do you think long-term couples should stay together if they don't love each other any more? It's more complicated if you have kids, but even then breaking up is usually the right thing to do if you've tried everything else.
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | I just think you're hanging on to outdated ideas of moral behaviour.
Admittedly, I don't know the specific dynamics of this case (and neither do you, internet gossip aside). Maybe, as you say, Brownless was in the pits and Lyon chose to have it off with his ex instead of being there to support him. Maybe then I'd agree with you. But what I don't agree with is the blanket social rule that a friend's ex is untouchable. I disagree with that completely and I think, in time, my view will seem a lot more normal and reasonable than the alternative one. |
I really hope your wrong
morals, decency, feelings, compassion, working at a relationship, all these things are good.
You want to **** around, cool, but don't hurt someone else doing it. Did you read my earlier post or ignore it?
The families holidayed together, the wives were best friends too, it's very recent, billy didn't see it coming, billy is shattered, Gary either aledgedly jumped in with the ex (was this already in the wind?) or set her up with his mate. Billy is hurt, disappointed, angry, they are valid emotions, this was not a brief fling, it's the end of a marriage with children involved. YES THINK OF THE BLOODY CHILDREN.
All that free love bullshit is just that, bullshit, someone always gets hurt because you can't take emotion out of it, and often, someone is still in love. |
The fact that you don't even know who slept with who makes this just vague gossip and hearsay. How can you possibly know how Billy feels, who initiated the breakup or whether it was a long time coming regardless? Perhaps this marriage was terminal years ago. We just don't know, so we're purely in the realm of hypotheticals here.
I'm happy to talk about how hypothetical Billy or hypothetical Gary should have acted, sure. But beyond that we're discussing generalities, and it's the generality that mates don't screw around with mates' exes that I was arguing against.
PS I don't agree with an embargo either, Stui. I agree that there are some situations and some certain times where it would be wise for all parties not to go there, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. If John and Betty decide to break up on a Wednesday and John decides to have a date with Betty's friend Sally on Friday night, that's not necessarily a selfish or immoral thing to do. It depends on the situation, but I think instances where it's clearly wrong would be in the minority. |
no thats totally wrong, and i didnt even remotely go there. you should never stay in a relationship your not happy in, that helps noone, but all relationships have hiccups, and it a shame to use a hiccup as an excuse to root around. surely investing time and energy in a relationship is worth it? im just saying that a relationship needs some level of commitment, some level of responsibility, some level of caring. no matter how much animosity there is in a split, its nice to have a little compassion and decency after the split.
and as for your reply to Stui, i reckon it might be your opinion that is in the minority!! most people have a slightly higher care factor!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree, but I guess maybe we just have slightly different views on what constitutes compassion and decency. Regulating who your ex can and can't sleep with or how long they have to stay single for isn't part of that, imho.
LD, when you say 'estranged', for how long are we talking here? Days? Months? Years? Some couples never divorce but live separately for decades.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
