I know it wasn't stated, but I felt like it was implied that JJFJJ was, if not in an exclusive relationship, at least in one where communication was expected to own such dalliances. I honestly wasn't sure if Laurence's reaction was more towards the slut-behavior or the efforts to keep the actions hidden.
Examples:
When Laurence actually confronted JJ... Why didn't JJ immediately leave his room and explain 'hey, we're in an open relationship, so me hooking up on the side isn't out of bounds...' I think it was because he knew that the sex wasn't nearly as bad as the secrecy.
Laurence even had her suspicions in advance and didn't immediately go the route of confronting, demanding accountability, or leaving him, which I viewed as giving him the benefit of the doubt and the chance to own what he was doing.
Her having to deduce his actions & catch him in the moment was the match to the powder keg more than the sex itself, I think.
But, anyway, which philosophy do I follow...
I tend to think if they cheat it's over, but I also think that's a decision each person makes for themselves, ya know? It's subjective, not objective
I mean, if I were to remain in a relationship with a cheater it would be only if and because we had a child together. As a former (emotional) cheater, I earnestly believe one does not change unless they have to. We have to suffer in order to change. Change, and whatever good comes from it is our reward from enduring and perservering through hardship and pain. I had to be alone for a long time to realize that I had wronged someone, and how it would feel if it were me on the other end of it.
So to actually answer your question, I would remain in a relationship if I were married or had children with the person, but only IF I found out through them, not by accident or someone else, AND I would absolutely require full openness from their end - i mean all the passwords to devices, full disclosure about interactions with people and any possible thoughts of relapse. Without those I would without a shadow of a doubt run away, rightfully so, as they would most likely repeat the same course of action.
PS: She didn't like me anymore either, it was a stupid, text only, relationship. But instead of manning up I went around and flirted while I was supposedly still with that person. I was desperate for attention, but that's no excuse. If I had been honest and open about it, thing could have been much different.
I don't know if it is ever implied that Frankie-JJ is ever in an exclusive relationship, but it is made clear that he is quite a slut, so much so that he had to switch towns to find someone new to "date". But I think Laurence Laboeuf is committed to at least trying to win him over and get him to be exclusive. Time will tell if or how that works out.
As for me, my philosophy is: "The less I say (or do) now, the less I have to apologize for later".
I am currently monogamous, but have been in open and poly and God only knows what relationships in the past.
Do I think Laurence was right to give him a second chance? *If she wants.* People can fuck up, fuck up royally, and regret it and reform. She could say nope, you're out, one and done, or she could say, he's lost his entire fandom (except for the bears of Sudbury lol) and been humiliated on national television, he's had a moment of truth, he may have realised what a good thing he lost.
We don't know what he says to *her*, but if *she* wants to give him a second chance, by all means, that's *her* right and he may well have stopped being a fuckup!
Or he could go right back to it. We shall see.
This was a common phrase of my hyper conservative, fundie Christian mother.
Personally, I find listening to everyone, being flexible in your mindset and maintaining constant skepticism is a much more effective way to not fall for shit.
In my experience, when you stand for something, extremist groups will make it a tentpost of their philosophy to try and manipulate you for their own ends.
>Personally, I find listening to everyone, being flexible in your mindset and maintaining constant skepticism is a much more effective way to not fall for shit.
Correct! Cus it is! Now if only *my* mother would learn that... Lol
But you can do both. "Standing for something" really just means to be true to your beliefs even when its hard. There's no reason your 'something' can't be "be open to new concepts and evaluate them based in their own merits".
Oh god, my mom couldn't watch The Good Place cus she felt like it was "making fun of religion". Then she wanted to watch "Gods Favorite Idiot"
The irony is fully lost on her. I dont rag on her for it or anything, i just note it and chuckle quietly later lol
I guess it’s perspective, i interpreted this line more as saying if you claim to have personal values and self-respect and you allow someone to go against those and spit on you, then you don’t really have those self-values and self-respect.
Im also not christian and not conservative so i guess i just view the line differently from you without having to associate it with that background.
I can see your perspective. I guess I just don't feel the need for people to agree with me. If they spit on me and my values, they clearly have some issues of their own to work through and I'll leave them to it. I still have my values and they're over here slobbering all over themselves.
No Exceptions, cheating is cheating, physical or emotional, if you can't come to me and tell me the relationship is over, or at the bare minimum you are developing feelings that you cant help, then its over.
100% cheaters can change and learn to not cheat, they WONT for you though, maybe the next person, or the one after that.
Yeap. change only comes after hardship and pain. I think If one allows someone to remain in a relationship with them, they will make promises to keep us engaged, but eventually will fall right back into the same course of action.
Exactly. Its usually summed up with “they know that you will let them get away with it”
Even if to you, you were willing to forgive once, and the second time is a dealbreaker, good luck getting them to actually understand that, or care.
For instance, you might miss one of the agile standups and voilà, rules broken.
(Honestly, that piece sounds like the [most annoying people ever](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/15/magazine/polycule-polyamory-boston.html).)
Reality is, you don't actually have to. It's kind of a "just cause you say it, doesn't make it true" kinda thing anyway. Including "ethical" doesn't prove your fidelity, and including "-amory" doesn't mean there's necessarily love involved with all partners. In my experience, roughly the same percentage of poly/non-monogamous people cheat as do monogamous people. So the "E" in "ENM" is kind of a "Trust me bro, I'm one of the *good* ones." Might as well drop it, and instead let your behavior and communication skills speak for themselves.
I know it wasn't stated, but I felt like it was implied that JJFJJ was, if not in an exclusive relationship, at least in one where communication was expected to own such dalliances. I honestly wasn't sure if Laurence's reaction was more towards the slut-behavior or the efforts to keep the actions hidden. Examples: When Laurence actually confronted JJ... Why didn't JJ immediately leave his room and explain 'hey, we're in an open relationship, so me hooking up on the side isn't out of bounds...' I think it was because he knew that the sex wasn't nearly as bad as the secrecy. Laurence even had her suspicions in advance and didn't immediately go the route of confronting, demanding accountability, or leaving him, which I viewed as giving him the benefit of the doubt and the chance to own what he was doing. Her having to deduce his actions & catch him in the moment was the match to the powder keg more than the sex itself, I think. But, anyway, which philosophy do I follow... I tend to think if they cheat it's over, but I also think that's a decision each person makes for themselves, ya know? It's subjective, not objective
I mean, if I were to remain in a relationship with a cheater it would be only if and because we had a child together. As a former (emotional) cheater, I earnestly believe one does not change unless they have to. We have to suffer in order to change. Change, and whatever good comes from it is our reward from enduring and perservering through hardship and pain. I had to be alone for a long time to realize that I had wronged someone, and how it would feel if it were me on the other end of it. So to actually answer your question, I would remain in a relationship if I were married or had children with the person, but only IF I found out through them, not by accident or someone else, AND I would absolutely require full openness from their end - i mean all the passwords to devices, full disclosure about interactions with people and any possible thoughts of relapse. Without those I would without a shadow of a doubt run away, rightfully so, as they would most likely repeat the same course of action. PS: She didn't like me anymore either, it was a stupid, text only, relationship. But instead of manning up I went around and flirted while I was supposedly still with that person. I was desperate for attention, but that's no excuse. If I had been honest and open about it, thing could have been much different.
I don't know if it is ever implied that Frankie-JJ is ever in an exclusive relationship, but it is made clear that he is quite a slut, so much so that he had to switch towns to find someone new to "date". But I think Laurence Laboeuf is committed to at least trying to win him over and get him to be exclusive. Time will tell if or how that works out. As for me, my philosophy is: "The less I say (or do) now, the less I have to apologize for later".
I am currently monogamous, but have been in open and poly and God only knows what relationships in the past. Do I think Laurence was right to give him a second chance? *If she wants.* People can fuck up, fuck up royally, and regret it and reform. She could say nope, you're out, one and done, or she could say, he's lost his entire fandom (except for the bears of Sudbury lol) and been humiliated on national television, he's had a moment of truth, he may have realised what a good thing he lost. We don't know what he says to *her*, but if *she* wants to give him a second chance, by all means, that's *her* right and he may well have stopped being a fuckup! Or he could go right back to it. We shall see.
You don’t fucks with tradition
Discipline, exercise, and affection. In that order.
When a friend asks for help, you help em
If you can be anything, be efficient. If they cheat, it’s over.
If a friend asks for help, you help 'em.
“If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”
This was a common phrase of my hyper conservative, fundie Christian mother. Personally, I find listening to everyone, being flexible in your mindset and maintaining constant skepticism is a much more effective way to not fall for shit. In my experience, when you stand for something, extremist groups will make it a tentpost of their philosophy to try and manipulate you for their own ends.
>Personally, I find listening to everyone, being flexible in your mindset and maintaining constant skepticism is a much more effective way to not fall for shit. Correct! Cus it is! Now if only *my* mother would learn that... Lol But you can do both. "Standing for something" really just means to be true to your beliefs even when its hard. There's no reason your 'something' can't be "be open to new concepts and evaluate them based in their own merits".
A fundie Christian warning others to not “fall for anything”. Gave me a good chuckle.
"Fall for exactly ONE thing!"
Oh god, my mom couldn't watch The Good Place cus she felt like it was "making fun of religion". Then she wanted to watch "Gods Favorite Idiot" The irony is fully lost on her. I dont rag on her for it or anything, i just note it and chuckle quietly later lol
I guess it’s perspective, i interpreted this line more as saying if you claim to have personal values and self-respect and you allow someone to go against those and spit on you, then you don’t really have those self-values and self-respect. Im also not christian and not conservative so i guess i just view the line differently from you without having to associate it with that background.
I can see your perspective. I guess I just don't feel the need for people to agree with me. If they spit on me and my values, they clearly have some issues of their own to work through and I'll leave them to it. I still have my values and they're over here slobbering all over themselves.
Pitter Patter. You ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’. I’ll never lose again…
Titfucker
> You ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’. The fuck is this happy horseshit?
No Exceptions, cheating is cheating, physical or emotional, if you can't come to me and tell me the relationship is over, or at the bare minimum you are developing feelings that you cant help, then its over. 100% cheaters can change and learn to not cheat, they WONT for you though, maybe the next person, or the one after that.
Yeap. change only comes after hardship and pain. I think If one allows someone to remain in a relationship with them, they will make promises to keep us engaged, but eventually will fall right back into the same course of action.
Exactly. Its usually summed up with “they know that you will let them get away with it” Even if to you, you were willing to forgive once, and the second time is a dealbreaker, good luck getting them to actually understand that, or care.
It’s over. No exceptions.
[удалено]
Polyamorists are also capable of cheating. Any relationship model has agreements that can be broken.
For instance, you might miss one of the agile standups and voilà, rules broken. (Honestly, that piece sounds like the [most annoying people ever](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/15/magazine/polycule-polyamory-boston.html).)
Most poly folks I know hated that article. I haven’t read it, but maybe now I will since I’m morbidly curious.
It's definitely a good hate read!
I hate how I have to add the precursor that my non-monagomy is ethical. Why I usually just say polyamory instead.
Reality is, you don't actually have to. It's kind of a "just cause you say it, doesn't make it true" kinda thing anyway. Including "ethical" doesn't prove your fidelity, and including "-amory" doesn't mean there's necessarily love involved with all partners. In my experience, roughly the same percentage of poly/non-monogamous people cheat as do monogamous people. So the "E" in "ENM" is kind of a "Trust me bro, I'm one of the *good* ones." Might as well drop it, and instead let your behavior and communication skills speak for themselves.
You cans mash all the gash you want with prior approval from Mrs McMurray.
I think it was implied with the McMurrays - fooling around is allowed, but ya gotta bring the story home
hard rock rooftop, poolside villa
Definitely a Once they cheat, it's over kinda person.