Well, most people seem to be assuming that Maria is NOT making this all up and that she is NOT deluded and we should give Maria, not JP, the benefit of the doubt.
Right. And your question assumed the opposite. So where is the fractured logic you see?
How sure does one need to be when one enters into a casual relationship? And how do you make sure? Do you run background checks to make sure? Email all their contacts in their address book to make sure there isn’t a misunderstanding (“JP tells me he is unattached, but I want to make sure you person who lives in another country that only sees him once a month or so doesn’t believe otherwise?”)
As I hinted above, there is one reason. Twickster sent Maria an e-mail, and copied JP on it. She knew, then, that they both heard the exact same thing from her. This was wise.
JP’s response to twickster says a lot. If he says, “Oh, that Maria! She is crazy; we broke up two years ago,” and doesn’t also copy Maria, then I think (people being people) we might infer that he’s telling Maria something different.
Yes, agreed. Even if that e-mail was the private one, a follow-up, copied to all involved, that said, “Maria, I am sorry you’re having trouble dealing with this, but surely you remember that in December, I said I didn’t want to see you romantically any more. I understand that you’re upset, but the fact of the matter is that we have broken up, and we’re not going to get back together.”
Or something, anything, that clearly shows twickster AND Maria are getting the same message.
I’ve got a wife and three kids, dude. I’ve been with my wife for 20 years. What relationship experience do you have?
This thread has nothing to do with relationships anyway. It’s about sexual ethics. The possibility that “Maria” is lying (which seems unlikely) is not relevant. What matters is that you avoid even the possibility of doing any damage by not fucking this guy anymore. The fact she doesn’t know who’s telling the truth is exactly the reason to stop fucking the guy.
Of course not.
But once something like this is brought to your attention, THEN you are obligated to take some sort of affirmative steps to make sure everyone’s on the same page.
I would assume that unless BOTH people agreed they were in a committed relationship - there was no commitment.
IF JP lied to Maria, then he is a slimeball. But it isn’t twick’s responsibility in an uncommitted relationship to make sure every other hook up of JPs, current and potential, understand the terms she has entered into the relationship on. And only twick’s - who knows JP, is in a position to evaluate his honesty. No one here can do anything other than comment on his horrible email writing style. And apparently, he is a pleasant enough companion to twicks that she is willing to overlook that.
Which she did. Some version of “I have an open relationship with JP. It involves sex.” Copying JP so even he is informed of what page she is on.
That’s fine. But then her claim that she doesn’t fuck married or in-relationship guys is highly suspect, since she won’t take any reasonable steps to ensure that it’s so.
If her approach actually is, “I like cock, he has one, so that’s the end of my analysis,” then I agree she’s done all she needs to do.
If you don’t know, you err in the direction that has the least potential to cause any harm. It really doesn’t matter who’s telling the truth. If in doubt, get the fuck out.
And that goes back to “what steps to you need to take to make sure the guy you are having a casual relationship with is telling the truth?”
But wouldn’t it harm JP if Maria manages to scare away all his girlfriends with her delusion? Why is Maria’s harm here the greater?
So would I. And I’ll bet so would everyone else in this thread. But your question asked why people believed that only one person had to declare it monogamous for it to be so, and I asked you where anyone had said that. So. Where has anyone said that? Where has anyone said that Maria is justified in believing it to be monogamous even though she is the only one to declare it so?
Generally, we have folks who believe Maria, and those who believe JP. But no one who believes JP also believes that Maria is right to consider the relationship to be monogamous.
100%, in my opinion, and I don’t think it’s really that hard to detrmine if you really want to. If the person is that much of a cipher, and you really can’t learn anything about them, then don’t fuck them. If you fuck them anyway, and then you hear from somebody saying they’re this person’s SO, then don’t fuck them again. It’s not like you’re going to die if you stop fucking them. What’s so hard about just making a simple, ethical choice not to fuck people who you have reason to believe could be cheating on somebody else?
What a load of crap.
It’s her responsibility to make sure she isn’t fucking people she has reason to believe might be cheating on somebody else. It’s her responsibility to make sure she isn’t helping to wreck a home. Would she be laughing at a woman who told her she was the guy’s wife? What if she told her they had kids? Is it still perfectly acceptable to tell her to “keep me out of your soap opera” because, hey, she might be lying?
What a crock of shit.
I think this is highly unlikely, but even if it does, that’s on Maria’s karma, not Twick’s.
It’s not a question of whose harm is greater, but who Twickster, by herself, has the potential to harm. Her actions do have the potential to harm Maria. Cutting the guy off will harm nobody.
I also think it’s incredibly tendentious to insist that it’s ethically permissable to fuck anybody at all unless their SO’s can show you some kind of airtight, forensic proof that the guy told her they were monogamous.
News flash! Slutty chicks STILL into douchey guys!
I always find it amusing that people who have been a long series of short, failed relationships think they have more “relationship experience”.
People find exactly the kinds of relationships they are looking for. If you want to go around banging dudes with no commitment, pretty much expect that the guy(s) you are banging aren’t going to take commitments seriously.
I’m pretty sure the OP just likes the attention and drama. She isn’t looking for an ethical debate.:dubious:
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Close thread, let’s go to the bar.
I’ll second that.