Not signed in (Sign In)
Welcome to The Watercooler, the companion forum to Northern Attack and all things concerning The Office on NBC.

Guests are free to browse the forums, although you will need to register for an account if you wish to participate in the discussions or use any of the advanced features of the forum (bookmarks, history, etc).

If you already have an account, please sign in now.

The Watercooler is powered by Vanilla, the sweetest forum on the web.

Bottom of Page
"I'm just sad the public school system failed him so badly": The Gardening Thread
  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 34
  12. >
91 to 120 of 997
Sep 15th 2009

I've considered having an affair. Not having an affair with anyone in particular, but if I could, and how I would meet said partner, and if ultimately it would be worth it. I could even do it without getting caught, because of home all day, but having to maintain a boyfriend is more trouble than it's worth, I've decided. I don't mind maintaining a husband, because of other perks, but dragging another man into the house with all his catering to needs is just something I'm not in the mood for. I tend to enough people's needs as it is.

This is one of the most shocking (and/or shockingly honest) things I think I've read in a long time.

As for me, I would stay faithful to my wife even if I was the most miserable man on earth, and she was the cause of my misery, out of some kind of devotion or duty or what have you.

This worked for Ethan Frome. For a while. Then he hooked up with his sister's wife and all hell broke loose, but until then he was good.

Sep 15th 2009 edited

I've had sex with in the last 7 years is Mr. Fishing and since he's my husband and all that, I do NOT feel comfortable talking about our sex life here.

Yes, when Daoust suggested this thread, I never thought of it as a thread created so that we could talk about our current sexual exploits, be they married or not. I really just thought of it in the same way I think we created the God and the Politics thread. It's a great place to discuss sex and sexuality in general while keeping a topic which does have quite a bit of taboo (not referring to privacy here, referring to the discussion of anything sexual being taboo) material associated with it in one place that those who are not comfortable reading or participating in a discussion on the topic could easily avoid.

I really never pictured this as a place where we'd bop in and say, Woo, me and Mr. A got it ON last night and man are my legs tired! Do you guys have any exercises that might help my legs not get quite so tired? Mostly because I don't even have those kinds of conversations with my regular friends. Maybe my mother, if I needed some advice or something. Or my sisters.

THIS is the kind of stuff I think this thread is awesome for:

There was no giggling about the hooha, or about skinny dipping, or weirdness about a lot of the things people get weird about today (ie, nursing in public).

Why do you think that changed? Why did we get to the point where any nakedness had to be sexual and anything sexual had to have some level of shame or weirdness or embarrassment associated with it? How did we do that and could we undo that in our own children? Would it be a bad idea to undo it?

What chance does the prettiest girl on your street have to hold the attention of a man? The definition of a good looking man or woman has been changed.

This is an awesome observation. I was just reading Dancing at the Rascal Fair by Ivan Doig and thinking about the fact that back then you just found an attractive and suitable mate from whatever you had that was nearby. That's it. It was wonderful if you could find someone that you fell head over heels in love with, but mostly it was just Tevye and Golde type marriages. Nothing wrong with that.

I didn't think about the fact that regular looking people (dudes too! I know several women who seem to only be attracted to the Brad Pitt type.) nowadays, have a much harder time attracting mates because of all of this over-conceptualized beauty.

These are probably the very thoughts that make me unattractive to other men, so it's probably a waste of time to think about it at all.

Sister-wives are a very practical thing to fantasize about. I never thought about it in terms of actual bigamy, but I have thought of it in terms of groups of families living together and the wives all helping each other out with daycare and the like. I think it would be marvelous as well. Then again, I had some pretty rid-di-di-di-di-douchebag roommates so that could go really badly as well.

I happen to think your forthright practicality is one of the awesome things about you, KarenM. Catering to the emotional needs of yet another person is definitely one of the biggest detractors of adultery for me as well.

Of course, this is also true for me:

Of course, I've never been seriously tempted either, so I don't know if I can say that with certainty... But I'd like to think I would stay faithful.

I've got quite a few girl friends who are habitual cheaters, but it comes less from happening to fall in love with someone when you weren't looking for/expecting it and more out of the fact that for most of them, their sense of self-worth and self-esteem is tied up in how men are treating them; the more fellows who are complimenting them and flirting with them and effectively courting them, the better they feel about themselves and the happier they are. Thus there will never be one guy that will be able to provide enough attention all the time to help them maintain that, so they inevitably end up chasing it elsewhere. Not that that excuses the behavior. I'm just saying that's where it comes from with these few girls that I know that are like that.

I'm with BTF. I'd rather my husband tell me and go find happiness elsewhere so we can both move on then to stay in a relationship that is not fulfilling him.

Sep 15th 2009

Woo, me and Mr. A got in ON last night

Finally, someone using this thread for what it was meant for.

Sep 15th 2009 edited

I'd rather my husband tell me and go find happiness elsewhere so we can both move on then to stay in a relationship that is not fulfilling him.

I'm not trying to pretend it's admirable, it's just where I'm coming from. And anyways, it's certainly not true in my case. More of a hypothetical.

Sep 15th 2009

Jinx posted this:

I have nothing against bigamy and think it would work for some people. I don't know why it's illegal.

I don't know if this is just an off-hand, mostly rhetorical remark or a serious question (as in, genuine curiosity about bigamy and the law versus a thing to say in a group of things to say about the government being involved in personal business), but a while back, on another board, in a gay marriage thread, a lawyer came forward and shared some great perspective about how gay marriage and plural marriage--both voluntary associations of consenting adults--were fundamentally different and that gay marriage made civic sense but plural marriage did not, that I could track down and post, here or in the Politics thread, if people were interested.

Sep 15th 2009 edited

Is bigamy the same as plural marriage? I mean, isn't bigamy typically a husband with two wives, whereas plural indicates a spousal relationship between any two of the multiple partners? Bill Paxton's wives don't do the hibbity dibbity.

In other words, I'm interested in learning more without having to expend the effort myself if you're willing to share.

Sep 15th 2009

Bill Paxton's wives don't do the hibbity dibbity.

They totally should though.

Sep 15th 2009

Welcome back. And yesshhhh.

Sep 15th 2009

a lawyer came forward and shared some great perspective about how gay marriage and plural marriage--both voluntary associations of consenting adults--were fundamentally different

I seem to recall that too and I'm curious as to what the difference is.

Sep 15th 2009

Thanks, and Especially Margerie and the older one.

Sep 15th 2009

I'll track that down tonight, I promise, but I wanted to say that bigamy is a very specific type of plural marriage, and not a relationship I would consider polyamorous. Bigamy with the two wives seems to me that the wives have separate relationships with the husband, and are not expecting hibbity dibbity privileges from each other. Meanwhile, a polyamorous marriage could be three women, or two women and a guy, or whatever (you can do the rest of the permutations), but everyone is interested in everyone, with hibbity dibbity for all.

Sep 15th 2009

with hibbity dibbity for all

Is there any way we can get this added to the Pledge of Allegiance?

Sep 15th 2009

I read an article recently about polyamory and it was very interesting to me how the people in the relationship(s) made it work.

Sep 15th 2009

Jinx is a great American. And while that lifestyle is not for me, it still seems like a wasted opportunity to have two wives and no wife-on-wife hibbity or dibbity.

Sep 15th 2009

Here's that lawyer's version of why polyamorous marriage is not a good idea from a civic point of view (she talks about polygamy because she is responding to a remark about polygamy):

Polygamy introduces a whole host of legal issues that gay marriage doesn't. It would have implications on community property law, the law of wills and trusts and other aspects of family law. Imagine a family of five. Let's say one wife "divorces" the others. She has two children. She gets 1/5 of the community property and custody is split between the two families of the children. Now another wife gets divorced. What is her legal relation to the two children of the first divorced wife? Can she sue for custody? For visitation? Would these children now have to split their time between three different households? How about if the entire family splits up? Five different households? How do you handle a second divorce from a community property standpoint? How do you handle the death of the "main" spouse? If a male married to three women dies, are the women still married to each other? If one wife dies first, do the other wives her heirs? Or only the husband?

Later she clarifies:

You cannot resolve each of these issues with a prenuptial agreement. Regardless of whether there are prenuptial agreements or not, ALL of the existing laws of community property, family law, wills and trusts, and probably other things as well, would have to be changed. We have prenuptial agreements already, but that doesn't take away the need for community property law, because not everyone enters into a prenuptial agreement. We have wills and trusts, but we still need estate law because not everyone makes those documents.

The law would still need to provide solutions for people who choose not to make prenuptial agreements because the government can't force people to enter into contracts.

Then she clarifies what prenuptial agreements do:

A prenuptial agreement is entered into when a couple doesn't want to follow the standard community property laws, and instead want to agree beforehand how their property will be considered and split. It's an agreement not to follow the law and to instead do something else, which is allowed. If there was no law absent an agreement, then there would be ridiculous chaos everytime someone without a pre-nup got divorced.

Even if pre-nups and estate planning documents could solve the inherent legal upheaval with legalizing a plural marriage, the prohibitive cost of such documents would mean that only the wealthiest could actually afford plural marriage. I estimate that a package for a three-person marriage that included a pre-nuptial agreement and estate planning documents would cost at least $10,000 if not more, depending on how much you wanted to deviate from the norm. Add a couple of thousand dollars for each person you add to the marriage. And a couple of thousand dollars more for each child that is born.

If the laws were not amended at all, then all those people who couldn't afford a well-drafted set of documents and instead tried to do their own, or went to some cheaper place that gave them bad materials, or skipped it altogether, would be left drifting, with no legal method to solve their dilemmas when a partner died or divorced or their were arguments over children or health care decisions, etc.

I can move this to politics if that's better. I sort of feel I ought to send her a royalty check.

Sep 16th 2009

Wait, I thought this thread was going to tell me where babies came from.

Sep 16th 2009 edited

Wait, I thought this thread was going to tell me where babies came from.

Okay, here you go…

A girl walks in on her parents while they're making love. Upon noticing her
daughter in the doorway, the mother tells her to leave and go wait in the kitchen.
A few minutes later, the mother joins the girl at the kitchen table. "Well, I guess
you have some questions about what you saw in there."

"Yeah." the daughter says. "What was happening when daddy was on top of you?”

"Well, that's where babies come from."

"Oh. So, what was happening when you were on top of daddy?"

"Well, that's also where babies come from."

"Okay… but what was happening when you had daddy’s thing in your mouth?”

“Well, honey, that’s where jewelry comes from.”

Sep 16th 2009

So bigamy is bad because it makes divorce more complicated? I'd think lawyers would view that as a plus.

Sep 16th 2009

Okay, here you go…

There's the old Dawsome that we remember when he first got here. But I admit, I laughed.

Oh and by the way, Anque perfectly summed up what I had intended this thread to be about when she wrote the following:

I never thought of it as a thread created so that we could talk about our current sexual exploits, be they married or not. I really just thought of it in the same way I think we created the God and the Politics thread. It's a great place to discuss sex and sexuality in general while keeping a topic which does have quite a bit of taboo (not referring to privacy here, referring to the discussion of anything sexual being taboo) material associated with it in one place that those who are not comfortable reading or participating in a discussion on the topic could easily avoid.

Very well put.

Now, I don't necessarily want to discourage openness and/or honesty either. So, in that vein, why don't we all just write down how many times we have sex on average in a week so that I/you can see if I'm/you're keeping up with the Joneses?

Sep 16th 2009

So bigamy is bad because it makes divorce more complicated? I'd think lawyers would view that as a plus.

That's a libelous slur, sir. I will see you in court.

Sep 16th 2009

The bocce court? I'll bring my balls. Actually, I didn't even mean it as a slur, though it's a pretty good one in retrospect. It's funny because of shyster.

Sep 16th 2009

You bring the balls and I will . . . bring whatever else bocce requires.

Sep 16th 2009

Beer.

Sep 16th 2009

Beets.

Sep 16th 2009

Battlestar Galactica

Sep 16th 2009

And bears. Lots of bears.

Sep 16th 2009

And boobs.

Sep 16th 2009

Beaver.

Sep 16th 2009

Bongs.

Sep 16th 2009

Bitches.

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 34
  12. >
91 to 120 of 997
Top of PageBack to discussions