Cyber-promiscuity

[biwords]

Friendly argument this morning with my cousin Ken, whom I’ve mentioned here before (gay, lives in Paris, visits here for a month or so each year). Ken has been very down on me over my involvement with this site, believing that the internet is nothing more than a house of illusion. Anyway, in the course of expounding this view he mentioned a friend of his in Paris, Rachel, who is married and reasonably happy. However, her husband is in Marseilles on business much of the time and she has taken to pursuing cybersex with guys. Lots of guys. One of Ken’s friends says, hundreds of them. Ken thinks that’s an exaggeration, but estimates the number as 100 or so.

I had no strong feelings about this, but I did find it curious. Why 100 (or “hundreds”) of different guys? Why not lots of cyber with a smaller number? Apart from that, I couldn’t work up any moral indignation. Maybe Rachel just likes having lots of different guys – it’s a taste like any other, and while it’s not mine, it doesn’t seem to be harming anyone. Maybe the thrill of the hunt is a factor. Maybe she enjoys learning more about men's fantasies.

Ken, however, was very negative about all of it. More so, in fact, than if Rachel had actually slept with all these guys, because that at least would have been ‘real’. In his view, Rachel’s behavior screamed “issues”. No one, it was implied, needs so many partners, and to have them argued that Rachel’s motives must include deep insecurity about her appeal and attractiveness. Or something. Something equally negative.

To my aging but still-lawyerly mind, this seemed to be a case of going beyond what the available evidence clearly establishes. But I thought I’d throw the question open to this community. What number of cyber partners is too much? Yes, it’s an individual thing yada yada, but at what point do you conclude that the person in question isn’t simply celebrating her (or his) sexuality, but engaging in some worrisome psychodrama? And if it’s the second, what’s the nature of the psychodrama likely to be?

For clarity, I add that I rarely cyber.

[arana]

May I ask how they know all this information? She tells them she is with 100(s) of cyber partners??? #1. Unless they are with her each time and are keeping records, second hand gossip is not always reliable. #2. If you and your cousin's friend are happy on the internet, not causing harm nor having harm caused upon you, then it's your business not his how you chose to spend your time.

Perhaps this woman doesn't stay with one cyber person because she's not in it for a relationship but only a release of sexual tensions during lonely times. If she is truly in love with her husband she probably wouldn't want to fixate on a single cyber lover. Mixing it up would make it more impersonal and just for fun. If as your cousin says, cyber is an illusion, then she is merely finding an alternate form of porn to curb her appetite which is much better than actually committing adultry.

[my-00-stang]

May I ask how they know all this information? She tells them she is with 100(s) of cyber partners??? #1. Unless they are with her each time and are keeping records, second hand gossip is not always reliable. #2. If you and your cousin's friend are happy on the internet, not causing harm nor having harm caused upon you, then it's your business not his how you chose to spend your time.

Perhaps this woman doesn't stay with one cyber person because she's not in it for a relationship but only a release of sexual tensions during lonely times. If she is truly in love with her husband she probably wouldn't want to fixate on a single cyber lover. Mixing it up would make it more impersonal and just for fun. If as your cousin says, cyber is an illusion, then she is merely finding an alternate form of porn to curb her appetite which is much better than actually committing adultry.


here here i couldn't have said it better myself!!!!! :bowdown:

[biwords]

My understanding was that Rachel was pretty open about all this (to Ken; not sure what the deal is with her husband). But my question wasn't why she didn't confine herself to a single cyber partner; it was 'at what point, if any, do you incline to see the behaviour as indicating "issues" rather than simply embodying a free spirit? And what issues, if any, do you see?'

[csrakate]

My understanding was that Rachel was pretty open about all this (to Ken; not sure what the deal is with her husband). But my question wasn't why she didn't confine herself to a single cyber partner; it was 'at what point, if any, do you incline to see the behaviour as indicating "issues" rather than simply embodying a free spirit? And what issues, if any, do you see?'
If Rachel feels inclined to visit her cyber partners in lieu of spending time with her hubby, then there may be an issue; if Rachel spends time with her cyber partners instead of going to work, then there may be an issue; if Rachel neglects flesh and blood people in order to spend time with her cyber partners, then there may be an issue. I think what we have here is a woman who is merely lonely for her husband and is using this time to explore her sexuality. Just my :2cents:

Hugs,
Kate

[wolfcamp]

Hi Biwords

I see a bit of my own history here so I feel compelled to comment.

I empathize and sympathize with Rachel. I suspect, and this is only my suspicion, that even though she appears happy on the outside, that inwardly she is deeply unhappy. Sometimes people don't even realize that they are unhappy, or they deny that anything is wrong. The unhappiness and denial can run so deep that they resort to destructive behavior without even knowing why. Some people resort to alcohol and drugs. Some people resort to sex. Others resort to things much worse.

I think Ken is overly judgmental of both you and Rachel. First of all, concerning you; the internet and this forum offer support and validation from a very dispersed group that you could not possibly get in a small, local community. I think it's healthy. That also applies to many other boutique interests. So in that respect, I think the internet and this forum have a legitimate place. In my opinion, Ken is wrong about that.

Concerning Rachel, nobody mentioned the husband's role in this, other than he is gone all the time with his work. Ken may be right that Rachel has issues, but the issues may be rooted in the activities of the husband. The problem is probably his to fix, not hers. If she feels that she is being ignored, or that she always takes second place to the husband's work, and possibly to his family and friends (which was my case) then she has every right to have "issues". I think Arana is right on the money. I think Rachel is trying to soothe her loneliness, and possibly her esteem, while trying to sidestep the faithfulness issue.

I may be completely wrong, but I sure see parallels to my situation before my marriage ended. (for the better, because I am now much happier and a lot more self-aware)

WC

[DiamondDog]

I agree with Kate.

If her cyber partners aren't hurting her relationship with reality and her family/job/husband/etc. it's not a big deal. She probably wants some sort of erotic masturbatory release since her husband is away and she doesn't want to cheat on him when he's away.

Anyway why is it any of your cousin's business what his friend does?

I find it odd and hypocritcal that apparently from what you've written about him your cousin has been with 1,000 men in reality but then gets angry at a woman who does dirty/X chat with 100 men who aren't her husband.

[biwords]

These are excellent answers, yet I think the nub of Ken's question remains difficult to answer.....if Rachel is lonely, why does she not have one cyber lover, or three, or five, rather than 100 or more? What does the 'volume approach' deliver? Does it (as Ken implies) smack of pathology, or is it just a taste, no better or worse than any other? To be fair, I don't think Ken is 'angry' in the least, he just has a very definite opinion on what I've dubbed cyber-promiscuity. What's yours?

[Annika L]

I am with Arana on this.

Personally, I cannot imagine having multiple cyber encounters (on the order of 100) with the same person without at least a strong danger of developing some level of emotional attachment to the person. If the person you are talking about wants sexual exploration or release, but wants to avoid emotional attachments, then it makes sense to me that she would have a high number of paramours. In short, your friend should be very glad that if she is going to cyber 100 times, it's with 100 different men, rather than with 3 or 5.

I think that as long as she is mindful of her cyber-reputation (and as Kate says, is not putting her relationship, job, or self at risk), there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what she is doing.

Your friend's "definite feelings about cyber-promiscuity" sound chauvanistic to me -- women should have limited and controlled sexuality, whereas if a man wants 100 partners (in real life...not necessarily talking cyber here), that's perfectly ok. At the risk of sounding absurdly cliche, what's good for the gander is good for some geese, if they can shed the issues of STDs and pregnancy.

[wolfcamp]

These are excellent answers, yet I think the nub of Ken's question remains difficult to answer.....if Rachel is lonely, why does she not have one cyber lover, or three, or five, rather than 100 or more? What does the 'volume approach' deliver? Does it (as Ken implies) smack of pathology, or is it just a taste, no better or worse than any other? To be fair, I don't think Ken is 'angry' in the least, he just has a very definite opinion on what I've dubbed cyber-promiscuity. What's yours?

Maybe she is measuring her own self worth and attractiveness by the number of men she can attract online. I knew a woman like that once, but she did it in real life. I don't really think it matters much if she meets 1 or 100 men online. It's all fairly anonymous with a screen and a keyboard. Even with a cam it's still impersonal and detached. I don't think this represents any kind of pathology or psychosis, but just a basic human need for attention. Maybe the more relevant question is why does she spend so much time at this activity? I still think her husband needs to pay more attention to her. Either the situation works for both of them, (unlikely) or there is a big imbalance in their relationship.

[kitten]

I agree with Arana.
As to the numbers question, there is a saying - can't document from where - that a woman has to meet 100 men to find one good one - :).
JUST a messenger here and saying it to be funny!!

As far as the cousin being judgemental... well that is another whole issue.

hugs,

[Diana_TS]

Now I know why I enjoy the chat room when Arana is around. She makes a lot of sense with her answer, and DiamondDog is right also. Your cousin is making a big deal of someone's lifestyle, yet I'll bet he is very upset with society because it looks down on his lifestyle, Gay. A little hypocritical isn't it. We all have issues, we deal with them the best way we can and get by. I indulge in cyber only when someone I enjoy chatting with instigates it, and obviously wants to indulge their urges. If I like him I will try to be the best partner in cyber sex I can be. Usually I end up enjoying it also. Really sounds to me your cousin has the issues not his friend. :rolleyes: