OPINION Necessary Evils?

ChiCity said:
I think the 'evil' is the perception from the outside looking in but as long as the side understands they role and aren't interrupting the main situation aka playing they position then its fine
Click to expand...
As long as the side understands uhm what about the main is she understanding this as well?
 
IP360 said:
This


And this



Your s/o loses all interest in sex for example. Why should the other be deprived of fulfilling that need? In comes side piece.
Click to expand...

If she lost all interest most likely she just got her interests elsewhere.
So you might wanna check that out. Lollll
 
Azlyn said:
If she lost all interest most likely she just got her interests elsewhere.
So you might wanna check that out. Lollll
Click to expand...


Not always the case tho.

Sex is not a big deal to a lot of folks. So for them...they can live w/o it. But why should the person they're with be denied that pleasure?
 
BNE said:
Doesn't logically add up tho. The hole created by no-sex from your SO could easily be solved by exploring an open relationship or getting another sexual partner with their consent.

So it isn't a necessary evil since necessary evil's are defined by usually being the only option. There's another option that addresses the same hole.
Click to expand...


How is that any different from having a side piece?
 
NeighborhoodNomad said:
I would think it's the opposite in most cases. The side piece is usually there for the physical.
Click to expand...

Guess I’m different in that regard, a woman can’t give you her mind, feelings, and spirituality. She can share those things with you. I don’t feel like we should restrict our mental, emotional, and spiritual selves to one person.

What a woman can give to you is her body, her physical. I think that’s not something you should seek in another if you choose to say that this is the main woman I want. And if you do, then don’t say she’s the main woman you want.

I feel da physical is more sacred
 
If you need a side piece, you need to be single.

Unless y’all got some understanding and all parties are with it.

Which pretty makes it an open relationship.
 
The problem here is the label.

To me a side pc is just that, a side pc.

Don't matter if the relationship is opened or closed or whatever.

Unless that 3rd person lives with yall, they a side
 
BNE said:
stop tryna be deep, this don't even make sense
Click to expand...

No matter how much u love Goldie

It doesn’t stop you from finding other men attractive

It’s doesnt stop the feeling u get when a Man U find attractive flirts with u

That’s not to say u act on it, but it doesn’t stop those feelings

If relationships where closed in the way u want, u could not feel anything for anyone other than who ur with..which is just not possible

So on some level at some point, he is sharing u with someone mentally, emotionally, or spiritually

Feeling sad, u listen to the music of a man, that man who is making that music is now sharing you emotionally and spiritually with Goldie
 
Idk but when I do take that step with someone he gotta be for me and only me.
I don’t share.
I mean there’s to many choices out there to be sharing and I’ve settled in my past and won’t do it now.

Damn am I old fashion?
That shit just don’t sit right with me knowing my man doesn’t care if some other guy is deep in my guts with it...

Yikes
 
BNE said:
A side piece implies cheating. A mistress, side-dick, what have you.

Having an open relationship/marriage or an understanding with your partner that allows you to have other sex partners isn't really having a side piece in the traditional sense.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily.

I mean yes...it is KNOWN as that by popular opinion...but a side is just a side. How is that any difderent from having a side in an open relationship?
 
Kandy said:
What the fuck is he talking bout?
Click to expand...
AC1CF721-E7BD-4F19-9BF4-466CF1A6CF31.png
Things deeper than u can grasp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top