I seduced a 20 yr old engaged nanny thanks to you all

[5string]

I have to agree, especially since she was engaged. No thanks. Ive been engaged and had her cheat...worst feeling in the world. Plenty of single women out there to bang. Im not trying to be morally judgmental, its just why give a cheater like this the satisfaction of knowing she can cheat and get away with it? Plus, to say that if he didnt do it someone else will? That's like saying if don't you rob a particular bank, someone else will. Have to live your life to YOUR morals and values, not someone else's.

Well said :yes:

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

This is going to sound really legalistic, but at what point is it semantics and at what point is it solid to assume a woman is "single"? Understandably, if a woman is married for a number of years, ring on her finger, and has a sizable amount of personal and emotional investment (kids) in her marriage, yet is looking for something on the side, I can agree completely with 5STRING. Hands off, don't even consider it because you're harming not just the husband, but his family, freinds, kids, etc. while rewarding the cheating wife for her abandoning her commitment and accountability.

I'd say in that situation the solid answer is fairly obvious. If not for some moral reason, then certainly for the pragmatism of not embroiling oneself in all that drama. However, where and when do you start to split hairs? I realize there's this idealized state of singleness, where in some fantasy land, perfectly single boy sees perfectly single girl across a crowded room, their eye meet and they fall in love. That may work in Taylor Swift videos, but in reality this simply doesn't happen. Exceptionally rare is the truly single woman. Women's hypergamous nature means most are in some state of relational transition - looking for the best deal their attractiveness will afford them. You're the rebound guy, she has a less than optimal BF (i.e worse than you), she's in an LDR, she's branch swinging, she's pining for the old BF, she just met a new guy she's started seeing, she's dating non-exclusively, or any combination of these and more; all are far more common than the completely unattached, single girl.

So what's the limitation? When is a woman single enough to be dateable?

 

[Razor Sharp]

Fück her brains out I say. She's a big girl and responsible for her decisions. Just dont be a dumbass and catch feelings. She has already shown what type of integrity she has (zero), and hoes do not make good housewives. Have fun, but keep it movng.

 

[5string]

I find this comment interesting.

In this scenario.....do you believe it is the man that hurts the bf? Or is it the gf who hurts the bf?

Does it matter? The woman will do what she wants. The man has a CHOICE not to enable her cheating and risk all that I have noted in this thread.

 

[zekko]

Women's hypergamous nature means most are in some state of relational transition - looking for the best deal their attractiveness will afford them.

I notice you often point out that women are hypergamous, and I agree with you. And you also correctly point out that women are usually in some form of relationship, transitional or otherwise. That's why I don't think it's a big violation to take a girl who has a boyfriend. As far as I'm concerned there's not a high level of commitment there if he's just a boyfriend.

But in this case the girl is engaged. Now maybe she made a dumb mistake by getting engaged, or maybe she's simply a low quality woman. I'm not going to think too highly of some girl who fvcks around while engaged. If the OP is just looking to get his rocks off I guess that wouldn't matter to him. In any case, I feel married women should be off limits. But things happen.

 

[Trader]

Did you not read the post?

SHE came on to HIM. Heavily, in fact. He blew it off for a while before she practically shoved her ****** in his face.

I typically don't pursue "attached" women, but if they give me IOIs, I will engage. If I don't, some other dude will. It's only a matter of time.

This is so hillarious. This is chick logic. It sounds exactly like something a girl would say

He came on to ME. Heavily! I tried to blow him off, but he kept persisting and he took my hand. No, I'm not a slut, but if he keeps making moves on me, I will give in. If I don't, some other girl will get with him, it's only a matter of time.

This shaming trick is usually reserved for women.....

A wh0re is a wh0re is a wh0re is a wh0re.

Men do not make women wh0res, they do it on their own.

This woman is branch swinging to this guy, and you blame the guy?

Let's be careful not project our frustrations with women onto the man that is able to attract them away from other, lesser men. Instead, focus on becoming the man that CAN do that.

I'm not shaming him - I am calling a spade a spade. We all know that girls have no sense of accountability. But I am a man, and I will hold myself accountable for my actions. Therefore when someone says: 'Well if you didn't sleep with her, someone else would have' this is a classic 'let me try to escape accountability for my actions' ploy.

I don't roll that way, not in my world.

The OP is free to do whatever he wants, but don't tell me what he did made him *more of a man* because it didn't.

 

[squirrels]

It's the fact that she is taken Rollo. Ring or no ring. My whole point is that if one goes sniffin around a woman who is engaged, married or has a BF, not much good can come of it. You might get the tang, but you may just hurt another man, husband or even a family. All the while looking over your shoulder for some guy with a bat with your name on it, that just had his heart ripped out by some woman who has cheated on him. Why risk the above Rollo when there are more than enough single HB out there? Is getting your d!ck wet with one of these cheaters worth the potential damage I have described above?

Once again, he did not "go sniffin'". SHE came after HIM.

SHE is the one hurting her husband/family, not him. HER other romantic/familial entanglements are not his responsibility.

He said he hooked up with her, he didn't say he was trying to steal her away from him.

Dude...I admire your ideals, but if you think that an engagement ring means ANYTHING when the woman is actively TRYING to cheat, you are living life with blinders on.

It's not necessarily a fault of yours...you haven't interacted with women enough. If you did, you would trust them no further than you could throw them. Yes, even the "quality-women".

 

[5string]

Once again, he did not "go sniffin'". SHE came after HIM.

SHE is the one hurting her husband/family, not him. HER other romantic/familial entanglements are not his responsibility.

He said he hooked up with her, he didn't say he was trying to steal her away from him.

Dude...I admire your ideals, but if you think that an engagement ring means ANYTHING when the woman is actively TRYING to cheat, you are living life with blinders on.

It's not necessarily a fault of yours...you haven't interacted with women enough. If you did, you would trust them no further than you could throw them. Yes, even the "quality-women".

You are right. She came after him. At the point that she did, the OP has a choice. Hit it or don't. Once again, if he does, no good can come of cheating with this less than a woman. I actually think the OP does have a responsibility. That being not to hurt another man, husband, boyfriend or family. Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but have you noted my age? Bet I have been around the block a few more times in life than you have. You don't know enough about my history to make such a statement.

 

[Trader]

I absolutely agree with accountability. I never said anything about "more of a man".

So what do you think of her accountability in the situation?

Of course I hold the girl accountable. What she did was wrong, no doubt, and if I were her father, I would lay the hammer down on her.

But there is a key difference.

Guys lead, girls follow. Guys are supposed to provide a good example for girls.

Therefore, my expectations are higher for guys, I have higher standards for guys.

Just like how the conduct of a teacher is subjugated to a higher standard than the conduct of his students.

"To whom much is given, much is demanded."

 

[Trader]

Of course I hold the girl accountable. What she did was wrong, no doubt, and if I were her father, I would lay the hammer down on her.

But there is a key difference.

Guys lead, girls follow. Guys are supposed to provide a good example for girls.

Therefore, my expectations are higher for guys, I have higher standards for guys.

Just like how the conduct of a teacher is subjugated to a higher standard than the conduct of his students.

"To whom much is given, much is demanded."

What you are effectively saying is that both are accountable.....but men are more accountable.


I call bs. This is a standard feminist argument. The matrix still has you.

Men have always been held to a higher standard than girls, accountability has always been greater for men, but rightly so because men were the leaders, men were the ones who made the big decisions and called the shots. It's like in sports, when the team loses, the superstar gets all the blame.

Today, men are neither leading nor calling the shots, part of it is due to feminism, part of it is due to our own ineptitude. The bottom line is, our power is down, while girl power is up. That is why you feel men should no longer be held more accountable than girls.

To go with the sports analogy: you are the superstar who says: 'Well, if on the last play of the game, my teammate (i.e. the girl) doesn't pass me the ball and give me the last shot, why should I get all the blame if we lose?'

 

[squirrels]

You are right. She came after him. At the point that she did, the OP has a choice. Hit it or don't. Once again, if he does, no good can come of cheating with this less than a woman. I actually think the OP does have a responsibility. That being not to hurt another man, husband, boyfriend or family. Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but have you noted my age? Bet I have been around the block a few more times in life than you have. You don't know enough about my history to make such a statement.

Fair enough. But I'd argue that women behaved somewhat differently 27 years ago. They weren't biologically different, but a wedding ring meant a lot more.

These days, people get married or into relationships often for the wrong reasons. Obviously, if she is looking actively to cheat, the marriage is a sham. It's not an affront for a man to take a woman who is looking to cheat...the disgrace occurred when those two decided to get married/engaged/shacked up in the FIRST place.

Whether it's "worth it" or not...that's debatable. Depends on the circumstances and how (un)involved you can stay.

 

[darkstarrr]

Thanks for all the feedback!

She's almost at the point where she says she loves me. Just waiting for her to drop the hammer on her ex. No we haven't had sex yet. I'm having way too much fun with this to risk prematurely pulling the cord. Plus, this is like fishing for a different kind of fish than the typical rules apply for. If I pressure her or attempt to escalate too early I'll get shut off and I'll lose the fish. This relates to Rollo's initial concern about the extended texting, chat messaging, and phone conversations. Normally I wouldn't waste so much time and would have escalated already. We're talking about a 20 yr old though. Much more groundwork needs to be layed in order for my opportunity with this particular female to come to fruition. It needs to come naturally for her and considering our ages, etc - that's gona take a more unorthodox approach and a little more time than normal.

So far, I'm enjoying this as more of a learning experience than one where sex is the ultimate goal. These days sex is not so difficult to come by, especially if you take care of yourself and have access to the internet! Its passion that is rare. You know that feeling people get when they cuddle? Imagine being able to cause someone to feel that all day long. Does anybody know the name of the chemical released in romantic situations when we were at that age? Adrenaline or something?

Onto the "she's taken"debate.

Squirrels pointed out when I first met her I had no intent to get anything from her. I had other plates (and more importantly I'm at peace with myself), so I didn't feel desperate or have a sense of urgency to aggressively sarge. I accepted that she was unavailable.

Note: what I learned in Lab was that by not showing interest (and having it be genuine) I won over her interest.

Rollo's side of the debate is that consideration needs to be taken for the context of the situation.

She's only 20, engaged in a LTR, but its a LDR where she is unhappy. Her bf (also 20) is barely ever around to do things with her yet she can't do things on her own for the sake of him, so she feels hand-cuffed and finds herself sitting around alone a lot. There are no kids involved.

I'd bet a large % of relationships and marriages start as a branch swing. I believe the scenarios that Jitterbug described where the first branch flips out and does something crazy may occur more often when the female is more deceptive than normal (and bpds etc) or where the guy has his own deep rooted issues.

Granted, my being on that end of the equation is what originally brought me here. It felt like I was in hell. With all the red flags this girl is kicking off, and the fact that nothing has changed in their relationship, doesn't it follow that her ex has had ample opportunity to do something about it?

That being said we've hung out 3 or 4 times now in the 3 weeks we've known each other. Only once by ourselves at the park where I met her dog and the rest of the times were with her girlfriends.

As an interesting side note: I've battled trying to quit cigarettes over the years and have had huge success in the last 3 months. Now that I'm hanging out with girls this hot I find it a lot easier to not smoke. Their breath smells kind of like bubblegum even though they're not chewing gum. Their tits have that visible firmness that tends to disappear in females around 23 or 24. Regardless, I'll report back once we've had sex.

 

[AMDG]

She's only 20, engaged in a LTR, but its a LDR where she is unhappy.

Yet she's not honest enough to end it

 

[Jeffst1980]

I think that both arguments on the engagement issues have some merit, and that, like most things in life, the ethics of it fall into a gray area.

For all intensive purposes, this girl is single. Her behavior is consistent with that of a single woman, not a happily engaged woman. There is no question that if the OP passes this up, she will find another guy to cheat on her fiance with.

But-is there a categorical imperative here? Should the OP pass this up out of principle? It is a tough call; certainly, the socially correct thing to do would be to get the girl to break off the engagement before he hooks up with her. That probably won't happen, though--I'm guessing that part of the appeal to her is the "forbidden" nature of this dalliance. I'd also wager that she'll keep the bf in the dark as long as possible--after all, the insurance of an engagement ring is one hell of a backup plan.

Personally, I wouldn't do it, just because it seems like an awful amount of drama here. Part of me would feel bad for the other dude for investing so much in this chick, too. But, that's just me, and I don't think any of us can point fingers and judge the OP, because in reality, this engagement is a total sham, and that's the fault of the girl, not the OP. Most of the time, you WILL be stealing a girl from another guy in some sense of the word, the only difference is in semantics. None of us can objectively judge what's right or wrong in a situation like this; we can only say what our own principles are.

 

[Trader]

Personally, I wouldn't do it, just because it seems like an awful amount of drama here. Part of me would feel bad for the other dude for investing so much in this chick, too. But, that's just me, and I don't think any of us can point fingers and judge the OP, because in reality, this engagement is a total sham, and that's the fault of the girl, not the OP. Most of the time, you WILL be stealing a girl from another guy in some sense of the word, the only difference is in semantics. None of us can objectively judge what's right or wrong in a situation like this; we can only say what our own principles are.

A distinction to be made here between

1) Stealing a girl from a guy for a long term relationship
2) Stealing a girl from a guy for a one night stand

If you are going to cause that much heartache and disruption, it better be for something a bit more stable and worthwhile than a one night stand. You are taking a relationship from someone else and turning into a one night stand for yourself - that is not progression, that is regression.

Several points....

1. I would always act in a manner where everyone is accountable for their actions, fully. One is not "more guilty" simply by the virtue of having a penis.

In principle, I agree with you.

2. And the "That's how it has always been" is not a valid reason for anything.

I agree, that just because throughout history guys have held more accountable than girls, doesn't necessarily make it right.

But you have to ask yourself, is there something fundamental going on here? For example, if you walk into your daughter having sex with some guy, why is your *instinctive* reaction to place the blame on the guy and then chew him out and throw him out? How come your *first* gut primal reaction isn't to blame the girl?

There is something fundamental and biological going on here. And my only explanation is that nature placed men to be the leaders, and again - to whom much is given, much is demanded (in terms of accountability and responsibility)

Also, even when men were leading, there was considerable cuckolding going on anyways.....that is the nature of women.

No doubt, that was and is the nature of women. But again, we are not women, we are men.

In fact, what you are doing here is alleviating guilt from the woman for following her genetic imperative (alpha genes, beta provider) and placing it on the man for following his (spread the seed).

You are assuming a man's genetic imperative is to impregnate as many females as possible. The implicit assumption is that men are just like animals, and what holds in the animal kingdom can be analogzied to humans. We can discuss this complicated issue another time.

I am not allleviating any guilt from women. Women should be shamed for acting like sluts, but the point is, that is only a stop-gap.

Men by definition are leaders, if you want women to stop being sluts, then you need to stop being a man-wh0re. Otherwise women will say famously: 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander!'

Is the CEO or the entry level worker more accountable? Both should be held accountable, but obviously the CEO's actions impact more people so therefore there is this extra sense of responsibility, the standards of accountability are higher. Men are like the CEOs, our actions reverberate.