Here's a post-Humpday question.
Posted by
Mop (227 lbs) (aka rburriel)
Feb 18 '10, 11:04
|
If you spouse/partner reports having been emotionally involved - but not PHYSICALLY - with another person ("But it's over now"), is that better or worse than physical contact with another person with no emotional involvement?
For instance, Tiger Woods says "Sure I fucked them, but I didn't love them." Or "Tiger Woods says, I loved them but I didn't fuck them."
Mop
|
Responses:
-
define "emotionally involved" -- nm
-
znufrii
Feb 18, 11:15
2
- [deleted]
1
-
I think the broken trust of either act is more concerning the comparing the degree of wrong of either. (nm)
-
musubi
Feb 18, 11:11
4
-
except for the potential disease aspect, emotional is worse. -- nm
-
b.
Feb 18, 11:10
-
emotional is worse -- nm
-
Andie
Feb 18, 11:09
-
I would prefer she get drunk and let some stranger nail her than develop feelings for some local guy...
-
Dr.Vermin
Feb 18, 11:08
1
-
emotional would be worse - I can only speak for myself
-
Epiphany
Feb 18, 11:08
-
Better. -- nm
-
Loyola
Feb 18, 11:08
-
one penis enters vagina, the "why" becomes irrelevant -- nm
-
poochinski
Feb 18, 11:05
-
Also, I can't wait for the Tiger Woods 2010 minigames! I hope EA contracts Rockstar to develop it! -- nm
-
Mop (227 lbs)
Feb 18, 11:04
2
|