Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

Is it acceptable for a married man to call on a single woman after the pub shuts?

526 replies

harman · 08/12/2008 11:21

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
noiamnot · 10/12/2008 11:31

@ qs.

I am frequently out and have both male and femal companionship. Some of them married, some not.

cestlavie · 10/12/2008 11:31

Just to try and interject a note of seasonal calm and joy, and a guy's point of view....

The honest (and sensible) answer is that it very much depends on the situation and the guy. What to me, at least, is key in this type of situation is whether (a) you trust yourself to go on somewhere and for nothing to happen (b) whether you think your partner would be okay with you doing so and (c) whether you think you'd be leading anyone else by doing so. For me, (a) and (b) are pretty straightforward - I'm not going to be unfaithful regardless of the situation and DW trusts me not to be unfaithful regardless of the situation (and ditto me with her). The only question then in deciding whether to go on somewhere is whether you think you'd be leading someone on, which wouldn't be nice and would probably lead to a difficult situation further down the line.

And just before anyone asks, no, I've never been unfaithful and yes, I'm equally happy for DW to do likewise. If you trust someone, you trust someone.

Incidentally, it does drive me slightly insane in the notion that men and women can't be friends. Not only is it utterly wrong but it is one of those insidious thoughts designed to make life just that little bit more sad and depressing.

lou33 · 10/12/2008 11:31

can someone explain to me why it matters if it was a flat or a house they were having coffee on?

i have a bungalow, how confusing would that be?

FioFio · 10/12/2008 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

twitteringbirds · 10/12/2008 11:32

Yes, it would've been a different thread.

Because it would've had a different Op and it wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

But my response would've been something along the lines of, "Do you trust your husband and if not, why are you with him?"

lou33 · 10/12/2008 11:32

or even in

QueenTinselShadow · 10/12/2008 11:32

Really. Some are married? You hang out with married men? Their wives could then post your "aibu suggestion" below.

QueenTinselShadow · 10/12/2008 11:33

Lou33, imagine throwing in an apartment into it..... A riverside one, which is lit up by blue lights.... This is bonkers.

twitteringbirds · 10/12/2008 11:34

Cestlavie - YES - if you trust someone, you trust them.

Not "I trust you if you're not doing anything remotely tempting" - that's not trust, that's being on a v short leash with a mean-spirited twerp at the other end. Mmm, appealing...

noiamnot · 10/12/2008 11:34

if you have read the thread you will see that I do not and would not think it appropriate for them to come back to my house after pub closed if they were someone I barely knew (which is, in fact, the case here). established friendships are different.

lou33 · 10/12/2008 11:36

cor i wouldnt mind a riverside apartment with blue lights

i want to live with harman

Blu · 10/12/2008 11:37

Well, you know, next time Harman - of her friend - see this man - the SINGLE one that is, he might well be even more 'freindly'.

Anyone would think that courteous attempts by single men to get to know single women was in some way bad behaviour. The married man was there with his SINGLE mate, you know!

I am happy everyone has the relationship that suits them - but honestly, Daftpunk, the model of coupledom based on 'my DH is the only male company I need and want' is bizarre to me. I have many male friends, DP has many female friends, all for what they offer as friends. How sad to cut yourself off from half the human race to satisfay some notion of 'respect' - when you have no intention of undermining your relationship, anyway.

In fact, reading some of the posts on this thread, I genuinely wonder why peole get so het up about muslim families who practice - or demand from their womwn - the same kind of self-imposed purdah or lack of contact between the sexes that some of you are advocating.

Remember: THE MARRIED MAN WAS WITH HIS SINGLE FRIEND. Maybe HE was the chaperone, not the hopeful.

HolyGuacamole · 10/12/2008 11:39

I don't think (most) peoples notions of respect are misguided. I just think they are different from yours and what is wrong with that? Everyones definition of what they consider to be 'respectful' could be different and does that make one person right and another person wrong? Or does it just mean that we are all different and there's nothing really wrong with that if we are having nice, mutually happy relationships

All this talk of suffragettes and voting....it's way beyond what the OP was asking and I can't believe some of the assumptions that are being made outwith the details given by the OP....

turquoise · 10/12/2008 11:41

That's fair enough, noiamnot - FOR YOU.

The level of spite you have directed at harman, because she does not share that viewpoint, is not.

You persist in making insidious comments about the decorations, as though the mention of them was actually secret code for "fuck my brains out" - just pointing out to you where people are seeing an attack on Harman, which you refuse to take responsibility for and insist that actually you are the one being persecuted. (Change your name all you like, plus ca change...)

Blu · 10/12/2008 11:43

House, apartment, bungalow....It's a 'LOVE NEST'!

noiamnot · 10/12/2008 11:46

change my name?

twitteringbirds · 10/12/2008 11:47

HG, threads develop.

This one developed into a divide between those who thought merely talking to another man was some sort of scarlet behaviour and those who thought what the OP had done was perfectly fine.

Hence the discussion about values of yore and what the suffragettes did for us - because that was what some posters seemed to be harking back to (this notion that women should only talk to their husband or their father or brother).

notdoingthehousework · 10/12/2008 11:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Blu · 10/12/2008 11:49

Harman - truly, I don't think this thread is about you, but it is about what you put on the table in your thread title - what IS acceptable decorum in post sexual revolution, post feminist, neo-Victorian Britain?

Actually, I do understand that some couples, having experienced crises of fidelity, may well be operating under 'heavy manners' and have understandings about contact. I understand why some people have responses base on bitter experience, and none of my pov on this thread has specifically been about those circmstances. I just think that if we are ever going to be able to act like self-determining grown-ups we need to be able to conduct ourselves reasonably - and believe that others will.

lou33 · 10/12/2008 11:50

love nest? swingers palace? i think we should be told where the baubles came from, it could be imperative to the way the conversation swings

FioFio · 10/12/2008 11:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

FioFio · 10/12/2008 11:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

daftpunk · 10/12/2008 11:51

there is nothing wrong in chatting to people in pubs/clubs/wherever..it's when you take that further by going back to their house that a line is crossed imo.

Blu · 10/12/2008 11:52

Anyway, harman - the thread is really about the man, and married people - NOT you.

It is about how we negotiate understand and perceive other contact once hooked up in a monogamous relationship, not about how a single woman should spend her time.

twitteringbirds · 10/12/2008 11:54

Daftpunk, when you said it was about giving random people in pubs your time, I thought you meant any time at all. I'm sure you can see why.

I can understand not wanting to go back to someone's house. But I can also see that there's nothing remotely sinister about doing it - if, as cestlavie put it, you trust the person. Because then you'll trust them anywhere, won't you?