I joined a website looking for no strings sex

[darin]

Fantastic and interesting article about a single man who dips into the world of online-hook ups, for married folk seeking adultery. I found it particularly sad, really. I can imagine the pain and frustration the women are hiding. I feel compassion for them.


the email is short and to the point. "I want a man with a personality and looks to take my breath away."

These are the requirements of the dark-haired, dark-eyed, 37-year-old Asian beauty who has sent me her romantic wish list.

Reading it on my laptop in the aptly named Cafe Affaire in central London, I consider what she really wants: a no-strings-attached sexual relationship.

What I don't know is how her husband will feel about it.

Aside from the little matter of her marital status, she also believes I have a wife, but she doesn't care. She wants instant gratification even though we've exchanged only a few words online.

But in the modern world, in which the internet has become a vehicle for all manner of impropriety, she regards this kind of behaviour as perfectly acceptable.

We have encountered one another via an internet dating service established for the sole purpose of enabling married people to commit adultery.

It may sound like an unpleasant niche website for a handful of amoral people to whom wedding vows never meant very much. But it claims to have more than 100,000 members in the UK.

Many of them are middle-class, many have young children. And all of them are looking for an opportunity to betray their spouses.

As a single man, I don't qualify. But I wanted to find out what sort of woman uses such a site. So I paid £119 for a month's membership, giving me an entre to thousands of faithless females. They are allowed to sign up for free as a way of ensuring the numbers are balanced between the sexes.

I register, and enter the murky world of two-timing technology, taking note of the warning on the site: "Not all affairs have a positive effect on a marriage." What a masterpiece of understatement. I wonder if anyone has ever read this, seen the wisdom of it and decided not to join.

I create my online "profile". "I'm witty, charming, handsome and modest, and I'm kind to animals," I write, hoping this description will have a fairly broad appeal, and also include a recent photograph.

Your picture can be viewed only if you give a password to the person with whom you are conversing. The idea is presumably to safeguard people from searching for their own spouses on the site - though how a husband would explain to his errant wife how he came to stumble across her picture on a website for adulterers, I don't know.

In order to fit in with the general ethos of the website I have invented a wife. Our relationship, I note, has suffered because we don't spend enough time together (not surprising really, since she doesn't exist).

After a quick search, I get the measure of the women on the site. "My preference is for a man who is much younger than me with rugged features," says one.

Postings such as: "I want a man who can look after me and knows how to treat a woman. Must be solvent," are also commonplace.

It's not long before I receive a "virtual kiss". This is a way of paying someone a compliment without typing out the words. It's the cyber equivalent of a wolf whistle.

And over the course of a week I get almost 100 replies, messages and propositions.

I'm surprised and unsettled by the forward tone of some of the material. One woman sends me a message heavily laden with sexual innuendo and I come to regard her as the mistress of the single entendre.

"What are you into?" she asks, archly. Determined to avoid the connotations, I reply: "The Beatles." I never hear from her again.

Another woman's first contact with me included a plan for a day out together, including visits to art galleries, a stroll round a park and then "a few hours under the duvet". I didn't even know her name.

I'm later propositioned by someone who tells me she has an hourglass figure. Her photograph reveals that the hour has stretched to 90 minutes.

I'm already starting to feel like I've had enough of this experiment. But if I'm going to find out what really makes these women tick, I need to leave the safety of the virtual world and see them for myself.
I arrange to meet a 41-year-old mother of two who misses "romance and flirting", in a cafe in two days' time.

She has declined to tell me her name, so I have to think of her as her web sobriquet. This is how I find myself waiting for "Sophia Loren".

She seems rather on edge and sends me a text message at the time we're due to meet asking why I'm using the website. I reply, telling her to come over and ask me face to face.

She turns up, a blonde with lipstick on her teeth. She looks furtively around and asks me if I'm nervous. I say that if she stops twitching, I'll calm down. There is tension in the air like North and South Korea coming together to hammer out a treaty.

Suddenly the realisation of how odd it is to meet a stranger with the express intention of having an affair dawns on me. Romeo and Juliet it is not. It's more like Alan Sugar interviewing an apprentice.

But she is an old hand at this type of encounter and tells me she's met many men through the site, and that I was probably the only one who hadn't lied about my age.

"Sophia" tells me she thinks relationships have a shelf life of about ten years before boredom sets in, but that she stays married to ensure her children have a stable home.

After discussing how mundane marriages become and avoiding questions about my personal life, it's clear we're past our sell-by date after ten minutes, never mind ten years.

There is zero chemistry. She doesn't want to discuss her husband, and I feel uneasy talking to her. Despite this, she still seems keen to flirt with me.

In the end, we agree to part and she wishes me luck and assures me I'll find the perfect paramour. So much for raging passion. This was like having a meeting with a new accountant with a helping of self-disgust thrown in.

Later on I'm perplexed when she sends me two flirty text messages. Reading between the lines, I suspect she wants to meet again.

more at link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=486933&in_page_id=1879

[diuretic]

The tone of the piece is a bit off, highly judgemental, but then it's pretty obvious that the journalist isn't interested in anything but a superficial analysis, a bit of tittilation for the readership. Of course the journalist has to start of being condemnatory about the whole process lest the readership (which is quite conservative, the Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper) get upset. There are a few truths just in that extract that bear examination, but I suspect the journalist isn't interested in exploring them.

Interesting though. I don't know about sad. I think it's just how life is for some people.

[darin]

The tone of the piece is a bit off, highly judgemental, but then it's pretty obvious that the journalist isn't interested in anything but a superficial analysis, a bit of tittilation for the readership. Of course the journalist has to start of being condemnatory about the whole process lest the readership (which is quite conservative, the Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper) get upset. There are a few truths just in that extract that bear examination, but I suspect the journalist isn't interested in exploring them.

Interesting though. I don't know about sad. I think it's just how life is for some people.



It's an opinion piece...not 'reporting' per se. :)

[mrg666]

ill bet he went back for some
no that was very good a good find dmp:clap:

[Abbey Marie]

The tone of the piece is a bit off, highly judgemental, but then it's pretty obvious that the journalist isn't interested in anything but a superficial analysis, a bit of tittilation for the readership. Of course the journalist has to start of being condemnatory about the whole process lest the readership (which is quite conservative, the Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper) get upset. There are a few truths just in that extract that bear examination, but I suspect the journalist isn't interested in exploring them.

Interesting though. I don't know about sad. I think it's just how life is for some people.

You don't find it sad that people cheat on their spouses, break their vows, and risk their children's emotional stability for sex with a stranger?

[diuretic]

It's an opinion piece...not 'reporting' per se. :)

That's quite true but with respect that doesn't invalidate my points.

[diuretic]

You don't find it sad that people cheat on their spouses, break their vows, and risk their children's emotional stability for sex with a stanger?

I wasn't seeing it in that light. It occurred to me that these people have a lot missing in their lives that they have to find some sort of fleeting fulfillment by hooking up for what amounts to anonymous sex. That's sad. Being trapped in a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. That they find themselves unable to get out of what is apparently a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. When the children have grown up and left home the parents will probably divorce after years of unhappiness (of at least one spouse, possibly two), I find that sad.

[Abbey Marie]

I wasn't seeing it in that light. It occurred to me that these people have a lot missing in their lives that they have to find some sort of fleeting fulfillment by hooking up for what amounts to anonymous sex. That's sad. Being trapped in a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. That they find themselves unable to get out of what is apparently a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. When the children have grown up and left home the parents will probably divorce after years of unhappiness (of at least one spouse, possibly two), I find that sad.

My reading of the article was that these women aren't in loveless, sexless marriages. To a woman, they seemed to looking for affairs to add excitement, spice, etc., to their lives.

[avatar4321]

I wasn't seeing it in that light. It occurred to me that these people have a lot missing in their lives that they have to find some sort of fleeting fulfillment by hooking up for what amounts to anonymous sex. That's sad. Being trapped in a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. That they find themselves unable to get out of what is apparently a loveless, sexless marriage is sad. When the children have grown up and left home the parents will probably divorce after years of unhappiness (of at least one spouse, possibly two), I find that sad.

No one is trapped in any sort of marriage. most just refuse to make the effort to make it last.

[diuretic]

My reading of the article was that these women aren't in loveless, sexless marriages. To a woman, they seemed to looking for affairs to add excitement, spice, etc., to their lives.

That's a good point. One entry referred to "romance and flirting". I'm going to step into the ring here but what the hell.

We know that the initial phases of a relationship are exciting and pleasurable. Physiologically we're firing hormones around like a drunken Blackwater mercenary on a Saturday night in downtown Baghdad. That's how we operate. Fireworks and hearts and flowers. That lasts, a year? A couple of years? It certainly settles down when the kids come along. For men it's not so bad, they get regular sex but for a woman (I'm a man so I am now speculating) there's a hankering for the romance of courtship. If a couple can bring up the kids and still be lustful lovers and if the husband can be an old softy romantic that's terrific, they are very lucky. But for many people marriage becomes a drudgery. Sex is a duty (for men as well as women at times) and the hard work of bringing up the kids and paying the mortgage can make romance difficult. So people stray. Men look for the excitement of sex while women (bash me, I'm stereotyping) look for the excitement of illicit romance (okay, women like the thrill of illict sex as wel).

It's sad that they can't find happiness together. But it's sometimes just one of those things.

[diuretic]

No one is trapped in any sort of marriage. most just refuse to make the effort to make it last.

Never heard of "staying together for the sake of the kids"?

[Yurt]

Never heard of "staying together for the sake of the kids"?

That comment does not negate his. That is like saying:

No one bothers to try and make an effort to eat healthy.

Never heard of "I don't have time so I eat fast food so that I my survive."

[Yurt]

I'm sorry, but this was funny:

"
What are you into?" she asks, archly. Determined to avoid the connotations, I reply: "The Beatles." I never hear from her again.

[Abbey Marie]

That's a good point. One entry referred to "romance and flirting". I'm going to step into the ring here but what the hell.

We know that the initial phases of a relationship are exciting and pleasurable. Physiologically we're firing hormones around like a drunken Blackwater mercenary on a Saturday night in downtown Baghdad. That's how we operate. Fireworks and hearts and flowers. That lasts, a year? A couple of years? It certainly settles down when the kids come along. For men it's not so bad, they get regular sex but for a woman (I'm a man so I am now speculating) there's a hankering for the romance of courtship. If a couple can bring up the kids and still be lustful lovers and if the husband can be an old softy romantic that's terrific, they are very lucky. But for many people marriage becomes a drudgery. Sex is a duty (for men as well as women at times) and the hard work of bringing up the kids and paying the mortgage can make romance difficult. So people stray. Men look for the excitement of sex while women (bash me, I'm stereotyping) look for the excitement of illicit romance (okay, women like the thrill of illict sex as wel).

It's sad that they can't find happiness together. But it's sometimes just one of those things.

If people simply cannot live with the (IMO) normal waxing and waning of sexual excitement over the years, perhaps they should divorce. It seems less hurtful than cheating on their own spouse, plus possibly breaking up their lover's marriage.

I've said elsewhere that people should not marry until they are past the infatuation stage and the person still seems great to them. Then I think they have a better chance of marrying for more than exciting sex, and the marriage might just weather the usually inevitable sexual doldrums.

[darin]

My wife and I married without ANY sex and it's been rough. SOMETIMES I think or wonder "If we'd done it, would we have gotten married in the first place?"

I tried to marry her for the RIGHT reasons - not out of attraction or hormones, but out of good-reasoning. Not very romantic I know... :-/

[gabosaurus]

My wife and I married without ANY sex and it's been rough. SOMETIMES I think or wonder "If we'd done it, would we have gotten married in the first place?"

I tried to marry her for the RIGHT reasons - not out of attraction or hormones, but out of good-reasoning. Not very romantic I know... :-/

Another validation why this is a bad idea. Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? Wouldn't you want to kick the tires and look under the hood?
My car was thoroughly tested before I bought it. That is why it performs so well. :)

[darin]

Another validation why this is a bad idea. Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? Wouldn't you want to kick the tires and look under the hood?
My car was thoroughly tested before I bought it. That is why it performs so well. :)

and you call ME immoral? Weird.

[diuretic]

That comment does not negate his. That is like saying:

No one bothers to try and make an effort to eat healthy.

Never heard of "I don't have time so I eat fast food so that I my survive."

Okay, let's take a closer look.

The first claim is No one is trapped in any sort of marriage.

That's such a blanket statement that it has no force at all. It's easily defeated. There are so many people trapped in marriage for various reasons that I hesitate to make the point as it's so obvious. But let me give you an example. Some years ago I was called, by myself, to a drive-in theatre in an outback town. In the kitchen of the cafeteria a woman had a very large knife and was threatening to harm herself. I'll cut a long story short - she gave me the knife. Not long after that we started getting calls from the neighbours that she was being brutalised by her husband. We would turn up but she would refuse to press charges (and in those days the law was clumsy and ineffective and there was nothing we could do). One evening as I was coming back from a basketball game I played in, still in my tracksuit, the phone rang. It was the hospital. The woman was there, dead. I headed up there and saw her husband outside. I went in and saw she was dead. She had bruising on every single part of her body. I went outside and told her husband she was dead. He was arrested and charged with murder. He was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter.

That woman was trapped in that marriage. The statement that no one is trapped in any sort of marriage. is breathtakingly naieve.

Second claim


most just refuse to make the effort to make it last.

Is defeated by my first argument.

[diuretic]

If people simply cannot live with the (IMO) normal waxing and waning of sexual excitement over the years, perhaps they should divorce. It seems less hurtful than cheating on their own spouse, plus possibly breaking up their lover's marriage.

I've said elsewhere that people should not marry until they are past the infatuation stage and the person still seems great to them. Then I think they have a better chance of marrying for more than exciting sex, and the marriage might just weather the usually inevitable sexual doldrums.

I agree with your point about divorce. Some just won't do it of course and there could be many reasons for that. For a woman it might be financial instability (particularly if she's not working or been out of the workforce for some time). For a man it might be the fear of being alone. I don't know what keeps people together when they no longer have love or even pleasant companionship with one another.

And yes, you are absolutely right on the infatuation stage.

[Said1]

and you call ME immoral? Weird.


No. You're weird. I mean, who cares about you future wife's values and stuff. BORING. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

=diuretic;138348]Okay, let's take a closer look.

The first claim is No one is trapped in any sort of marriage.

That's such a blanket statement that it has no force at all. It's easily defeated. There are so many people trapped in marriage for various reasons that I hesitate to make the point as it's so obvious. But let me give you an example. Some years ago I was called, by myself, to a drive-in theatre in an outback town. In the kitchen of the cafeteria a woman had a very large knife and was threatening to harm herself. I'll cut a long story short - she gave me the knife. Not long after that we started getting calls from the neighbours that she was being brutalised by her husband. We would turn up but she would refuse to press charges (and in those days the law was clumsy and ineffective and there was nothing we could do). One evening as I was coming back from a basketball game I played in, still in my tracksuit, the phone rang. It was the hospital. The woman was there, dead. I headed up there and saw her husband outside. I went in and saw she was dead. She had bruising on every single part of her body. I went outside and told her husband she was dead. He was arrested and charged with murder. He was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter.

That woman was trapped in that marriage. The statement that no one is trapped in any sort of marriage. is breathtakingly naieve.

I don't believe so. If this was not the first act, she had the choice to walk away. If this was the first act, then your analogy is puzzling at best. How is an abusive one time act a "trap?" Further, if it was not the first time, she "chose" the trap, thus, she was not trapped. Most importantly, no one ever believes their spouse is going to kill them.

This kind of gruesome behavior also happens to those who are NOT married. The analogy is very weak, if only for just the fact that what you claim is a trap also happens to non married people.


Second claim


most just refuse to make the effort to make it last.

Is defeated by my first argument

Again, I disagree. If she was being continually beaten, she should have walked away. She "just refused to make the effort." Walking away might have made it last, he might have changed. I am not blaming her, but it is possible.

Further, I again think your analogy is way off as we are talking about emotional issues, not physical torture. They are very, very different issues and the symptons are FAR different. Abuse and emotional and/or sexual discontent should not be compared by any stretch of the imagination. IMO.

[avatar4321]

Another validation why this is a bad idea. Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? Wouldn't you want to kick the tires and look under the hood?
My car was thoroughly tested before I bought it. That is why it performs so well. :)

glad to know that those you claim to care about are nother but machines to you.

[diuretic]

I don't believe so. If this was not the first act, she had the choice to walk away. If this was the first act, then your analogy is puzzling at best. How is an abusive one time act a "trap?" Further, if it was not the first time, she "chose" the trap, thus, she was not trapped. Most importantly, no one ever believes their spouse is going to kill them.


This kind of gruesome behavior also happens to those who are NOT married. The analogy is very weak, if only for just the fact that what you claim is a trap also happens to non married people.



Again, I disagree. If she was being continually beaten, she should have walked away. She "just refused to make the effort." Walking away might have made it last, he might have changed. I am not blaming her, but it is possible.

Further, I again think your analogy is way off as we are talking about emotional issues, not physical torture. They are very, very different issues and the symptons are FAR different. Abuse and emotional and/or sexual discontent should not be compared by any stretch of the imagination. IMO.

On the surface she had the choice to walk away but when examined further it's clear she had no real choice at all. This was in 1974. The town was very isolated and had minimal social services. Back then the law was a very clumsy instrument to use in these cases and not much help to her. She had three children, she held two jobs while her husband pretended to work as an opal miner. She was from Yugoslavia, she had no relations here in Australia bar her husband. I know I have the advantage using this example because I saw it happen, but I still maintain my point. She was trapped and she couldn't leave. It does happen.

[diuretic]

glad to know that those you claim to care about are nother but machines to you.

It's just a metaphor, nothing wrong with that.

[darin]

But it's a horrible metaphor. it's an example of a society who doesn't put much stock into sex being anything other than a physical action. :(

[diuretic]

But it's a horrible metaphor. it's an example of a society who doesn't put much stock into sex being anything other than a physical action. :(

Sex can be whatever someone want it to be. Sometimes it's monkey sex, sometimes it's loving sex, sometimes it's boring and dutiful sex and so on. As long as it's not forced sex then the context is up to the participants.

[darin]

No - it can't. Sex joins people, psychologically.

[Abbey Marie]

Sex can be whatever someone want it to be. Sometimes it's monkey sex, sometimes it's loving sex, sometimes it's boring and dutiful sex and so on. As long as it's not forced sex then the context is up to the participants.

How could you forget the best of all? "Make up after a fight" sex.

[avatar4321]

No - it can't. Sex joins people, psychologically.

Which is why its moral skizophrenia to join with someone only to withdrawal from them in all other aspects of life.

[Yurt]

Which is why its moral skizophrenia to join with someone only to withdrawal from them in all other aspects of life.

I don't agree. Maybe that aspect is the most important. I highly doubt that any relationship doesn't have private aspects of life. No matter how open we are, we (most marriages) are always a mind in a body that is doing its best to share everything possible with someone else. It is impossible to share "all" aspects.

[diuretic]

No - it can't. Sex joins people, psychologically.

It can but that doesn't mean it does.

[diuretic]

How could you forget the best of all? "Make up after a fight" sex.

:laugh2:

I did forget....jeez talk about my being dense :coffee:

[Hugh Lincoln]

But what is shocking is the cold and calculating approach of these women, and the assumption that secret meetings with a married man can cure all the ills they see in their own families.


The women who use this website want romance, but these three meetings seemed utterly unromantic to me.


When we met, most of them acted as if they were prepared to go to bed with me on the first meeting, and for that they were willing to risk wrecking their own home life and mine.

Men are brought up to believe that it is we who relentlessly seek sex, that we are the ones who can separate the emotional from the physical.


But judging from the women I encountered, they have learned how to cast off their marriage vows and their love for their children, and risk it all for the sake of a liaison with a man they may never see again. What a triumph for our times.

I remember when I was dating as a young man, thinking at first that women were these innocent, fragile creatures. Turns out, nope. They're evil in ways you can't imagine. In many ways, they're colder and more calculating than men.

I do wonder, though: so many marriages end up sexless. But there is tremendous value in keeping them going, for kids and other reasons. But sexlessness is so unnatural, and in some states, grounds for divorce itself (say your spouse refuses sex totally). Is divorce the only moral solution to that? That's hard to believe. Maybe the French are on to something here with their discreet affairs, I don't know. The big issue is the "innocent" spouse... you are essentially lying to them. But what if you weren't? I can think of a few marriages where there wasn't an open deal, but... both kinda knew what was going on.

My uncle cheated on my aunt, with his secretary. But the thing is, even in my Catholic (side of the) family, nobody cared. In fact, they even said she was asking for it. And they supported HIM. Go figure.

[darin]

It can but that doesn't mean it does.

Your opinion doesn't change truth. Whether somebody admits it or not, when they have sex with another, it joins them together. It binds them. It only furthers moral bankruptcy and makes it more difficult to realize they've lost a bit of themselves. :(

[diuretic]

Your opinion doesn't change truth. Whether somebody admits it or not, when they have sex with another, it joins them together. It binds them. It only furthers moral bankruptcy and makes it more difficult to realize they've lost a bit of themselves. :(

Newsflash - there is no "truth" about this. If A pays for sex with B the only joining is by whatever appendages they happen to be using for sexual congress. A can walk away completely undamaged and quite satisfied, B can look at a bit more money in the bank account. Like it or not that's how it can be. It all depends on context.

[darin]

Those who are spiritually dead are unable to discern spiritual turth. :-/

[diuretic]

Those who are spiritually dead are unable to discern spiritual turth. :-/

Stop the sanctimonious bullshit. If you want a personal dig then bloody well take one and don't hide behind religion.

[darin]

Stop the sanctimonious bullshit. If you want a personal dig then bloody well take one and don't hide behind religion.

There's NO DIG there. It's truth. Basic truth. You will NEVER understand what I mean by one loses a piece of their soul with each illicit encounter until you acknowledge a 'soul' exists in the first place.

[diuretic]

There's NO DIG there. It's truth. Basic truth. You will NEVER understand what I mean by one loses a piece of their soul with each illicit encounter until you acknowledge a 'soul' exists in the first place.

Spare me the lecture. None of it is "truth", basic or regular or even the advanced model. It might be your belief but that doesn't make it objective truth. Your opinion is that someone loses a piece of their soul and so on, but your opinion isn't truth.

[darin]

The fact that it's my opinion doesn't negate the fact what I happen to believe is absolute truth. It's your opinion it's wrong. Your disbelief doesn't make it untrue.

[diuretic]

The fact that it's my opinion doesn't negate the fact what I happen to believe is absolute truth. It's your opinion it's wrong. Your disbelief doesn't make it untrue.

It's a fact that you hold a belief. It's a fact that you hold that your belief is absolute truth. But that isn't proof that your belief is absolute truth.

My opinion is irrelevant. My opinion has no effect on your belief, just as your belief has no effect on the objective truth of your belief.

[darin]

You are intitled to your opinion. If you were an American I'd further that by saying "...and I gave years of my life to actively protect your right, and still work to do so." Since you are not, I'll simply say :beer:

:)

[diuretic]

Just clearing up a few things - you're entitled to your belief but you're not entitled to portray your belief as objective truth, just as I'm not entitled to portray my belief as an objective truth. Both of us are going to get jumped on if we try it.

[darin]

But what if my belief is objective truth?

[glockmail]

Fantastic and interesting article about a single man who dips into the world of online-hook ups, for married folk seeking adultery. I found it particularly sad, really. I can imagine the pain and frustration the women are hiding. I feel compassion for them. I don't think that's compassion that you're feeling. :lol:

[diuretic]

But what if my belief is objective truth?

Then you're the beneficiary of a happy coincidence ;)

Objective truth stands apart from any belief because it needs no faith, it just is.

[Dilloduck]

Just clearing up a few things - you're entitled to your belief but you're not entitled to portray your belief as objective truth, just as I'm not entitled to portray my belief as an objective truth. Both of us are going to get jumped on if we try it.

People are entitled to lie. Who are you kidding?

[Psychoblues]

I'm not surprised that you would attempt to join a "no strings attached" sex club, dmp. Masturbation seems to be your only outlet of sexual satisfaction both on the board and off.

Jerk off on this: :pee:

[darin]

I'm not surprised that you would attempt to join a "no strings attached" sex club, dmp. Masturbation seems to be your only outlet of sexual satisfaction both on the board and off.

Jerk off on this: :pee:

See you in 6 months.

[diuretic]

People are entitled to lie. Who are you kidding?

Not in court or in affidavits etc, but that's not what you're on about I know. People can lie, of course they can. They're also free to lie to themselves. Many do.