-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Would you knowingly sleep with a married woman?
- Thread starter Pimpwerx
- Start date
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
Yes, I would sleep with a married woman.
Warm Machine
Member
I had the chance on 2 occasions and turned it down. Hard to do but I wouldn't have wanted to be the husband hearing about it later. As it turned out he was fucking around on her anyway and I could have done it guilt free if I knew the whole story but I'm still pretty happy I didn't go for it.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
This is my take on the whole thing
if you are married, it is your responsibility to remain faithful, no one elses. you made the vow, you made the commitment, you need to keep it. Anyone elses intentions and actions are completely irrelevant, it all comes down to you.
If you do single, then you have no commitments to anyone, you are free to live and enjoy the single life, and fuck anyone who is willing to fuck you. That is the beauty of being single, the freedom. You have made no vow, so why should you accept any responsibility for a promise someone else made to some other guy? You shouldnt.
Here is a scenario for you that highlights what I mean. You are a single guy in a bar, and you see this hot chick. You go up to her and start a conversation, and offer to buy her a drink. She smiles, accepts and starts flirting with you. Things are looking pretty good, and you think youre a definite shoe-in. Next thing you know this big guy comes up and thumps you one for hitting on his wife. Whats wrong with this scenario?? You did nothing wrong! You didnt know she was married (and even if you did so what) you are single and you are free to hit on anyone you choose. It is her responsibility to set the boundaries and do the right thing, she is the married one, SHE is the one doing the wrong thing, not you. What should happen in this scenario is the guy gets his wife and deals with the issue with her, not your responsibility.
This goes for flirting, kissing, having sex, whatever... it's the married person's responsibility and they should take all the blame. It is not the responsibility of the single guy, it is not his commitment.
If you do single, then you have no commitments to anyone, you are free to live and enjoy the single life, and fuck anyone who is willing to fuck you. That is the beauty of being single, the freedom. You have made no vow, so why should you accept any responsibility for a promise someone else made to some other guy? You shouldnt.
Here is a scenario for you that highlights what I mean. You are a single guy in a bar, and you see this hot chick. You go up to her and start a conversation, and offer to buy her a drink. She smiles, accepts and starts flirting with you. Things are looking pretty good, and you think youre a definite shoe-in. Next thing you know this big guy comes up and thumps you one for hitting on his wife. Whats wrong with this scenario?? You did nothing wrong! You didnt know she was married (and even if you did so what) you are single and you are free to hit on anyone you choose. It is her responsibility to set the boundaries and do the right thing, she is the married one, SHE is the one doing the wrong thing, not you. What should happen in this scenario is the guy gets his wife and deals with the issue with her, not your responsibility.
This goes for flirting, kissing, having sex, whatever... it's the married person's responsibility and they should take all the blame. It is not the responsibility of the single guy, it is not his commitment.
The lunch lady was also married, but she was kinda seperated, so it doesn't really count. It's a free for all, like the animal kingdom. This is how god had planned it.
olimario: So no adultery, but taking pics of unknowing eye-rape victims is better? Ah the subjective gaze of morality. PEACE.
olimario: So no adultery, but taking pics of unknowing eye-rape victims is better? Ah the subjective gaze of morality. PEACE.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I've had the pleasure of knocking off a chick who was/still engaged. He knocked off some other chick, they broke up, I came, saw and came then he popped back in the picture. She's not married but damn near is. It was a sticky situation when he showed up at 4am knocking on her door. It's retarded for me to be even involved. Especially when there are other options but what can I say, she has me hooked. To answer the question, I would mess with a married woman only if she was hot. Not under any other circumstances. To pimpw, I feel you man.
Meh. I don't buy into the "if you're single you're free to fuck anyone" argument. It takes two to tango, plain and simple. If a guy truly doesn't know he's hooking up with a married woman and he gets threatened/abused/beat down/shot/etc, then yeah, that sucks, and it's not really fair. I can sympathize. However, if he goes into knowingly... eh, different story. You play with fire, you roll the dice... if you get burned (or get the shit kicked out of you, or stabbed a few times), don't fucking cry about it.
I don't understand the whole "No, because I wouldn't want my wife doing it to me" stance. Not just because karma is a load of crap (obviously), but you guys make it sound like the wife has no say in it. I wouldn't want to marry a cheating woman, and if I did I'd probably rather find out sooner than later.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Cold-Steel said:
I would divorce her ass, win custody of the children (if there were any), and she'd have nothing. In fact, she would have to pay child support (even though many females in this situation are deadbeat moms).
I wouldn't kick the guy's ass because he's just trying to get a piece. He doesn't know (or care) who I am and its not his business to play Private Investigator. If she fucks him, its all on her. He has 0% responsibility in the matter.
The question then would be to pose what if she was my friend or relative? I'd rather her fuck a relative or a friend because I know that she was a selfish idiot who thinks with her vagina instead of her brain. That way we can laugh and have a beer celebrating that fortunately I was able to see what she really was before she went with someone else, divorced my ass, and left me fucked.
Gorgie said:
No, it wasn't, because she ignored the title of the thread, which was whether one would knowingly sleep with a married woman. She sidestepped the pertinent issue entirely. And as far as that question goes, I'd just like to say that there is a metric fuckload of morally vacant people here on GAF; the responsibility in such a scenario does indeed lie with both people. Just because one person (the married partner) "doesn't know any better" (i.e., is acting unscrupulously) doesn't mean that, if we do know better (and make no mistake-- everyone here condoning this realizes on some level that it's wrong), we should indulge them or allow them to continue down that path with us as willing accomplices. Only idiots would do such a thing, and only even bigger idiots would try to rationalize it.
I must say, quite honestly, that the level of moral turpitude displayed on this board is frequently quite shocking. Nobody's perfect, yes, but many here wallow in their imperfection, and it's repulsive. Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt you will be. Just keep doing whatever makes you feel good. Peace, love...
Oh yeah, and I hope the profligate putzes will keep their snappy comebacks to themselves. There is nothing to discuss here; you believe as you do, I believe as I do. One of us is wrong, one of us is right-- I am content in leaving the question of who is what to the people.
Straightballin
Member
I agree
ManDudeChild
Member
Loki said:No, it wasn't, because she ignored the title of the thread, which was whether one would knowingly sleep with a married woman. She sidestepped the pertinent issue entirely. And as far as that question goes, I'd just like to say that there is a metric fuckload of morally vacant people here on GAF; the responsibility in such a scenario does indeed lie with both people. Just because one person (the married partner) "doesn't know any better" (i.e., is acting unscrupulously) doesn't mean that, if we do know better (and make no mistake-- everyone here condoning this realizes on some level that it's wrong), we should indulge them or allow them to continue down that path with us as willing accomplices. Only idiots would do such a thing, and only even bigger idiots would try to rationalize it.
I must say, quite honestly, that the level of moral turpitude displayed on this board is frequently quite shocking. Nobody's perfect, yes, but many here wallow in their imperfection, and it's repulsive. Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt you will be. Just keep doing whatever makes you feel good. Peace, love...
Oh yeah, and I hope the profligate putzes will keep their snappy comebacks to themselves. There is nothing to discuss here; you believe as you do, I believe as I do. One of us is wrong, one of us is right-- I am content in leaving the question of who is what to the people.
The only right answer in this thread so far.
The idea that being single absolves you of any moral responsibility is pretty retarded. I can see sleeping with someone that's married if it's the kinda thing that "just happens", but the idea that you are allowed to actively seek out and destroy other people's marriages is a bit much to bear. You might be singing a different tune if your husband were cheating on you, but I imagine you'll claim otherwise.
I don't talk to or flirt with girls wearing rings. I think that's at least a common courtesy that everyone oughtta abide by.
Instigator
Banned
Quellex said:
What if the survival of the human race was at stake while you're at it? :lol
i hate that i've missed this thread, but Alyssa hit the nail on the head. i've slept with a married woman once, knowing she was married. Her husband was never home, and never showed her affection when he was. Did i feel bad about it? No. It would be like working at a bakery and giving a slice a chocolate cake to someone i know is on a diet. They're the one breaking the commitment. If they really want the cake and i don't sell it to them, they'll just go elsewhere or find someone who will sell it to them. Yes, it's rationalizing, but it's also true.
If i were that husband, i'd probably be more upset that someone else had "marked my territory" moreso than the actual act of cheating. If i were a more ideal husband who loved his wife, i'd definitely be upset, feel betrayed, etc. But the person with whom she cheats is far less important than the reason why. Was it a lack of intimacy? "Falling out of love"? The excitement of it? The other person is simply an accessory to the act, and the act is the cause of an underlying problem.
Temptation comes in many forms, and it's up to the individual to determine whether or not the consequences are worth giving in to it.
If i were that husband, i'd probably be more upset that someone else had "marked my territory" moreso than the actual act of cheating. If i were a more ideal husband who loved his wife, i'd definitely be upset, feel betrayed, etc. But the person with whom she cheats is far less important than the reason why. Was it a lack of intimacy? "Falling out of love"? The excitement of it? The other person is simply an accessory to the act, and the act is the cause of an underlying problem.
Temptation comes in many forms, and it's up to the individual to determine whether or not the consequences are worth giving in to it.
Loki said:No, it wasn't, because she ignored the title of the thread, which was whether one would knowingly sleep with a married woman. She sidestepped the pertinent issue entirely. And as far as that question goes, I'd just like to say that there is a metric fuckload of morally vacant people here on GAF; the responsibility in such a scenario does indeed lie with both people. Just because one person (the married partner) "doesn't know any better" (i.e., is acting unscrupulously) doesn't mean that, if we do know better (and make no mistake-- everyone here condoning this realizes on some level that it's wrong), we should indulge them or allow them to continue down that path with us as willing accomplices. Only idiots would do such a thing, and only even bigger idiots would try to rationalize it.
I must say, quite honestly, that the level of moral turpitude displayed on this board is frequently quite shocking. Nobody's perfect, yes, but many here wallow in their imperfection, and it's repulsive. Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt you will be. Just keep doing whatever makes you feel good. Peace, love...
Oh yeah, and I hope the profligate putzes will keep their snappy comebacks to themselves. There is nothing to discuss here; you believe as you do, I believe as I do. One of us is wrong, one of us is right-- I am content in leaving the question of who is what to the people.
Jordan cheated on his wife and probably slept with married women while he was at it.
Time for you to denouce Jordan or lose face Loki. The choice is yours!
Instigator
Banned
Come on, Aoi, aren't you just grasping at straws to justify what you did? I can believe you feel no remorse, but why not admit you were horny and just did the wife regardless whether it was right or wrong? That would be more believable as an excuse.
i'm not saying that cheating on your diet carries the same weight as cheating on your spouse, but in both examples you're breaking a commitment. i think i'll just leave it at that, because arguments in morality go in circles.border said:
i will say that it's not something i plan on doing again though, and it wasn't something i set out to do. In my case, it wasn't just a matter of sex, i genuinely felt bad for the woman who did everything for her husband that saw her more as a mother who was there to cook and clean for him than a wife. If things had gone on, i could see myself possibly developing feelings for her, despite the fact she probably wouldn't leave her husband for me.
You missed the point of the question.
A diet and a marriage are both commitments, but a diet is a commitment only to yourself. When you enable someone to cheat on a diet, you are not fucking over some 3rd party as in the case of adultery. The analogy is not flawed because of the weight of the act, but because of the people you affect through your actions.
The whole "they'll just get it somewhere else" bit also reeks. To take it a step further....would you sell liquor to an current/former alcoholic? Even further....would you sell heroin to a junkie (assuming no legal repurcussions)? Just like the horny wife they'd probably go somewhere else for their fix, though I don't see why that necessarily means you should profit from their problems.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Yes
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Yes, yes I would.
There's no need to rationalize it. We all do things that are bad for us. It's pretty subjective really. Some people see porking a married woman as the moral equivalent of stealing a slice of cake (I actually like that) while others see it as the path to eternal damnation. I wanted to know what my fellow GAFfers thought. I know most people here are single, so it seemed the obvious question. I didn't think I could have until it became an option, and it just never bothered me. But I've also modified my views on relationships and the importance of monogamy in recent years. I don't see it as important, so it kinda liberates me to do whatever the fuck I want. Next up...murder. :lol 8O PEACE.
border said:
You don't even have to take it that far, with all these analogies (though I agree with you). Just look at contract law. Marriage is a contract; breach of such is, at the very least, unethical, if not illegal (not in the case of adultery, obviously- at least not in the US). A man who would willingly breach the most fundamental compact in human society is something less than a man. There's no use arguing with people like aoi tsuki-- recalcitrant immorality is the worst kind.
Whoa there. Instead of calling it the most fundamental compact in human society, let's label it appropriately. It's western society. My grandparents weren't married. Not on my mother or father's side. It's not a given by any means in the islands. In many different cultures, marriage just isn't very important. A family unit is comprised differently. Marriage is a human construct. It's artificial. There are monogamous relationships in nature, but they are the exception, not the rule. I don't see a particular need to obey something that's as tied to dogma as anything else.Loki said:
The reality is that relationships go sour. So a lifetime contract is just about the dumbest thing I can imagine. It's why so many marriages end in divorce now. So, I take issue with that "less than a man" comment, thank you very much. The man who loses his woman to another either married a whore, or isn't man enough to handle his own at home. Survival of the fittest. PEACE.
Loki said:
The most fundamental compact in human society is that of the group vs. the other. Myself and my mate/friends/family/companions are the group, and are to be protected and assisted. Everyone else is the other, and is to be alienated and, if necessary, eliminated. In the situation as presented, the husband is the other to the male having sex with the married woman. Thus, one who does commit the act is behaving entirely in accord with what is the most basic of human social survival traits.
Beyond that, you have the concept of property, murder, and social class. All far more fundamental to society (and mostly predating) the concept of a nuptial contract. We are not monogamous animals by nature, and in fact monogamy is not a natural state for humans, it's a conscious and morally-motivated choice. Monogamy is, from a basic genetic standpoint, bad for a species, and in the animal kingdom offspring are routinely found to have a different father than the male social companion of the mother. This is not universal, but it's certainly more common than the reverse.
I would not and have not cheated on a spouse or anyone with whom I was in an exclusive relationship. However, that marriage compact is between myself and her. I don't expect anyone else, certainly not outside my social circle (there's that "other" problem again) to respect that agreement. The job of rejecting the extramarital advance is that of the married party. Would it be preferable if the guy in question respected the existing marital bond? Sure, but I don't expect him to, nor do I think he necessarily should. In such a situation, I would not lay any blame on him, although I certainly wouldn't buy him a beer if I ever met him. To believe or expect anything else is at the very least overly idealistic, if not strikingly naive.
Pimpwerx said:
Using the natural world (i.e., the wild) as your arbiter of proper human conduct is evidence only of the fact that you might as well be an animal. Last I checked, you lived in <gasp> western society. Further, western society has achieved an unprecedented level of sophistication and affluence. To assume that marriage-- one of the most fundamental features of that civilization, historically-- played no role in the advancement of said civilization, is to expose yourself as an intellectual dwarf. Besides which, it's not "only" western culture which featured a prominent role for marriage, and recognized its sanctity and value-- it's a large part of Asian and Indian culture as well. This just illustrates how intellectually (not to mention morally) bankrupt many of your assertions are.
The existence and perpetuation of human civilization is tied to dogma. Asserting that valuing marriage is any more "dogmatic" than, say, valuing the rule of law, or contracts, is an exercise in idiocy. Particularly in light of the fact that marriage needn't be tied to religious ideals to be of benefit (and indeed, this has been the case in many societies throughout history in which marriage's import was recognized).
You again show your intellectual crudeness. There are various sociological factors which have caused the upswing in the number of divorces. The "lifetime contract" part has been around for millenia, so you can't attribute the rise in divorce to it. If you care to be at all intellectually honest, that is, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you.
Darwin would be proud. How about you do us a favor and go fool around with some underaged Down Syndrome chick again. Go on, Duane, show us how "fit" you are. <snicker>
Should I kill you because I'm stronger than you? Survival of the fittest, no? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
For your own sake, do some thinking. Quit while you're ahead. I'm not stopping you from being all the man you can be-- get to screwing those handicapped kids and married women.
Loki said:
Gimme a fucking break. Because I don't subscribe to your view of the world or your warped sense of morality says nothing about my intelligence. Intelligence and morality (a totally subjective topic, mind you) aren't at all related. Morality differs from person to person. Do you think it's wrong for a woman to talk back to her husband? Should women expose their legs? Is eye contact with your elders a sign ot disrespect? Right...and my argument is intellectually bankrupt. You can't lose me in a lake of text, Loki. I see what you got, and it's nothing right now. Western society is not the world. As pointed out, in my home country (and many others like it), marriage isn't a necessity. My parents have been married for 30+ years despite that. But their parents weren't. A family unit is something different from culture to culture. Are you gonna look down your nose at the way things are done in my home country? You gotta be kidding me.
Human civilization is tied to dogma, huh? Was this before or after men came together to create religion? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Marriage as a contract is tied to religion. If this is historically inaccurate, I'll rescind it. But afaik, monogamous relationships existed before marriage. As evidenced by the rest of the animal kingdom. But as you say, marriage doesn't need to be tied to religion to be of benefit. Likewise, you don't need marriage at all. Polygamic societies function just fine without the strict concept of monogamy. Are you gonna consider those marriages too? If you recognize polygamy, maybe there's no problem with just hitting and quitting too, since a woman can keep devotion to a single man even in his absence.
Crudeness again != intellectual crudeness. Even you can differentiate the two, Loki. That said, I meant the souring of relationships prior to the expiration of the lifetime contract is the reason for the upswing in divorces. And with a free society, with less judgement of morality, people are more willing to get that divorce instead of toughing out a loveless marriage. The 1st and 3rd sentence in the second paragraph are meant to go together.
Ooh, attempted cheapshot failed. I've done worse. I've done better. I have no problem discussing what I do, I'm clean, healthy and...oh yes...fit as a fucking fiddle. The fact is, if I can hit a married chick, what do I have that her husband doesn't? Clearly there's a reason she'd come get some here instead of going home, right? Maybe I'm more man than he is. You are the one questioning the manhood, claiming that a known adulterer would be "less of a man". I'm telling you otherwise. That the strong survive. The strong excel. And there's no concern of actual karma for me, b/c I'm not emotionally attached to ANY woman. Maybe I need to put you on my program. Show you how one can have a perfectly enjoyable, yet completely loveless sex life. Casual sex is fantastic. Wrap it up, and avoid the angry spouse/bf. Guilt-free. Some get burdened by their conscience, but they also have a different view of sex than I do. Some see it as this emotionally charged what not. I see it as a skeet shoot. You get in, bust a nut, get out. Do you get emotionally involved when you beat off? I sure don't. I know enough woman that I don't need to invest anymore time/money in one that I have to. I get companionship in other ways. Different strokes, right? But if you want to start waving the morality wand around, I'll be glad to beat you down with it. :lol
You're welcome to. You can risk going to jail for it. Fortunately, adultery carries no such legal repurcussions. Note: I make no bones about right or wrong here. I just don't give a fuck. But the fact is, my dick won't land me in jail. Killing someone will. You push the envelope in the direction you're most comfortable. If you want to kill someone, you're welcome to. You just need to be ready to handle the consequences dictated by this darn western society.
LOL! I think I struck a nerve with this thread. Some people overlook it, but some people get their moral panties in a twist over adultery. I suppose some people have stronger emotional reactions to issues of love and commitment. Me? No such thing. Player for life. I've discovered that I keep more money, keep more time and still enjoy the one thing that a relationship gave me, sexual satisfaction. It's shallow, it's petty, but it's honest. You know I don't mince words. It is what it is. I bet I feel different if I get fat and ugly and old, but even ugly people get ass. It's more about game than actual appearances. Lemme put you on the game, Loki. PEACE.
MattKeil:
"Group vs. other" is a more primal notion, rooted more in psychology than anything else. It's not a "contract," merely an unspoken tendency towards self-protection among one's clan. The three most fundamental contracts in human society have been marriage, the tacit and subsequently codified agreement between buyer and seller, and the implied contract between man and government. On these three contracts much of civilization rests. I suppose I misspoke slightly in saying that it is the "most" important contract; it is, however, one of the three most fundamental ones, and that's more than important enough for me to respect. Not sure about you...
"Murder" is an act, not a contract or agreement; it is, in fact, the breach of an implicit covenant between men agreed to upon ingression into civilized society (i.e., the renunciation of one's "natural" rights, as found in the wild, is the necessary and sufficient feature for the creation of a society, and is itself a contract). "Property," insofar as it is exchanged, may be part of a contract, as between buyer and seller (see above). Social class is not a contract, but a feature of a society which is imposed on that society by way of a confluence of sociological factors. Therefore, marriage is still the most-- or at least one of the three most-- important contract(s) in the history of civilization (excuse me- western, Indian, and Asian civilization; I wouldn't want to offend Duane). My point stands.
Pointing to nature only shows that you desire to live like an animal, no offense. See my response to Duane. I'm not generally persuaded by appeals to nature; most scholars (in the areas of philosophy and sociology) are not, either, and for good reason.
As I said to Duane, society is a conscious and morally motivated choice. Attempting to pick and choose which of its strictures you'll abide is silly. Certainly, the extant features of a society/civilization can change by way of social consensus regarding what the essential elements/features of that society should be. However, this is different from what you're saying, which is merely to point to nature as an "out." This is insufficient in such discussions, yet this error has been committed twice now by two different people. Espousing primeval ideals may earn you brownie points with social Darwinists, but the rest of the world will just laugh at you.
See above. If you desire to live by the laws of the wild, feel free to go build a hut on the Galapagos Islands.
Your personal "expectation" is ultimately irrelevant. The disapprobation of adultery is, ultimately, the result of a societal understanding that (ideally) exists among all members of the society. In a functional and sane society, you should have an expectation that other members of said society will respect the contract you've entered into, and will respect the institution of marriage-- the fact that you don't have such an expectation is, more than anything else, indicative of what a broken society we live in. Using this fact (that is, your personal "expectations") as the basis of any sort of philosophical argument re: the utility of marriage as an institution or its underpinnings in terms of contract law/covenants is specious.
Certainly the married party bears more of a responsibility for rejecting any advances made, but the moral imperative to do so should be there for both parties based on the realities of the social milieu.
You seemingly know little regarding sociology, psychology, philosophy, or even what a "contract" is, yet you call me naive? :lol You don't think he should "necessarily respect the marital bond"? Under what guiding principle? Do tell me, because I'm quite curious. Bonus points if you reference Darwin or nature in any way.
"Group vs. other" is a more primal notion, rooted more in psychology than anything else. It's not a "contract," merely an unspoken tendency towards self-protection among one's clan. The three most fundamental contracts in human society have been marriage, the tacit and subsequently codified agreement between buyer and seller, and the implied contract between man and government. On these three contracts much of civilization rests. I suppose I misspoke slightly in saying that it is the "most" important contract; it is, however, one of the three most fundamental ones, and that's more than important enough for me to respect. Not sure about you...
"Murder" is an act, not a contract or agreement; it is, in fact, the breach of an implicit covenant between men agreed to upon ingression into civilized society (i.e., the renunciation of one's "natural" rights, as found in the wild, is the necessary and sufficient feature for the creation of a society, and is itself a contract). "Property," insofar as it is exchanged, may be part of a contract, as between buyer and seller (see above). Social class is not a contract, but a feature of a society which is imposed on that society by way of a confluence of sociological factors. Therefore, marriage is still the most-- or at least one of the three most-- important contract(s) in the history of civilization (excuse me- western, Indian, and Asian civilization; I wouldn't want to offend Duane). My point stands.
Pointing to nature only shows that you desire to live like an animal, no offense. See my response to Duane. I'm not generally persuaded by appeals to nature; most scholars (in the areas of philosophy and sociology) are not, either, and for good reason.
As I said to Duane, society is a conscious and morally motivated choice. Attempting to pick and choose which of its strictures you'll abide is silly. Certainly, the extant features of a society/civilization can change by way of social consensus regarding what the essential elements/features of that society should be. However, this is different from what you're saying, which is merely to point to nature as an "out." This is insufficient in such discussions, yet this error has been committed twice now by two different people. Espousing primeval ideals may earn you brownie points with social Darwinists, but the rest of the world will just laugh at you.
See above. If you desire to live by the laws of the wild, feel free to go build a hut on the Galapagos Islands.
Your personal "expectation" is ultimately irrelevant. The disapprobation of adultery is, ultimately, the result of a societal understanding that (ideally) exists among all members of the society. In a functional and sane society, you should have an expectation that other members of said society will respect the contract you've entered into, and will respect the institution of marriage-- the fact that you don't have such an expectation is, more than anything else, indicative of what a broken society we live in. Using this fact (that is, your personal "expectations") as the basis of any sort of philosophical argument re: the utility of marriage as an institution or its underpinnings in terms of contract law/covenants is specious.
Certainly the married party bears more of a responsibility for rejecting any advances made, but the moral imperative to do so should be there for both parties based on the realities of the social milieu.
You seemingly know little regarding sociology, psychology, philosophy, or even what a "contract" is, yet you call me naive? :lol You don't think he should "necessarily respect the marital bond"? Under what guiding principle? Do tell me, because I'm quite curious. Bonus points if you reference Darwin or nature in any way.
MaverickX9
Member
Yes. Yes, I would.
Pimpwerx said:
Nor was I trying to. I'm intelligent enough to realize that I can't outsmart you, Duane. It should also be noted that your post contained about four times as many words as my "lake of text."
Pimpwerx said:
No, but the quality of the arguments you advance as a justification for your beliefs does say something about your intelligence. Far be it from me to call someone who merely disagrees with my personal morality "unintelligent"; when their reasoning is suspect and their evidence tenuous, however, I feel that I'm justified in making that call. You have made several indefensible statements that do not square with history, sociology, philosophy, or law; the fact that you refuse to recant said statements is evidence of your foolishness and your intransigence.
If you're a moral relativist, then we shouldn't even be having this conversation, as no common ground will ever be reached. My personal argument "against" moral relativism is that certain ideologies and practices have produced tangible results in terms of highly functional societies. When we look for the common denominators in said societies, we witness certain features/beliefs; this can lead us to draw conclusions about the relative merit of certain propositions. When we can trace the effects of a belief or practice throughout history and calculate its import (or inutility, as it may be), we can begin to deduce the objective validity of said beliefs and praxes. Such a functional theory of morality, which has real-world analogues, is not as easily assailable by relativists as more abstract moral frameworks are.
First off, I think you should note that I have made few appeals to purely philosophical "morality" (i.e., moral absolutism); for the most part, I have focused on the utility of, and justification for, certain societal beliefs and practices. It is in this sense that what you advocate is immoral, as it does not comport with the way a sound society conducts its business, as borne out by history. You're basically a hedonist except for when the law bars you from being such, and you have a dim understanding of the relationship between beliefs, institutions (the latter flows directly from the former), and their role in the maintenance of a society.
A certain variability of conduct between societies, or variable moral/ethical interpretations of actions within a single society, is expected and understandable, and your examples above are all instances of this. These are not fundamental to the maintenance of society; things such as marriage are. The integrity of contracts in general are. A contract is entered into with an expectation as to the fulfillment of its terms and conditions. If you want to change that so that it better comports with your feral sensibilities, then go and change the terms and conditions of the agreement-- don't just blithely point to nature and relativism as an "out" when they are nothing of the sort; you only betray your own ignorance in doing so.
It is, however, the pinnacle of civilization (at least presently), as measured by any objective standard you'd care to proffer. Feel free to disregard that, or call it "ethnocentric", but western values and ideals have shaped these societies into places of great functionality and achievement. The day I see tons of people emigrating from the US, Britain, Canada, and France to places like Grenada, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, or Croatia is the day I concede that all cultures are of equal worth. Every culture has good and noble features, and these deserve to be lauded and maintained by its people; however, don't be so foolish as to assume that all cultures are equal. This belief is simply an outgrowth of your more general moral relativism, which I do not agree with for the stated reasons. However you'd care to define "success", the western world has it in spades while many other places do not. But you go on continuing to believe that western ideals and institutions, of the sort you're trying to tear down and/or discount, had absolutely nothing to do with the ascension of western society.
See above. Also, the problem is not that different societies have different beliefs, but that you're in a society which has a certain tradition and belief and you are discounting and/or trying to undermine it based on spurious reasoning. Just as I can't go to Saudi Arabia and expect religious tolerance, so should you not be in the United States and expect people's notions regarding the propriety of adultery to conform to yours.
First off, "dogma" does not have to be religious. I was using it in the broad sense of "an established tenet"-- in this case, a philosophical one (re: covenants/contracts and the value of certain institutions). Your religion tangent is irrelevant here, as marriage is sanctioned even in secular nations by the government.
Further, your characterization of marriage as an exclusively religious notion is off the mark, since, as far as I know, the marriages in dynastic China were not influenced by any religion (and certainly there was no centralized religious body which issued enforceable decrees). And, lastly, the issue of whether or not marriage has its origin in religious customs is a red herring. Here's a news flash: religion itself has been a great socializing force in the world, and many of its features and values have become incorporated into western civilization and its guiding philosophy (it wasn't all Crusades and terrorism, you know); none of this, however, changes the utility of these beliefs/institutions, as their effects can be directly observed as opposed to merely speculated about.
I was using "marriage" as a synonym for "monogamous relationships sanctioned and promoted by the state"; I assumed you were as well. The important feature of marriage (at least as far as this topic goes) is, in fact, monogamy-- whether or not it is termed "marriage" is irrelevant.
Point me to this currently existing, highly functional and successful polygamous society, that I may analyze it.
No worries, as you exhibit both. But just keep pointing to ocelots and aardvarks as justification for your liaisons. It suits you well.
Our society has always been free-- divorce has never been illegal, neither technically nor de facto. Disapprobation != illegality, and the level of disapprobation is all that has changed as our mores have changed. Your statement-- that it is the lifetime commitment which accounts for the rise in divorce-- was incorrect.
A lack of scruples, apparently.
:lol
Do you realize how much of a child you sound like? What are you, like 26 years old? What a shame. Yeah, you're "more of a man" than he is-- because we all know that the measure of a man is his sexual prowess. The law of the wild, indeed; more evidence of your affinity for hedonism and your desire to elevate "natural law" to the law of human societies.
Like I said, you don't want social Darwinism-- you only want it when it suits you. I could just as easily say that the rich should exploit the poor as far as possible, because they have power and should seek to retain it-- but your flagrant communism doesn't quite square with Darwinism in that case, now, does it. All of a sudden you want law, ideals, and philosophy-- you want civilization. You're a hypocrite in that sense, not to mention an unscrupulous, profligate twit. Your ill-considered idiocy has been allowed to go unspoken to for far too long. You pollute threads with the worst sort of reasoning, frequently holding up the worst of human conduct as admirable-- a clear indication of your broken moral compass. You're a joke, and I don't say that often. I've held my tongue many times, but will do so no longer.
The rich stick it to the poor, and this is as it should be, because the poor are weak, and don't deserve to survive. Sound good to you? Thought not.
I'm sure it's not that hard to do...if you have no sense of decency about you, that is. Unfortunately, I was raised to be a decent and honorable person, and you were obviously not. You act like there's some big mystery to having casual sex. News flash: licentiousness is not hard-- if anything, it's easy. In many cases, too easy.
Though I personally find such a notion distasteful, I would not have condemned it verbally if we were speaking of two single people. I am a believer in personal liberty-- people can do as they wish, even as you are allowed to post your rubbish on a public board with no consequence. What I took (and take) issue with is the fact that there is a very important social compact here which is being violated, and you are using sophistry to try and justify it.
Thug life, yo-- keepin' it real. What a way to live. It's sad that this is what we've come to as a people. Do you shed and shit in public, too? Because you might as well be an animal, really. Darwinism when it suits you, Duane...Darwinism when it suits you. You're a fraud.
Teknopathetic
Member
Whee, gotta love people flaunting their "holier than thou" morals and what not. If being moral also means I'll have to be a douche, then I'll bang every married chick in a 10 mile radius.
Teknopathetic said:
Can you refute anything I said? If not, kindly stfu. There was nothing "holier than thou" in my posts save for a single comment. I made points. Argue against them or retreat back to your cozy existence where people are allowed to make spurious arguments and screw married chicks, but nobody is allowed to utter a word of disapproval.
I also love how you take me to task for my alleged "holier than thou"-ism, yet took no issue with Pimpwerx's "law of the wild" comments. I can only conclude that you'd like to live like a beast, then, yourself.