RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you......

RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

caitlyn -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 7:18:27 AM)
Ok ... this support is great ... and on my birthday too. [;)] That said, getting hammered here in this post is entirely my fault, because the original post was about cheating and deception, and my post really had nothing to do with either. I don't think going out socially with a married man it cheating. I don't think going out socially with one my friend's boyfriends is cheating. I don't think one of my friends going out with one of my boyfriends it cheating. I think when people go out and have a good time, a nice hot kiss goodnight (or ten) is completely acceptable. People have the right to have friends of the opposite sex ... even very good friends ... and if dinner, dancing and a hot kiss goodnight is enough to ruin a marriage, then there is a problem there that is only the buisiness of the two people involved in that marriage. What I should have done, is make my original post more clear and more on the topic at hand, and saved myself the flame.

luvdragonx -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 7:50:27 AM)
Happy Birthday!!! I completely agree, going out socially with a married man is fine. Most of my friends are male, and a lot of them are married. The difference for me is that their wives know who I am and know that we're together. I personally choose not to just go out with a stranger who's married because there are too many variables that I'm not aware of. Finding out your husband has been on a date with a woman behind your back is a blow to the gut - I've felt that and want no part in another man doing that to his wife. Sure, he may go out and find some other woman to go out with, but that's her, not me. Yes, people of the opposite gender can be friends and go out and have a good time, you'll get no argument from me on that. I personally don't engage in hot kissing with someone who is intimately/sexually off-limits, though, as I feel it can confuse things and give mixed signals where I don't want them. Again, that's just me. Have a kick-ass birthday, caitlyn. [:D]

pinkpleasures -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 7:56:56 AM)
In addition to the Doms and Masters i have been fortunate enough to become friends with, i have Men friends i've had for over 20 years. i love them all dearly and respecting boundaries is what makes this possible. pinkpleasures

themischievous1 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 9:47:33 AM)
quote: Padriag: But I'll just say this, don't expect one ounce of sympathy from me if your spouse or SO cheats on you at some point... after all, by your reasoning who am I to judge... Hi Padriag, I won't. First off, I don't have a spouse or SO, and second, when and if I ever do and he or she cheats, I wouldn't air out my personal matters in a public forum for the world to comment on. That's just not my style. You do make a good point in your final comment though. I wouldn't expect one ounce of sympathy from you or anyone else. There are two sides to every story, Padriag, so unless you've listened to both, perhaps you should reserve passing judgment. You obviously will not have all the facts without hearing from all involved in a particular drama. mischie

pinkpleasures -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 10:55:15 AM)
quote: But I'll just say this, don't expect one ounce of sympathy from me if your spouse or SO cheats on you at some point... after all, by your reasoning who am I to judge... Padriag quote: Hi Padriag, I won't. First off, I don't have a spouse or SO, and second, when and if I ever do and he or she cheats, I wouldn't air out my personal matters in a public forum for the world to comment on. That's just not my style. You do make a good point in your final comment though. I wouldn't expect one ounce of sympathy from you or anyone else. There are two sides to every story, Padriag, so unless you've listened to both, perhaps you should reserve passing judgment. You obviously will not have all the facts without hearing from all involved in a particular drama. mischie mischie, i think Padriag's point is simply that people who cheat on their partners may someday be the ones cheated on....and that He will not be sympathetic to them. i think He is speaking in generalities as to fairness and honesty....not trying to inject Himself into anyone's relationship. pinkpleasures

domtimothy46176 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 11:12:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I agree with all the people who are supporting caitlyn, and the analogy with stolen property, which people keep offering up, doesn't hold water. Knowingly enjoying or profiting from stolen property is criminal. Knowingly committing adultery is not. Agreed, but then I wasn't addressing the criminality of the issue, just the ethical implications. I was merely pointing out that it has been clearly established within society that it is unethical to knowingly accept that which rightfully belongs to a third party and is being offered without permission from the owner. The stolen property analogy was an appropriate example of the underlying ethical considerations.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 11:16:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176 The stolen property analogy was an appropriate example of the underlying ethical considerations. I think, in the stolen property analogy, the other woman is closer to the car then the accomplice. Is it the car's fault it was stolen? The cheater is wrong, the other woman is neutral. Taggard

caitlyn -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 11:43:29 AM)
And we all know what happens to a car stuck in neutral. [;)]

domtimothy46176 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 12:36:02 PM)
"So now a husband is analagous to property? Who are you to say that my wife has a "prior claim" to my attention. I give my attention to whomever I choose. If my wife wants my attention, she needs to earn it, and if she isn't earning it, it will wander. Even in relationships where a couple has taken a vow of monogamy (i never did), they don't vow to give one another 100% or their attention. But then again, I have nothing against receiving stolen property." You are entirely free to engage in whatever illegal activity you find appropriate. You're willingness to operate outside the law, however, does not change the law nor does it alter the underlying ethical basis for the rule of law and it most certainly will make give you immunity from facing the consequences of breaking the law. Regardless of those laws we disagree with, we break them at our own peril. Personally, I operate within the law because I find my liberty to be worth much more than what I can save buying a television set that's stolen rather than paying full retail price. That is, however, a personal judgement. In much the same way, one can choose to be a liar and a cheat and suffer the consequences for those behaviors. It remains a personal judgement each is free to make within their own lives. One point of correction, however. I would suggest that a vow of monogamy would preclude one partner dancing, kissing and "fooling around" with someone other than the SO, by definition. Perhaps we define monogamy differently, but I think that monogamy is generally understood to mean physical and romantic fidelity. Within the context of the quote from my post, the discussion specifically revolved around knowingly dating a married person while declining to accept culpability for the repercussions of that decision. I did not suggest that either husbands or wives were commodities. I also did not express an opinion of any kind about you personally or your specific obligations to your spouse. Your specific marriage and your obligations within it were not referenced in my post and are not relevant. Timothy

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 12:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn And we all know what happens to a car stuck in neutral. [;)] Its battery dies and you have to jump it with nipple clamps??? Taggard

domtimothy46176 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176 The stolen property analogy was an appropriate example of the underlying ethical considerations. I think, in the stolen property analogy, the other woman is closer to the car then the accomplice. Is it the car's fault it was stolen? The cheater is wrong, the other woman is neutral. Taggard I'm familiar with this position but I disagree with it. One is always responsible for the results of one's actions. Whether one acknowledges that responsibility is a personal choice but does nothing to ameliorate culpability. My position, within the context of your stolen car analogy is that the cheater is the car and the other woman is someone who decides to take a joyride after finding the keys have been left in the ignition. Unfortunately, it's not a terribly fitting analogy because it leaves the cheating spouse without culpability. I think it's much more appropriate to place the cheater as the car thief and the other woman as the guy who runs the chop shop. Timothy

thelight -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:05:24 PM)
quote: You're willingness to operate outside the law, however, does not change the law nor does it alter the underlying ethical basis for the rule of law... the law has no ethical basis whatsoever. it is merely a function of some people's power to impose their will upon others. quote: I also did not express an opinion of any kind about you personally or your specific obligations to your spouse. Your specific marriage and your obligations within it were not referenced in my post and are not relevant. you spoke of marriages in general. my point was that each marriage is unique to the parties involved, and that generalizations such as yours are inappropriate. my marriage is relevant as an example, to elucidate my point. it is not caitlyn's responsibility to guess, or to care about, what "obligations" a man she sees may have to someone else. his obligations are solely his responsibility.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176 I'm familiar with this position but I disagree with it. One is always responsible for the results of one's actions. But one is not responsible for the actions of others. A single woman has sex with a man. This action hurts no one (unless the woman likes a little slap with her tickle, but who are we to judge? smile). A married man has sex with a woman that is not his wife. This action (arguably) hurts his wife. The action doing the hurting is the man having sex with the other woman. The other woman having sex with a man hurts no one. She is in no way responsible for the hurt cause by the man having sex. quote: My position, within the context of your stolen car analogy is that the cheater is the car and the other woman is someone who decides to take a joyride after finding the keys have been left in the ignition. Unfortunately, it's not a terribly fitting analogy because it leaves the cheating spouse without culpability. Yes, it makes much more sense for the other woman to be the car, but that won't work in your view. You need to find a way quote: I think it's much more appropriate to place the cheater as the car thief and the other woman as the guy who runs the chop shop. So what is the car then? The wife? The marriage? Sex? Maybe the car is sex. Riding in the car is having sex. When a man rides in a stolen car, he is engaging in gasp immoral sex. The other woman is only immoral, if she knows the car is stolen. There that is a much better analogy for you to use... Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thelight the law has no ethical basis whatsoever. it is merely a function of some people's power to impose their will upon others. Oh my... So are you an anarcho-capitalist or an anarchist? Taggard

plantlady64 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:26:41 PM)
Hello There, I agree with you on this issue. One of my main requirements of anyone who has a significant other is that their partner must be aware of their activity. I think if you lie to the ones you love at home not only does that show they would have the potential to lie to me, but they can't be trusted at face value. If I can't trust someone to be honest with me, or to respect me there's no way I'd trust him or her with my body. I think people that cheat are absolute cowards and I think deception is one of the least sexy traits I could ever be exposed to. I'd rather play with an ugly, stinky, rude person before I’d ever consider playing with a person who's cheating. Sincerely, sub suzanne

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: plantlady64 I'd rather play with an ugly, stinky, rude person before I’d ever consider playing with a person who's cheating. Hey baby...I haven't bathed in a week. How you doin'? wink Taggard

domtimothy46176 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:30:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thelight quote: You're willingness to operate outside the law, however, does not change the law nor does it alter the underlying ethical basis for the rule of law... the law has no ethical basis whatsoever. it is merely a function of some people's power to impose their will upon others. quote: I also did not express an opinion of any kind about you personally or your specific obligations to your spouse. Your specific marriage and your obligations within it were not referenced in my post and are not relevant. you spoke of marriages in general. my point was that each marriage is unique to the parties involved, and that generalizations such as yours are inappropriate. my marriage is relevant as an example, to elucidate my point. it is not caitlyn's responsibility to guess, or to care about, what "obligations" a man she sees may have to someone else. his obligations are solely his responsibility. Actually, you might want to bone up on your history. American law is based on the ethos of Judeo-Christian faith, a fact that is easily verifiable. I don't think there's any reason to flesh this out further but you can start with the Roman empire after the conversion to Christianity as the state religion and follow the influence of the Roman Catholic church on up throughout history, if you care to research the issue. As to the generalization that it's ethically wrong to cheat on one's spouse, that's not just my generalization, that's accepted throughout society. I understand that you disagree and you're welcome to your point of view, but I still don't see it as relevant to the discussion at hand, especially given your statement that your personal marriage is outside the dynamic being discussed. We' weren't referencing open marriages. You and eye obviously disagree about whether or not one is responsible for the repercussions of one's actions. That's fine, I'm not attempting to convert anyone to my personal ethics. It is still a logically inconsistent argument. Action and consequence cannot be divorced. One can accept or refuse that simple fact but it's still immutable. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Timothy

domtimothy46176 -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty But one is not responsible for the actions of others. A single woman has sex with a man. This action hurts no one (unless the woman likes a little slap with her tickle, but who are we to judge? smile). A married man has sex with a woman that is not his wife. This action (arguably) hurts his wife. The action doing the hurting is the man having sex with the other woman. The other woman having sex with a man hurts no one. She is in no way responsible for the hurt cause by the man having sex. Taggard Again we disagree. If the action is harmful to the wife, those who participate in the action are responsible for the harm. If the man is having sex with a mannequin, in contrast, the man is solely responsible for the harm.

Mercnbeth -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:38:36 PM)
quote: The action doing the hurting is the man having sex with the other woman. The other woman having sex with a man hurts no one. She is in no way responsible for the hurt cause by the man having sex. Taggard, So you don't believe in the "enabler" concept? Continuing to using the car as the parable subject; if you as a host allow a drunk driver to get in his car and he/she ends up killing himself or others on the way home legal case history holds them culpable. A woman or man who, without knowledge and/or acceptance of spouse, has sex with a person who they know is married has the same culpability.

thelight -> RE: I seem to care more about your SO than you...... (8/18/2005 1:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: thelight the law has no ethical basis whatsoever. it is merely a function of some people's power to impose their will upon others. Oh my... So are you an anarcho-capitalist or an anarchist? Taggard neither. the only ideological label i accept is that of fatalist. the way things happen is the only way they could possibly happen. my prior post wasn't an ideological statement, merely a statement of observation. people with power will make laws that benefit them. people without power will either obey the law or suffer the consequences. the concept of anarchy is inherently paradoxical. the freedom to do what one desires includes the freedom to impose one's desires upon others, at the expense of their freedom to do as they desire. if i am permitted to impose upon your freedom, then i am permitted to make law. at the same time, however, i cannot be forbidden to impose upon your freedom if there is no law. laws are inevitable, just like everything else.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625