lapresence -> RE: How many others prefer the submissive female to be married? Would you agree there is a delicious (4/13/2007 10:38:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hrafnkel At first I thought that you were joking with this, and that you were using humor to agree with me. But my girl insists she's certain you're actually serious. So, alright. First, I'm not so certain 'logic' is a word you want to use. There are no rhetorical arguements in the opinion I stated except for a very straightforward arguement by definition. If you freely take a vow, youre basically committing to keeping it on your word and honor. If you choose otherwise without seeking release from the commitment, or evade via deception, then you're being morally weak. Its not really my definition, unless you believe I force people to get married. These aren't really my definitions, though., I think part of the problem is a confusion in what I mean by the phrase 'self respect'. It's not the same as self interest, which is really I think what the politicans and spouses you seem to be defending are acting out of. I also find it curious that you interpret my statements to apply to women who cheat and not men. I do have a tendency to refer to submissives in the feminine, and I should, I confess be more careful with that, as it generally alludes to personal experience and not a deeper view. But in no place do I say 'what is morally right for a woman'. I say whats morally right for people who take on a moral obligation. That is simply keeping it. But your final premise was simply golden. Just for comedic shock value I think it's brilliant. That cheating spouses should feel good about themselves because politicians lie, too. Kudos for coming up with a proposition thats simply too preposterous to easily be confronted on any rational level. I think you are reading way more into my response than was intended. I was simply stating that one statement doesn't necessarily logically lead to the other. You made sweeping statements. And I don't believe that many things are absolutes. You said that it would not be difficult to dominate someone who was morally and mentally weak; I was attacking the assumptions you made and illustrating the weakness of the statement. (I was not defending politicans. In fact I was poking fun.) I disagree with you as far as things being so black and white, but that really wasn't the issue at all. I was having fun. I like mental puzzles. You would find me morally reprehensible in that I have had sexual relations with a married woman. But things are never so cut and dry. That makes me morally weak. However, that also makes my Sir morally weak. I guarantee that while I am a submissive, I don't submit to just anyone. Many have tried and failed. And I can't imagine my Sir submitting to anyone. LOL. I know it must have happened when he was younger because he's been in the military, but still. I don't think he would be easy to dominate. Perhaps that is an easier way to illustrate how I think your sweeping statement doesn't work. Good luck to you, may you never face moral dilemmas that open your eyes to the harsh reality that there are shades of gray.
|
|
|
|