|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 4:15:47 GMT
I didn't say it was unforgivable. You can still be in the relationship, but it's not a committed one anymore and your promises mean jack squat now. I'd say if he's financially supporting his family he's committed where it counts. There are a lot of deadbeats out there. The sex stuff is ancillary. Just my humble opinion. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant by 'long committed relationship' and 'marriage'.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 6:34:40 GMT
I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant by 'long committed relationship' and 'marriage'. My position all along has been that sex is not that important. It's a Judeo-Christian religious social construct. Financial responsibility is far more important in a marriage than sexual exclusivity. That sounds like something I would say. In fact... IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5080531/threadI did. Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 7:07:43 GMT
If I had a daughter I would want her to marry a man who could support her and their children. That would be my priority. If he is like 46% of husbands and has a sexual indiscretion, as her father, I think I would advise her to stay with him and work through it. However, if he was a gambler or a drug addict, I would tell her to divorce the bum. This whole issue of sexual exclusivity is just not high up on the list of priorities. You talked about how easy it is for men to separate sex from love. What about this hypothetical daughter of yours? Should her husband and the father of her children stay with her if she were like those 46% of men? After all, she could be that whore you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 7:27:26 GMT
You talked about how easy it is for men to separate sex from love. What about this hypothetical daughter of yours? Should her husband and the father of her children stay with her if she were like those 46% of men? After all, she could be that whore you mentioned. You mean if she was like the 21% of wives who have sex outside of marriage? Yes, my advice would be the same. Why wouldn't it be? Then why are you so focused on the men? You've been talking as if there's a difference between men and women when it comes to sex.
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Oct 18, 2021 7:44:08 GMT
How is that an ad hom attack when you've been defending it? And if you're guy doesn't care, whatever. You're consenting adults, consent being the important verbage. Marriage isn't for everybody and that's okay. If you aren't into monogamy, it isn't for you. I'm just saying, it is for some people. So you made an ad hominem attack because you don't like my position. Got it.
I posted a study which shows 46% of married men have sex outside their marriage. That sounds like it's quite common. I'm saying that sexual exclusivity is not the only consideration in a marriage. It wasn't an ad hom attack.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 7:52:40 GMT
Then why are you so focused on the men? You've been talking as if there's a difference between men and women when it comes to sex. Well the 46% to 21% contrast confirms my point on the gender differences. But I don't care if some giddy woman sees fireworks and smells roses when she cheats. Sex is not worth breaking up a relationship over, for a man or a woman. It also sidesteps my question in which she was like those 46% of men, but no matter. Where do you draw the line, then? Would a one night stand every night justify a breakup? And how would it work if only one of you them stayed faithful?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 8:51:36 GMT
It also sidesteps my question in which she was like those 46% of men, but no matter. Where do you draw the line, then? Would a one night stand every night justify a breakup? And how would it work if only one of you them stayed faithful? How did I sidestep the question? I don't know if 46% of the men had one night stands or long emotional affairs. Yeah, if the husband is with a hooker every night, divorce the slob. That doesn't change my position that sex by itself is not a deal breaker. But a hooker very night is sex by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 18, 2021 8:52:55 GMT
It wasn't an ad hom attack. In my case it was an ad homo attack. Being bisexual, can you really be the Homo Superior?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 18, 2021 10:06:23 GMT
I’ve never really felt that sense of detachment but then I’m not the type who attracts potential partners to a point where I can easily brush off an encounter. My numbers are pretty low… A long time ago I was a lovesick teenager who fell in love every time. After I hit the age of 22 or so, I got over puppy love. That’s a great way to insult those who prefer a bit of personal attachment to complement their physical attachments.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 18, 2021 13:27:26 GMT
Easy with the attitude. This is a civil conversation. Sorry, but health and safety is always an issue and are absolutely a necessary requirement of a healthy relationship. I'm not going to be mentally healthy if I can't trust my partner is sexually healthy. Especially if we're going to keep being intimate with each other. This isn't a neurotic entitlement of ownership over a partner's body. This is a reasonable entitlement of ownership over my own body. Health is not at all a separate issue when it comes to intimacy in a relationship. And no, we cannot assume the cheating partner is not riddle with STDs because they can't be trusted to be committed, then they can't be trusted to be safe. Trust is easily broken and difficult to repair. It actually says a lot about my view of sexual health and how important that is. I absolutely did not say that one sexual encounter outside of marriage is a reason for divorce. Please don't make stuff up. I said it's up to people to decide for themselves. I'm telling you it's not up to you decide what counts as a minor bump in the road for other people's relationships. It could. And as I said, it's up to the couple to figure it out for themselves. It's a great reason to break up. Doesn't mean they automatically have to. I'm not even advocating that they should. They can break up or work it out. That's up to them. That's the point. There is no one right or wrong reason. Not when it comes to trust.
Did he spend money that they'd saved together? Now he's violating their finances. Plus, the potential for disease was one aspect of the broken trust. Once someone is cheating, there's no guarantee they've been careful. I won't trust them. And neither would many other people.
I'm saying many people, myself included, wouldn't want to risk a disease because someone can't be trusted. I say it's up to the couples to decide what's important to the emotional health of their relationships. STD's are a huge issue.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 18, 2021 15:57:05 GMT
That’s a great way to insult those who prefer a bit of personal attachment to complement their physical attachments. Stamm, stop being such a wuss. I didn't insult you. I was taking about myself. Hush there, I’m sulking.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 20, 2021 15:17:14 GMT
Yes, there are different levels of cheating. It all depends on how much harm is done or could potentially be done if the person you are with finds out and not learning from your mistakes. When it comes to the question of "is having an affair different than cheating?" I would say that having an affair is cheating, but cheating isn't necessarily having an affair. That is a definitional thing.
It is immoral either way, but in theory if you were to cheat all the time and your wife never has any suspicions and never finds out then there might be no harm done. It is still wrong because it is lying and the potential for harm. There is also harm that could be being done that you aren't even aware of.
They are all morally wrong depending on the circumstance, but there are obviously different levels. If you did it once and didn't do it again, that is obviously going to hurt the person less than if you keep doing it. It is the same as stealing once and learning from your mistake. Stuff can still be worked out and forgiven at this point, whereas it can't after one time.
A one night stand is just about sex, while seeing another woman romantically points to you no longer wanting anything to do with the person you are with. This usually seems to be people who are married who have too much to lose by leaving their wives, but they want to.
People put degrees on morality all the time, because it is in fact a scale. This is why we have different penalties for different immoral acts and harsher penalties for people who are repeat offenders.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 20, 2021 16:49:18 GMT
Hush there, I’m sulking. *Talking, not taking.
BTW: Should I take offense to being called weak and ineffectual?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Oct 21, 2021 17:09:50 GMT
BTW: Should I take offense to being called weak and ineffectual? Only if you're weak and ineffectual. That was a delightfully wussy reply.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Oct 26, 2021 4:41:38 GMT
If it's a financial commitment, sure. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean by 'long committed relationship' and 'marriage'. If it is, why are you talking about sex? You said it was a matter of trust. Buying a car is a longterm financial commitment which could affect both partners for years. That's important. My whole point here is that sex, especially to men, is not that important. A car is a car. A person is a person. A car is not a person. A person is not a car.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Oct 31, 2021 4:26:04 GMT
A car is a car. A person is a person. A car is not a person. A person is not a car. And a man is more attached to his car than he is to some woman he picks up in a bar and fucks one night. That's just a fact. I thought we were talking about long-time partners, not some woman he picks up in a bar and fucks one night.
|
|