![]() |
FAQ/Help |
Calendar |
Search |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Why are you asking retarded questions is my question...
![]() "How can you love someone and force them blah blah blah..." REALLY? pshhh To you, monogamy is ********, unnatural. Thats ok, to us it is natural and we don't force people into it... Its a natural progression of a state of being. If I found out my bf didn't want sexual exclusivity, he wouldn't be my bf anymore. Simple. To make light of your previous example: Jake: "Babe I'm going over to Sally's to hump her brains out, have dinner ready" Sarah: "If you have sex with Sally I'm outta here Jake I mean it dammit!" What are we 10 y.o? How did that convo even start??? Was Jake bragging about Sally's boobs saying how he can't resist? ![]() No, no, no, in reality, between intelligent rational adults, it goes something more like this... We meet, we get to know eachother, we connect, we fall inlove. Somewhere along the line we learn about eachother's values, principles and expectations. If we disagree on a fundamental topic, we find a compromise, if there's no compromise, and the relationship cannot continue healthily and happily because of said fundamental topic, aptly called a deal-breaker, we split up. So now let me ask a retarded question. How can a polygamist force a monogamist into an open relationship and claim to love them? "I'm going to screw everything that walks and you'll just be fine with it if you love me!" Again, the 10 y.o version I copied from your Joe and whats her face example... Not realistic at all when I do it hey? Unless of course you hang out with a bunch of emotionally retarded people, in which case, I digress ![]() And the question just doesn't make sense, as HB pointed out, there's no force in a loving relationship, people should be pairing up with like-minded people. If they don't, they were either unfortunately mislead like my dear friend Lynn, or its their own damn fault for not knowing the person they're getting involved with, or choosing to be with the person despite such huge differences. NB. The Ultimatum (i.e what you call "force") If someone says, "cheat and I'll leave", its an ultimatum, not force. They are stating their boundary and how they will react upon this boundary being crossed. You choose to act, knowing the consequence. If you cheat, the person leaves, bcoz they said they would. If you don't and you aren't the monogamous type, you sentence yourself to a whole lot of misery. Either way, when you get an ultimatum like this a CHOICE is presented before you, not force. You feeling forced is your own damn problem. There's simply no force, unless they handcuffed you and kept you prisoner until you finally escaped. |
![]() UnderTheRose
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Hopefully you'll pick women where it won't be a deal breaker. Its a preference and a belief system. I respect yours and neither do well together. I wouldn't want to force any man into monogamy and I don't want to be forced into an open one. It all comes down to expectations and respecting the others beliefs.......whether they can live harmoniously .
__________________
![]() ![]() *Practice on-line safety. *Cheaters - collecting jar of hearts. *Make your mess, your message. *"Be the change you want to see" (Gandhi) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Actually your response is somewhat interesting because it's a perfect example of how people take what they believe, assume everyone else believes the same way, and then interpret everything anyone else says as evidence that they do believe the same, throwing out the parts that don't fit as "just an excuse" or some other such thing. Last edited by High Treason; Jul 29, 2013 at 03:33 PM. |
#29
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As long as we are writing short dialogues, how about this one: Larry: I should have the freedom to be openly homosexual Jim: Well I should have the freedom to not be around open homosexuality! Jim has simply used the word freedom incorrectly here. In fact, Jim is attempting to exert force on Larry not to be openly homosexual. He wants Larry to change his behavior, to do or not do something. That is force and a restriction of Larry's freedom. Larry is not attempting to exert any force on Jim. Jim is free to continue to not be openly homosexual (or homosexual at all). "Forcing" someone to not have the power to force me to do things is not actually forcing someone to do anything. Quote:
Having sex with someone else does not hurt me. In fact your partner having sex with someone else doesn't hurt you either. What actually (emotionally) hurts you is knowing that he had sex with someone else. Your bf could have sex with a hundred other people and as long you never find out, no harm ever comes to you (assuming he is engaging in safe sex). That should be kind of a red flag that there is a disconnect somewhere in your belief system when knowing about something is hurtful to you but that thing happening without your knowledge is not harmful to you at all. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The majority of the population believes in exclusivity. It can't be that hard to find women who are fine with multiple partners. If you don't want your belief criticized then why criticize ours. I don't believe forcing anyone into anything.
__________________
![]() ![]() *Practice on-line safety. *Cheaters - collecting jar of hearts. *Make your mess, your message. *"Be the change you want to see" (Gandhi) |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() *Practice on-line safety. *Cheaters - collecting jar of hearts. *Make your mess, your message. *"Be the change you want to see" (Gandhi) Last edited by lynn P.; Jul 29, 2013 at 09:44 PM. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I haven't caught up yet, sorry if I'm repeating. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Oh I like the argument about, what you dont know cant hurt you. I'm not sure I agree with it though. I grew up being lied to, and I didnt like it. Humans "work" better ie can be happier? if they can trust someone.
Just for the sake of argument, my first marriage was monogamous, the 2nd was not, and the 2nd was to some degree better than the first, but ultimately both sucked. The deciding factor was not faithfulness at all. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you do not defend your beliefs, by what means do you ensure that your beliefs are reasonable to hold? Don't you feel that a belief should be subjected to scrutiny to determine whether it holds up? Surely you don't just hold any belief you feel like without any good reason. Quote:
Quote:
To be clear, here are the reasons I have gotten so far: 1. Sexual Health issues. People are exclusive sexually because they are afraid of STDs or unwanted pregnancy. This is clearly not true because when presented with a scenario in which these things would not be a concern, people still cling just as strongly to their belief in sexual exclusivity 2. It's the deceit. This is really just an argument for why cheating is wrong. However, it's still clearly not true because when presented with other instances of deceit, people are not nearly as upset by it if they are at all. These are the only two reasons I have gotten from anyone so far. I am still waiting for anyone to provide any rational basis for sexual exclusivity. This seems rather more like an ad hominem attack than anything but I'll briefly respond. I have never said that I do not want to be in a committed relationship. In fact, for me personally, I have little intention to seek sex outside of that relationship. When in a relationship, I tend to be sexually exclusive as long as sex continues to happen in the relationship. However, sometimes it happens I am at a party or whatnot and a sudden opportunity for sex presents itself. I don't see any reason to turn it down. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Then you would be wrong.
Quote:
This is always a possibility in any relationship regardless of whether or not it's sexually exclusive. Assuming you are in the relationship for reasons other than sex, not being sexually exclusive doesn't significantly increase this possibility. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
See why I call your question retarded and why lynn left?
Because you're purposefully dismissing everything we say and pretending you want a mitigating answer... NOBODY needs to jusify any damn thing to you. A belief does NOT have to be approved by you, who died and made you king? READ MY POST: It clearly states MONOGAMY IS A NATURAL PROGRESSION. and when someone decides to say fk that, I'm screwing around now, it does hurt. It hurts our feelings and you KNOW this, you just want someone to explain it to you becoz you're either a robot or flamer. HTF do you expect people to explain the origin of feelings anyway. And after your comparison between lying over grandmas name and cheating? I'm going with flamer. People who change their minds about their principles years into a relationship (like you) must deal with their own stupid aftermath. When choosing a life partner, its best not do so whilst weakminded, not knowing who you are in the first place and following others beliefs like sheeple. (like you) This kind of decision should be made by MATURE adults, like I pointed out too. (not like you) Now I will bow out of this thread because 1, I dislike flamers and trolls, 2 You clearly don't want the info put before you, so this thread is a waste of time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt tho, silly me ![]() |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Calling me names doesn't really do anything to further the discussion. However, if you would like to discuss the issue at hand in a rational manner free of ad hominem attacks, I will be happy to do so. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you really were looking for a discussion on this topic, as opposed to whatever the hell it is you're doing now... You would have responded to one of us by now with; "I see now that people are individual, and that there are people for whom monogamy does come naturally to, I also see now that some people are emotionally invested in their relationships, so that is why cheating would hurt their feelings" or something like that. But no, all you've done is reiterate that to you we don't make sense, and we must defend our beliefs to YOU, like you are a deciding factor in the choices WE make. MY LAST ATTEMPT AT EDUCATING YOU (because I'm actually nice like that) People are not just objects created for someone else's pleasure, a blow up doll would be more suited for you if you believe otherwise. To many people, sex is not just sex, it's not just a logical mechanical act. Emotions,intimacy, bonding and trust is built within these relationships, they are invested in your partner, if it was something that you can forge between numerous people equally, then there's nothing special or intimate about it. I could never personally have a sexual relationship without those things. So yes, if he were to cheat, it would hurt like hell. Which might I point out, I mentioned before, but you dismissed the fact that I said people have feelings. So, now I will be bowing out of this rouse of a discussion for real, as I've said all I can to someone who is narrow-minded, and refuse to be part of your cyber circus ![]()
__________________
![]() DXD BP1, BPD & OCPD ![]() |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
as stated above by Trippin 2.0
" if it was something that you can forge between numerous people equally, then there's nothing special or intimate about it.".... yep. And i would add to that, why bother being in a relationship then? why have a Marriage or a Girlfriend? Why not just have a random assortment of bodies to entwine with? Is it because ultimately one still wants to feel as though there is ONE special person for them? Where does the line get drawn? So your wife finds a handsome young man that she starts bumping uglies with, and through that intimate physical act, she learns to care for him and he for her, and perhaps when you would like her home making dinner, she is at his house, in his bed, discussing his day with him, offering him emotional support while you sit at home in an empty house.... Then what? Do you make a call and go to a girl who takes on the role as 'satisfier'? And then wife comes home one day and you are not there for her... so she looks elsewhere... Like, what's the point? If there is no emotional investment in sex, if there is no intimacy, and its just mechanical action, then who cares if you have the same person daily, or a blow up doll. If it's because you like variety, then why bother having a Wife or Girlfriend? I mean, i understand the desire to be with other people, but there are a variety of ramifications and i think that the opinions of others, as to why they are monogamous have been swept to the side by you as being absurd or wrong. Not cool. |
![]() lynn P., Trippin2.0
|
#42
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That feeling of being backed up against the wall is common when faced with the fact that one's beliefs may not be tenable. I realize that it's an uncomfortable feeling. It is often even for me after years and years of training and experience in rational discussion. However, the appropriate thing to do in that situation is to re-examine your beliefs and be prepared to admit that you might be wrong. What too many people often do instead is take offense or even become violent on occasion. That's just not very productive. Quote:
Surely you don't just believe everything you are told, right? When faced with potential "information," you should always question it to see if it is justified. If you don't you will end up believing a lot of strange and very untrue things. Quote:
To make the sentences shorter and therefore simpler to understand, I will use the following variables: X: a person Y: X's partner in a relationship Z: emotions, intimacy, bonding, trust, and being invested in one's partner Here is what I think you are saying: 1. X requires relationships in which both X and Y have Z. 2. X requires relationships that are special for both X and Y. (implicit premise) 3. If Z exists in more than one of a person's relationships, there would be nothing special about any of that person's relationships. 4. X has no desire to have sex with someone without Z 5. X will be hurt if X's relationship does not meet X's requirements (implicit premise) Therefore, if Y had sex with someone besides X, X would be hurt. OK, let me study this for a second. We can conclude from 1, 2, and 3 that X wants a single relationship and from the addition of 4 that X's partner in the relationship would be the only person X wants to have sex with. This proves quite well that X would be sexually exclusive within the relationship. However, that's not the stated conclusion. The stated conclusion is that Y not being sexually exclusive would hurt X. When we consider premise 5, we can come up with the following: We can conclude that if X or Y did not have Z that X would be hurt. We can also conclude that if X or Y had Z in multiple relationships, it would hurt X. This argument does support its stated conclusion, however, because the only thing we know about anyone's preferences regarding sex is about X. We know nothing about Y in that regard, so the conclusion doesn't hold water. Now, to be fair, we could easily fix this argument by simply adding another premise that states "Y has no desire to have sex with someone without Z." However, I can't think of any good reason to add that premise. Why must that be true of Y? It sounds to me as though X is simply transferring her own feelings onto Y and feeling hurt unnecessarily. By the way, I also think the truth of premise 3 is pretty questionable. |
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
unless you think that a relationship is only sex or that sex implies a relationship, nothing you have said here makes any sense.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
clearly not even remotely in the same category as sex with a human being Quote:
I don't agree that I have swept anything to the side. I have made an honest effort to respond to everything raised in this thread. If I didn't respond to something it is because I either missed it or felt that I addressed it previously. |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
There's an article in the nytimes.com about how monogamy may have evolved.
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
That would be interesting to read. Do you have a link?
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
I haven't made my way though the entirety of the topic yet (I'm working on it), but there's something I wanted to contribute before offering anything about anything.
Treason, a debate over such a thing I think is a fine idea, but your assertion about opinions is absolutely incorrect. An opinion is typically held due to the values held by the person with the opinion. Looking at the base of the opinion, the value itself, it is impossible to empirically prove or disprove the value, or claim the supremacy of one over the other with a factual basis, as 1) such a thing can only be examined in relation to other values, which excludes in large part any tangible evidence (in this case, the only evidence that could be provided would be a comparison between testimonials from monogamous and couples like your propose, but that speaks more to an examination of monogamy than a value) and 2) the argument necessarily introduces bias from both sides in regard to each side's arguments. As such, one's view on the worth of monogamy being based on values, something which cannot be examined in a rational, scientific manner, leaves the matter of supporting an opinion such as this impossible to support, thus leaving the only validation the opinion has lying in the values of the individual, something which is impossible to empirically validate. Thus, I argue entitlement to one's opinion is a valid notion in this matter. I would, perhaps, agree if the opinion was on something tangible, such as, say, whether product A or product B is better at doing job C, as that can be supported with evidence. Just a caveat. My point in this matter is that if you're looking at the underlying reasons that prompt monogamy or not, you're looking for evidence that does not exist, that cannot exist. If you're looking purely at monogamy vs alternatives without any consideration as to why the belief is held (which would invalidate, according to your topic title, your point in bringing this up), then you'd be more reasonable in expecting evidence. Now, I'll get back to reading the topic...saw the "opinions" line and had to weigh in. Harley
__________________
The world suffers alot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people.- Napoleon Bonaparte |
![]() lynn P.
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Dude it's a lot more clicks for me to link it than it is for you to google it. It was this week. I thought you'd be interested, that's all.
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My point is, both people out having sex with others is either 1) bound to lead to trouble because intimacy often naturally comes with sexual activity. That intimacy involves caring, concern etc. The guy makes your woman feel awesome and she ends up spending more time with him and this makes you dump her or 2)there is no intimacy, it's only about sex so no worries about her developing feelings for this other guy, but then its sex without feeling and according to you, theres more to it than sex. You argue for and against both. SAying, "no there's more to sex than just sex", yet at the same time, if feelings develop (often called a form of a relationship) then you would end it. Comes down to WHAT are you wanting outside of the marriage/relationship? Why is one woman's body not enough for you (though i realize now that you are the guy who's g/f hasnt had sex with him in 15 months or longer) if its not just the BODY of another woman you want, then its the interaction too.. right? hanging out? spending time? sharing thoughts? What is YOUR reason for wanting to be with women outside of the relationship you are in? What is monogamy? and if monogamy is not for you, what is the word you use to describe the opposite? Polygamy?... and THATS not just about sex that is often about caring too.. and once again, caring leads to people spending time with that other person. You might not be #1 if youre busy out with someone else and she happens to also be with someone else. and to say that if she liked another guy and sometimes wasnt home when you wanted her there, that youu'd end it with her THATS about you wanting to be in control of her polygamous relations and THAT is not true polygamy.. its about You wanting to be with whoever you want, when you want it. Wow man, you're just like.. really frustrating to deal with. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
This thread appears to have run its course. I am now going to close it.
|
Closed Thread |
|