A bunch of cunts, mostly in the Australian sense. Except that one guy.

having an affair with a married person.

if you are propositioned by someone whom you know is married, what do you do? I've been invoking the "bros before hos" principle. The very least I can do is not cause any more problems for my fellow males. On the other hand, if I'm being propositioned in the first place, doesn't that mean the marriage has problems, anyway?


this has happened to me THREE times this year. I guess I am a magnet for chicks in boring marriages, or something. (must be REAL boring marriages if a tryst with a computer programmer is an exciting fling) I've said no every time but now am wondering if I was too uptight.
Permalink  
August 24th, 2005
"On the other hand, if I'm being propositioned in the first place, doesn't that mean the marriage has problems, anyway?"

Is bullshit justification for why you should do something you know is wrong.
Permalink Jack of all 
August 24th, 2005
Sorry if that sounded harse. You've done the right thing 3 times. After all, if it's just a fuck and I don't know about you, but I'd hate to be on the news for being murdered by a jealous husband.
Permalink Jack of all 
August 24th, 2005
List your priorities in order of importance:

a) Sex.
b) Doing the right thing where my friends and acquaintances are concerned.
Permalink MarkTAW 
August 24th, 2005
Other people's fidelity or lack of it is their affair.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 24th, 2005
Ba dm ta!
Permalink MarkTAW 
August 24th, 2005
"On the other hand, if I'm being propositioned in the first place, doesn't that mean the marriage has problems, anyway?"

Probably. So what? Not to sound rude or anything, but this makes it seem like you're in search of justification for its own sake.


"I've said no every time but now am wondering if I was too uptight"

It all comes down to how you feel about it, and how you *think* you'll feel about it afterwards. Usually, I'd say "go for it", and find out how you really feel about it, but not in this case. My opinion, FWIW, is you've done the right thing.

You see, the closest I've been to that situation was when I got involved with a woman who was already in the process of separation before I entered the scene. Still, both of us (me and her) made a point of not allowing things to go forward until the separation was effective.
Permalink Paulo Caetano 
August 24th, 2005
First of all, I think that "aiding and abetting" someone who is acting with callous disregard for their marriage vows is no better than being the person violating the vows in the first place. That's just my take and I realize that not everyone's morals are the same (which of course means that everyone else is wrong.)

That said, unless you're just looking to get laid, I'd stay away. A woman who will cheat on her current SO will later cheat on you. There are no exceptions. OK there may be a 1 in 100 exception but chances are it's not yours, so why take the chance? There are plenty of available women out there. Unless you really believe you're so pathetic that you can only get the ones who are out to prove something and so are less picky...

People who cheat, particularly after they're married, will continue to cheat. They get addicted to the drama. Drama is what they think a relationship IS. Those people say things like "The spark is gone. The flame has gone out of our relationship." and the subtext is, "it's no longer dramatic enough for me. I'm bored."

So it really depends on what you're looking for, I guess, and to a varying extent on your own beliefs. Personally (as I've stated already), I wouldn't want to be that "other guy" that fucks up a dude's marriage (from his perspective, anyway).
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Personally, Marrige means nothing to me. I dont want to get married, and dont really respect other peoples marrige as such.
I usually dont boink non single women though, and I suppose being married qualifies as non single. It fun to flirt with them though.
Permalink Eric Debois 
August 24th, 2005
As muppet said, the only reason to do this is the benefits part of "friends with benefits" - if there's the slightest chance of your getting emotionally involved with the person, stay out.

In addition, there's the old "don't shit where you eat" - if you have sex with them and you end up being the reason they get divorced, some people are perfectly capable of blaming you, bringing some nasty emotions into the workplace.

But, if you do want to do it, their fidelity is not your problem.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 24th, 2005
Got to agree with Philo here; the best end result is that you only make one enemy.

Can't see it having a happy ending...
Permalink Katie Lucas 
August 24th, 2005
If they were really irresistably hot you wouldn't be asking here, right?
Permalink Just me (Sir to you) 
August 24th, 2005
wise man say: "her hotness must outweigh the potential perils"...
Permalink Kenny 
August 24th, 2005
++Other people's fidelity or lack of it is their affair.

I have to go with that, but having indulged in such a relationship I can also second that emotional involvement is a bad idea. This girl came onto me out of nowhere, and I was in a rut. It can be great sex (while it lasts) though, plus they tend to go home after. It is a bit like a free prostitute.
Permalink I am Jack's vow variety 
August 24th, 2005
> It is a bit like a free prostitute.

You or her?
Permalink son of parnas 
August 24th, 2005
"No matter how good she looks now, someone, somewhere, is tired of putting up with her shit."

Saw that on a fake motivational poster with a hot chick on it.
Permalink D.W. 
August 24th, 2005
++You or her?

Indeed, I am philanthropic like that.
Permalink I am Jack's Love limbo 
August 24th, 2005
You might want to see if your state has an "Alienation of Affection" law. There are about 7 states in the US that still have them.

Basically, it's a holdover from British Common Law that assumes a spouse can be stolen, and the other spouse is entitled to compensation as a result. Awards (at least in NC) often hit the six-figure range.
Permalink example 
August 24th, 2005
"Personally, Marrige means nothing to me. I dont want to get married, and dont really respect other peoples marrige as such."

This qualifies you as a moral cripple.

"Property means nothing to me. Therefore I take what I want from whoever I want."

"Honesty means nothing to me. Therefore I deceive people to get whatever I want from whoever I want."

"My reputation means nothing to me. Therefore I defame people at random by propragating malevolent falsehoods about them."

Must be convenient living an empathy free life. Must suck awful bad for the people around you, though.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
" A woman who will cheat on her current SO will later cheat on you. There are no exceptions. "

+1 on that. I have seen it a dozen times.

I have been in this spot many times. My advice is just say no. No matter what happens you will feel guilty over it.

To be honest though, I haven't always said no. Anyone else notice that married women are easier to get to than singles?
Permalink flash91 
August 24th, 2005
++This qualifies you as a moral cripple.

I don't think so. How does a lack of respect for an agreement between two third parties correlate to some sort of moral shortcoming on his part? It isn't his agreement, and he does not have to acknowledge it. If he does, then you have to find even more fault with the way so many in this country are now refusing to acknowledge or accept gay marriage. Accepting no marriage is the moral high ground in those hills if you ask me.

You stretched it further by saying that it must mean he believes lying and stealing are ok. How that conclusion was drawn involves rectal activities foreign to even muppet.

And empathy free? Sure, he indeed lacks empathy for a spouse willing to cheat on their partner, even partners with such spouses, but it is a big jump to absolute apathy.

I know you weren't even talking to or about me, but since I share a bit of the same viewpoint, it is worthy of my defending.
Permalink I am Jack's amorous apathy 
August 24th, 2005
The reasoning in my examples parallels Eric's logic.

If you don't find something valuable, but someone else finds that thing very valuable, does that give you the right to destroy it because YOU place no value on it?

If you hate cats, but someone else has a cat they love and adore and means the world to them, is it OK for you to kill it?

And the fact that I have to go this far to explain it before you can comprehend this very simple thing indicates that both of you are, indeed, moral paraplegics.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
Let me try one other way.

A man asked "Why should I avoid being an arrogant jerk, when arrogant jerks seem to get everything they want?"

A very wise man replied "Uh, because then you'd be an arrogant jerk?"

And I hope I don't have to explain the relevance of this very simple thing to you as well before you will be enlightened.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
OK, just one more thing, then I promise I'll stop for now.

It's always telling when someone's argument amounts to "Hey, you can't say that's asinine behavior, because that would mean I'm an ass, too!"
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
>Personally, Marrige means nothing to me. I dont want to get
>married, and dont really respect other peoples marrige as
>such."
>
>This qualifies you as a moral cripple.

Hardly. Marriage is a contract entered into by two people. If one of them cheats on the other with you then THEY are breaking the contract, not you.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 24th, 2005
No, it indicates that you think you are infallible, insecure, and interminably ignorant.

++does that give you the right to destroy it

The whole point is that it is not the person outside the relationship destroying anything. It isn't as if they excerpt some sort of supernatural or physical power over the acutely astray individual.

If I take your shit, or I kill your pet, I've most certainly done something inside my control and obviously outside anyone elses. If your wife shows up at my door in nothing but a trench coat, I've hardly gone out of my way to harm anyone.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
"If one of them cheats on the other with you then THEY are breaking the contract, not you."

So, your definition of moral is "Not legally liable".
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"If your wife shows up at my door in nothing but a trench coat, I've hardly gone out of my way to harm anyone."

And your definition of moral is "I didn't have to go out of my way or make any special effort to commit the act".
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
And your definition is, it appears, "if it annoys a single person it's immoral".
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
Because you know the guys here who are completely cavalier about fidelity would be just as accepting when a woman they've invested their heart in fucks around on them. Hey, it's just sex, right?
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
No, I simply refuse to bear the burden of other people's actions and responsibilities.

If I did not feel the least bit of empathy or guilt I would not care what you had to say about it. I'm sorry that people have problems. They are not my problems though. At least in my own experience, if not me, it would have been someone else.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
Right and since it may as well be someone else, it's fine if it's you.

Which I'm sure is what you'll tell the guy you catch fucking your wife.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
"Because you know the guys here who are completely cavalier about fidelity would be just as accepting when a woman they've invested their heart in fucks around on them."

Who said that, exactly, and when did they say it? Or is this another one of those arguments based on something that nobody actually said? :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
Not at all Mat, it's just that you're all fucking hypocrites. :-)
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
"And your definition is, it appears, "if it annoys a single person it's immoral"."

How many people does it have to harm to qualify for your definition?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
muppet I don't see how that is at all related. Not even under any sort of 'do unto' or golden rule principle even.

The fact is if someone is disinterested, bored, or whatever, they can and will do what they want. Sure, I'd be fucking livid if I were married and my spouse cheated, cheating girlfriends sure don't rank high on my list of cherished things, and infidelity altogether is inimitably insensitive. Still, I refer back to the statement above...

I refuse to bear the burden of other people's responsibilities and actions.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
"At least in my own experience, if not me, it would have been someone else."

"Hey, if I didn't sell those kids crack, I'm sure someone else would have done it sooner or later."
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
Right Jack, so conveniently, it's ok for you to fuck a married woman but nobody better fuck YOUR wife.

One sided morality is FUN!
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Mr. muppet, that goes for whichever side of the fence I find myself on.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
"Mr. muppet, that goes for whichever side of the fence I find myself on."

Ah yes, this does explain your position quite succinctly.

Of course, I can't think of a better definition for moral cripple.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
I didn't say nobody better fuck my wife, but my wife better not fuck anybody... but me that is. If she did, I sure wouldn't be meat headed enough to be mad at the interloper, I'd be mad at her.

Possessive people that get pissed at other people over their SOs actions are near sighted or intentionally wearing blinders.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
Oh I agree Jack it's your wife's fault and not the fucker what fucked her, but I still don't think the fucker is saintly.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Ah, but muppet and others live in a special universe where everyone must adhere to the same strict and unvarying moral code. For example I'd have no qualms with sleeping with someone who was cheating on their partner, but I myself would never cheat on my partner, and I would hope that my partner never cheats on me. That is *not* hypocrisy as they are seperate issues. Different sides of the same coin, maybe, but different none the less.
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
Jim, my fence post was just following my other, I hadn't even read muppet's post yet.

Why don't you expound upon why other people's responsibilities and actions are at all related to my morality?

I don't know about morally handicapped, but I'm certain that "I'm morally superior because I say so" sure falls under some title I don't want.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
"Ah, but muppet and others live in a special universe where everyone must adhere to the same strict and unvarying moral code."

You have every right to live your life as a moral cripple.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
It depends on the people involved. I feel it's always better to say no but it may not be easy.

I had a similar experience and I said no. When this happened I knew this person for quiet sometime. She must be atleast 5 or 6 years older than me. It was totally unexpected. She started the act and it was getting difficult to stop then. There was some intervention so she had to stop it. But she assumed that I was for it and started it again when we were alone the very next time. She said something like she's not forcing me and that if I don't wish to continue if I didn't really want to. I liked her but somehow I didn't feel like continuing. I apologized to her and had to put a stop. If you are a good friend with someone and if they approach you it's difficult to say no. Fantasizing about such things is one thing. But when it happens it's oddly uneasy.

I spoke to her a few months after this happened. She was feeling very guilty. I told her that it's fine and sometimes momentarily we tend to do something like that.

When I told this to my friends some said that I was really foolish to waste such an opportunity. One of my female friends said that it really adds to my charm :-)
Permalink Senthilnathan N.S. 
August 24th, 2005
Senthilnathan,

Congratulations on having a functioning conscience. It was good that you sensed the relationship was not the best thing for you, and it certainly wasn't the healthiest thing for her, either.

Another wise man I heard say (paraphrasing) "Doing the wrong thing always seems better in fantasy in reality. Doing the right thing is always better in reality than in fantasy."
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
++You have every right to live your life as a moral cripple.

The same as Jim has every right to live his condemning whomever he likes with no explanation.
Permalink I am Jack's relative righteousness 
August 24th, 2005
"Where morality is not logical it is useless" is a poor argument, has always been a poor argument, and is generally employed by people with sociopathic tendencies, in my experience. It makes you closer to a shop vac than anything resembling human.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Where it is not logical is where it is not morality, it is something else, at least not my definition of morality.

I do not practice religious/Christian morality, although I suppose my beliefs are more in line wiht the Christian faith than any other.

Coincidentally much of what I consider morality may coincide, but obviously there are parts of religious morality that fall solely under the principle of 'faith'. Those are the ones where morality is not logical, and I am not able to follow something 'just because'. My mind revolts at working that way.

Throw your stones... I have no problem justifying my values. But I question the merit in throwing stones based on faith, you terrorists. :)
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
Gotta ask yourself at least one question:

"Who knows where that thing has been?"
Permalink hoser 
August 24th, 2005
>if you are propositioned by someone whom you know is married, what do you do?
I would say no. If they're gettin divorced, wait until it is finalized. It is an honesty issue. If they were your wife, would you want her screwing around on you? I wouldn't. And like the "golden rule" suggests, I wouldn't do it to another man. Even if I hate him. No matter how "hot" she is. No matter how horny I am. It. Isn't. Right.

In some cultures, doing so will be fatal. I don't think the majority of Americans can comprehend "honor killings" while simultaneously forgiving some angry husband for shooting them when he catches his wife in bed with another man. It isn't a middle eastern thing, it is a worldwide thing: even dating someone can flip that bit.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/steven-vincent-case-i-am-reposting.html
Permalink Peter 
August 24th, 2005
"I do not practice religious/Christian morality, although I suppose my beliefs are more in line wiht the Christian faith than any other."

I suppose Christian in the televangelist who seduces women he pretends to care about sense.

Certainly not in the "what Jesus said" sense.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
I didn't actually do the deed, but afterword I wondered if maybe I'm just being old fashioned and weird. That is why I asked. It has happened a number of times this year. This past weekend was particularly weird because I didn't actually know the woman was married until we almost got busy.

It is a peculiar situation. If you don't do it, you don't feel like "wow, I totally exercised proper moral restrait tonight!" You feel more like "damn it, what is my problem!" and your balls ache.
Permalink the OP 
August 24th, 2005
Here's how I figure it.

First, if you are in a relationship that has an implicit or explicit promise of not having sex with others, then having sex with others is immoral. I admit that there are situations on the edge of this set, such as "We've been dating for a few weeks, am I allowed to fool around?", etc. Marriage, though, clearly involves a commitment to forsake all others, and therefore cheating in marriage is immoral.

Second, it is immoral to knowingly help someone else commit an immoral act. If I drive a taxi and unknowingly pick up a bank robber on his way from the bank, that's not immoral. But if we plan for me to stop outside the bank on the chosen day and I get a cut of the money, that's wrong.

Therefore, having sex with someone you know to be involved in marriage or other committed relationship is wrong.

Under I-am-Jack's reasoning, above, it seems that he has no problem being the getaway driver, since it's not wrong to drive a car and it wasn't *him* that robbed the bank.

Question for Jack's, Mat Hall, and anyone else on the "I'm not the one breaking my vows" side: How is that different from being the getaway driver?
Permalink Kevin 
August 24th, 2005
"How is that different from being the getaway driver?"

Because we are all, like it or not, bound by the same laws, so being an accomplice in a crime is a crime. We are not, however, all bound by vows that two individuals took with each other. I never promised to honour or obey anyone 'til death we did part, so how is it binding on me at all?

If you really can't see the difference between the two then you have issues...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
"If you really can't see the difference between the two then you have issues..."

Yes. It's called having a conscience.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
What, so being an accessory to a bank robbery is exactly equivalent on a moral level to being party to someone breaking a verbal contract?

If that's what having a conscience means, then I guess I'm glad I don't have one...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
++. If you don't do it, you don't feel like "wow, I totally exercised proper moral restrait tonight!"+++

Then you are, quite frankly, immature and self-serving.

Just like everyone in this thread ridiculously arguing that it's fine to be intimate with a woman in an exclusive relationship with someone other than you.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
I think you'll find that a conscience is all about taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Doubtful morality aside I wouldn't - the grief potential wouldn't be worth it.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
August 24th, 2005
I think Kevin asks the slightly wrong question. Perhaps it should have been asked as, "How is that *morally* (not legally) different from being the getaway driver?"
Permalink bpd 
August 24th, 2005
It is morally different because assisting a bank robber is assisting a bank robber. Having sex with someone is not helping them to violate a moral code especially if they are the instigator.

It would be like driving the bank robber if he hopped in your car unexpectedly and said drive!

Much like a woman jumping on my lap, depending on the stature, presentation, and circumstances, etc... I might be inclined to do just that.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
No, it would be like helping a bank robber if he suddenly jumped into your car and yelled "Drive! I've just robbed a bank and I've got no weapon!"

+++Having sex with someone is not helping them to violate a moral code especially if they are the instigator.+++

How do you figure? The woman is married and therefore in an honor-bound agreement under a code of morality she agreed to be party to along with her husband.

Is it moral to disrespect the morality of your peers when that morality is harmless?
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Not only that, but are you actually arguing that the rule of the state is superior to human morality? REALLY?

It's a frightening world we're entering where everything is just OK and human kindness is optional (and largely regarded as a foolish liability.)

Sadly, you folks are getting the world you want. I think you'll regret it once you actually have to live in it.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
++How do you figure? The woman is married and therefore in an honor-bound agreement under a code of morality she agreed to be party to along with her husband.

Right... and right on about the morality vs. legality.

The agreement has already been brokwn in principle as soon as the encounter is initiated, maybe even before.

They may be legally married, but the moral code has already been shattered. No action I take at that point one way or the other will change that.
Permalink I am Jack's moral melanoma 
August 24th, 2005
"The woman is married and therefore in an honor-bound agreement under a code of morality she agreed to be party to along with her husband."

Yes, and then she decided to violate that moral code. I never agreed to the moral code in the first place, so at worst, regarding this specific act I'm amoral and she's immoral.

Anyway, that aside, by *your* moral standards you consider having sex with a married woman to be an immoral act, and by *my* moral standards I don't consider it immoral, and that's the end of it. You don't have to agree with me, but you also have no grounds for complaint.
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
Mat, of course I do. Just as you seem to presume grounds for complaint when people want to teach their religion, etc

We're not living in our own personal little bubbles, Mat, as much as people like you enjoy believing it. We're living in a society. We have to get along with each other, like it or not. You folks who are pushing for ever more moral ambiguity are going to see it come back and bite you, or your children will, and there won't be anything good about it.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
"Anyway, that aside, by *your* moral standards you consider having sex with a married woman to be an immoral act, and by *my* moral standards I don't consider it immoral, and that's the end of it. You don't have to agree with me, but you also have no grounds for complaint."

So someone who does not, by his personal moral standards, consider pounding the bejesus out of someone named Mat (who spells his name with one t) an immoral act jumps out of an alley and pounds the bejesus out of you, resulting in compound fractures, contusions, and an ass that no longer functions correctly.

Do you have grounds for a complaint?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
Sex <> violence and any such comparison is odious.

Whether your conscience is or should be troubled by sexual temptation is, as discussed, moot. Thumping people isn't.
Permalink trollop 
August 24th, 2005
trollop,

sex/violence was not the criteria for determining morality put forth by Mat. He put forth his personal opinion as the sole arbiter of morality.

Shouldn't others have the same privilege of defining morality to conform to their own personal discretion?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"He put forth his personal opinion as the sole arbiter of morality."

Again, this appears to be another genius pointing out of flaws in something that I didn't actually say.

We can disagree on points of morality, but neither of us can justify claiming that one is better than the other, or that they're wrong. There are areas where a general consensus can be reached -- to take your violence example, the vast majority of people would agree that hitting someone is generally not the way to go -- but there's a huge gray area in the middle that nobody will ever agree on, so you just have to choose your own path. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, everybody's just different. That's what makes the world a fun and challenging place to live!
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
I can't wait until moral ambiguity kicks you in the ass.

Actually, it probably already has more than once, but you accept it as 'part of life.' Things like the total fucking screwing that American consumers take from their banks. It's just a matter-of-course.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
So are you saying moral ambiguity doesn't exist, and that every moral question has a definite always-correct answer? I do hope not.

And yes, sometimes you'll get screwed over because somebody made a "bad judgement call", and yes, it *is* just life; whining and complaining because things don't always go your way may be fine for you, but here in the real world us human beings tend to just get on with muddling through and doing the best job we can. You can't please all the people all the time...

(I shall ignore your strawman about the banks.)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
It's not a straw man, it's a product of moral ambiguity, but I'm way too tired and drugged up to debate it properly.

No, I'm not arguing that there are black and white answers for us humans to have, however, there are reasonable expectations of conduct that most sane people share. This new trend toward defining morality as whatever feels good is new, and it's a fad. It is inevitably a fad because the fall of society is its natural conclusion.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
"And yes, sometimes you'll get screwed over because somebody made a "bad judgement call""

Like when someone sleeps with your wife, for example.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
Most issues of morality were pretty much worked out a long time ago. People who claim otherwise are generally trying to get away with something.

I can't believe I actually have to explicitly state something so trite, but...

Thinking of what's best for others over what you happen to want at a particular instant is generally considered a hallmark of moral virtue.

Now, "what's best for others" can be quite the sticky issue to work out. But explain to me in what way is sleeping with another man's wife the best thing for her or her husband?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"But explain to me in what way is sleeping with another man's wife the best thing for her or her husband?"

Ok. Let's do the maffs.

Not sleep with woman. Unhappy people: Man, woman, you -- they're in a failing marriage, you're not getting any. Happy people: None.

Sleep with woman. Unhappy people: Man -- he's in a failing mariiage and his wife is cheating on him. Happy people: Woman, you -- you're making the beast with the two backs and the interestingly shaped middle, she's getting the attention her husband doesn't give her.

So overall, if the guide to morality is "what is best for the greatest number of people" then sleeping with the woman is, in some sense, your duty as an upstanding citizen.

(Note: not a serious argument. It's late, I'm bored of this thread and its tedious similarity to all the other "my [thing that you can't judge objectively] is better than yours" arguments, I need a cigarette, and you're all morons. :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
Is the woman really happy if she's deceiving a man she's pledged a lifetime of love to in order to satisfy her baser urges? Women tend to be a bit more emotional about such things, so I'd guess that her actions come with not a little guilt, along with some confusion, frustration, anxiety...

Is assisting her in the creation of guilt, anxiety, loss of self-confidence, etc, really "good for the woman"?

Nope, seems good for you, maybe, if you're the conscience-free type that you seem to be purporting to be. So that's one happy guy and two miserable people. Your maffs are off.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
" Is the woman really happy if she's deceiving a man she's pledged a lifetime of love to in order to satisfy her baser urges?"

But if she's willing to blow off her pledge to get nekkid and rub parts with someone else, then is her pledge worth anything? What if she no longer loves her husband? Should she stay with him and be miserable just because she said she would, maybe in a drunken moment in a chapel in Vegas? Are you *so* certain about all of this that you can say with absolute certainty that it's *always* going to be worse for the woman to have sex than to not? See, grey area, dude...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
+++But if she's willing to blow off her pledge to get nekkid and rub parts with someone else, then is her pledge worth anything?+++

Maybe not, but she's bound to be conflicted over it, even if he's a recently revealed child pornographer. Women are like that.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
Mat suggests, "&#8230; nobody will ever agree on &#8230;"

Majority (much less universal) consensus is not a prerequisite for moral truth. It doesn't matter if no one agrees - the truth is still the truth, whether or not anyone (or everyone) wishes to believe otherwise.


"&#8230; you just have to choose your own path."

But then what happens when that path is diametrically opposed to someone else's (say, your) path?


"Nobody's right, nobody's wrong &#8230;"

Here again, this ignores the existence of any absolute truths.


"There are areas where a general consensus can be reached &#8230;"

But any given group of individuals may not come to the morally correct consensus. Consider a "simple" example such as slavery, as it was practiced in the southern US. The general consensus was that it was acceptable, but such a consensus does not make it morally correct.


Mat, it would seem that you hold a belief similar to, if not exactly that of, moral relativism. Given your stated disbelief in god, this does not surprise me. However, without absolute truths (moral and otherwise), there is no stability (as Muppet has suggested) and everything (society in particular) would return to (or, if you prefer, would go to) chaos.
Permalink bpd 
August 24th, 2005
Generalising, muppet? Naughty, naughty!
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
I can say with reasonable certainty that it will be bad for the woman in more cases than not.

No, of course she shouldn't stay in a sham marriage, but she should get out of it properly before re-entering the dating scene. She'll have a clearer conscience and more self confidence for the effort.

Even you, Mat, deep down, know that shagging a married woman is wrong. The fact that you're unwilling to admit it for the purposes of your logic-laden argument doesn't change that. Human beings know right from wrong. The fact that you can't always explain why doesn't invalidate genetic knowlege like that.

Note I use the term "genetic knowlege" loosely but I think you know what I mean, whether you admit it or not.

Mat, I'm increasingly suspicious that you lie about your age. If you don't, you're profoundly immature for your years.
Permalink muppet 
August 24th, 2005
"Should she stay with him and be miserable just because she said she would, maybe in a drunken moment in a chapel in Vegas?"

She should get a divorce.

If she hasn't got a divorce yet, she's still conflicted, and you're just making things worse. If she was considering reconciling with her husband, you just made that a lot harder. And if she does decide she doesn't want to end her marriage, and the husband finds out about you, everyone is much, much unhappier than when this started.

So, the possibilities are:

1. Woman goes through with divorce, and, for some unfathomable reason, is still interested in sleeping with you. The only thing sacrificed is some immediate gratification, and the woman has the peace of mind that she made her decision with a head unclouded by guilt. Still sucks for the husband, but because she wasn't sleeping around on him, he can't as easily blame it all on her, realizes he needs to get his act together, and becomes a better human being who eventually makes some other woman very happy.

Or, even better for maximal happiness, woman realizes you're a loser and finds someone who is truly invested in making her happy as a complete person.

2. Woman decides that she wants to stay in her marriage. Woman is glad she didn't sleep with that loser, and husband continues to enjoy his blissful life married to the woman of his dreams. You're still not happy, but because you're a selfish jerk your happiness isn't as relevant on the maximal human happiness meter.

Or, if somehow you become not a selfish jerk, you can rejoice in the happy, fulfilling marriage of the couple you did not take part in pulling apart.

So, there's a more realistic calculation of likely happiness for all involved.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"It doesn't matter if no one agrees - the truth is still the truth, whether or not anyone (or everyone) wishes to believe otherwise."

I don't believe that morals *can* be universal truths. The universe doesn't give a crap about our miserable lives, quite frankly. Assuming morals are somehow "built in" and not merely an artifact of society, religion, cultural, educational and socioeconomic factors, etc., pretty much requires a belief in some sort of higher power, and echoes the oft-repeated "how can you behave in a moral fashion if you don't believe in God" non-argument.

"But then what happens when that path is diametrically opposed to someone else's (say, your) path?"

Some highlights in ascending order of magnitude: nothing, compromise, disagreement, fighting, murder, war, genocide, total destruction of every living thing. Some OK, some not so OK. However, name any immoral act and I'll give you a situation in which *not* doing it is more immoral, whether or not you believe they're universal truths. (And which, by extending the argument slightly further, suggests they *can't* be universal truths.)

"Here again, this ignores the existence of any absolute truths."

No, not of *any* absolute truths, just anthropocentric ones. We're watery meat-bags, and the universe doesn't revolve around us. In the grand scheme of things the entire history of the human race will be a mere blip in the lifetime of the universe, so any assumption that somehow it came with some built-in morals is nothing but arrogance.

"The general consensus was that it was acceptable, but such a consensus does not make it morally correct."

I disagree, and your next observation --

"Mat, it would seem that you hold a belief similar to, if not exactly that of, moral relativism."

-- explains *why* I don't agree with you. I'm not 100% certain of all the ins and outs of moral relativism, but it seems to more or less fit the bill. Morals, like fashion, music, language, architecture, etc., are just cultural artifacts, they're not set in stone, they have no special intrinsic properties, and although most people will agree on some of them some of the time, and one or two nearly all of the time, there's a huge blob in the middle where the "right" answer depends on a whole lot of things.

"However, without absolute truths ... everything ... would return to ... chaos."

I don't see how that follows at all. Care to expand?
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
"However, name any immoral act and I'll give you a situation in which *not* doing it is more immoral, whether or not you believe they're universal truths."

But in order to do so, you will have to weigh two actions and  two potential outcomes and declare one more moral. And if you continue to weigh these hypothetical cases against one another, you will almost surely see patterns and ways to generalize and categorize what things are valued more highly on the moral scale than others.

By doing so, aren't you creating a hierarchy of moral values?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"Even you, Mat, deep down, know that shagging a married woman is wrong."

No, I do not. Please stop presuming to know what I think, feel, believe, or know, as it's becoming incredibly tiresome.

"Mat, I'm increasingly suspicious that you lie about your age. If you don't, you're profoundly immature for your years."

I just hold a world-view that is totally different from yours. I'm bitter and twisted -- my parents divorced when I was 13, I was kicked out of home by my mother at the age of 16, I suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of 25, I spent several years on medication to treat my manic depression, and then I was homeless for about a year; it's actually a miracle that I've managed to assemble some sort of life now. Anyway, as a result of all those trials and tribulations I have a somewhat dim view of the world, and an even dimmer view of anyone who makes any sort of claim that if only we all believed the same as them everything would be OK. In the words of Ice T, shit ain't like that -- it's real fucked up.
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
"By doing so, aren't you creating a hierarchy of moral values?"

Yes. And?
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
By Jove, trollop, I think you've cracked it. :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 24th, 2005
"Yes. And?"

Well, what's the qualitative difference between that and claiming there's some kind of moral absolutes?

I think you're just saying there's no SIMPLE absolutes, which is commonly referred to as Legalism. In fact, it may be so complex in practice that no human being could ever possibly get every moral decision right, no matter how well intended.

If that's what you're saying, I agree with you.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 24th, 2005
"Well, what's the qualitative difference between that and claiming there's some kind of moral absolutes?"

Because this heirarchy is not fixed. My own personal hierarchy won't be the same as yours, it might not be the same in ten years time (or even ten minutes time) as it is now, and as it's generally contructed hastily when faced with a moral dilemma shouldn't be considered in any way definitive.
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
Jack: "No, I simply refuse to bear the burden of other people's actions and responsibilities"

A bit of an one-sided view, wouldn't you say?

While she may have taken the initiative, your reaction will have an equally important role on the outcome. So, we're talking about your (yours and hers) "actions and responsibilities".

Unless she's holding a gun to your head (like the bank robber in the cab mentioned above), I fail to see how you claim to be clear of any responsibility. It's your call too, right?
Permalink Paulo Caetano 
August 25th, 2005
Yes, but you still need to take two factors into account. One, by even thinking about it she's already broken her vows. Two, they're vows between her and her husband, not between you and anyone else; if I promised I'd go round to see my gran and then phoned a friend up and said "I was going to see my gran, but do you fancy going to the pub instead?", should my gran hold my friend accountable for me not doing what I said?
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
"Yes, but you still need to take two factors into account. One, by even thinking about it she's already broken her vows"

True. But my point is not about judging her. When she decided to take the initiative, I've already formed my opinion - pls, bear in mind it's *my* opinion, and nothing more than that; I don't own the truth.


"Two, they're vows between her and her husband, not between you and anyone else"

While that's true, by your reaction, you're making yourself part of the picture, too. So, you can't claim to have no responsibility for the outcome, whatever it happens to be.

You do say one thing with which I agree - everyone is entitled to define their own moral values, when such "gray areas" are involved. The problem, however, is maintaining that set of moral values when we find ourselves on the receiving end. But as long as you're coherent...


"If I promised I'd go round to see my gran and then phoned a friend up and said "I was going to see my gran, but do you fancy going to the pub instead?", should my gran hold my friend accountable for me not doing what I said?"

From the little I know of human nature, I'd be inclined to believe your gran wouldn't be very welcoming of that friend of yours; even if she didn't openly held him co-responsible for it, she would know that particular friend of yours cares little for her.

I can tell you there were times when my friends were the ones to remind me of my duties, and I, for one, am deeply thankful for that. YMMV.
Permalink Paulo Caetano 
August 25th, 2005
+++I just hold a world-view that is totally different from yours. I'm bitter and twisted -- my parents divorced when I was 13, I was kicked out of home by my mother at the age of 16, I suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of 25, I spent several years on medication to treat my manic depression, and then I was homeless for about a year; it's actually a miracle that I've managed to assemble some sort of life now.+++

Aha, and you think I'M the one who's broken? Does it not occur to you that maybe, just maybe, your ability to interact and empathize with your fellow human beings may be just slightly impaired?
Permalink muppet 
August 25th, 2005
Mat, you asked if I "care to expand" on my statement about how a lack of absolute truths progresses into chaos. But looking back at your statements, I've found that you've already done so: "&#8230; nothing, compromise, disagreement, fighting, murder, war, genocide, total destruction of every living thing." See the progression? Perhaps it is difficulty for you to see because of the lack of chaos &#8211; created by the vast majority that maintains and upholds moral truths, thus keeping the universe from the "total destruction of every living thing".
Permalink bpd 
August 25th, 2005
To make my point a bit more clear&#8230; Those that live in their world of moral relativism (or whatever they'd like to call it) look around and think, "Hmmm, seems to be working." However, if *everyone* were to believe as they do, chaos would ensue. Thus, it's the vast majority of non-moral relativists that hold the place together so that people (such as Mat, for example) can believe the way that they do and have it appear as if it's actually working okay. And although it may be working okay for _them_ (at least from their perspective), it really wouldn't work at a universal level. So, Mat, on behalf of the vast majority, your welcome.
Permalink bpd 
August 25th, 2005
"However, name any immoral act and I'll give you a situation in which *not* doing it is more immoral, whether or not you believe they're universal truths."

Okay, how about self-centeredness.
Permalink bpd 
August 25th, 2005
"But looking back at your statements, I've found that you've already done so..."

Er, no, because (as you have yourself conceded) even if morals *are* absolute it's still possible to have two diametrically opposed moral choices within a single moral framework. The disadvantage of assuming morals are absolute is that if gives you very little leeway to reach a iddle ground.

I'd be willing to argue that having flexible morals is *less* likely to lead to chaos than having a bunch of rigidly defined ones you can't deviate from. If you have two parties who insist their moral path is the right one and an absolute truth and are unwilling to concede that perhaps they're both just as right the only thing that can result is conflict. With an "it's all based on context" system of morals, it's easier to reach some sort of compromise.

"However, if *everyone* were to believe as they do, chaos would ensue."

I still don't think you've adequately explained why, you just keep insisting it's the truth.

"So, Mat, on behalf of the vast majority, your welcome."

See, this is just based on your belief that your set of morals are the only right ones, your unwillingness to accept that not everyone thinks as you do, and some kinf od weird notion that it's only people like you who keep the world in order. I'd say that's arrogance of the highest order, and that in fact people with their absolute morals cause an awful lot more problems -- murdering doctors who perform abortions because they're "wrong", killing infidels because they exhibit moral turpitude, etc. -- than people who are willing to accept that matters of right and wrong are not the same for all people. Live and let live, one man's bread is another man's poison, and so forth...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
"self-centeredness"

Something that's more likely to be exhibited by a member of "morals are absolute, and it so happens that I know exactly what they are" brigade, and is not really a moral issue in and of itself.

Also, God helps those who help themselves... :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
"Does it not occur to you that maybe, just maybe, your ability to interact and empathize with your fellow human beings may be just slightly impaired?"

Impaired, or based on a different life experience? Who are you to say that because mine are based on different circumstances than yours it means mine are wrong or impaired? Should I not be allowed to have any opinions or beliefs because of my life history? Perhaps because you've *not* suffered it's actually your judgement that's impaired? Or perhaps we're both as right as each other because there is no *actual* "correct" answer?

Oh, no, wait, you must be right and I must be wrong because you said so.
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
And apologies for the inordinate number of typos. :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
Right. Every opinion is just as valid as any other opinion.
Permalink muppet 
August 25th, 2005
I'm glad you've finally seen sense. After all, doesn't your hallowed Constitution actually protect your right to hold and to discuss any opinion you see fit?

It's like free speech. "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it." Any kind of absolutist position must, by definition, remove some freedoms of speech, expression, association, religion, and all those other things in the Constitution...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
So I think that Intelligent Design should definitely be taught in science classes, then.
Permalink muppet 
August 25th, 2005
Well, my only complaint in the whole matter was being held as morally bankrupt.

Nobody ever has to see things how I do.

They are perfectly within their rights to be wrong. /tongue-cheek
Permalink I am Jack's perfect pantomime 
August 25th, 2005
You can teach it, but not in science classes -- it isn't a science, so any class you teach it in is no longer a science class. You might as well say you can teach swimming in geography class, or economics in gym class.

So, are you being deliberately obtuse or genuinely stupid? :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
Well we've just agreed that all opinions are equally valid. Since scientific theory is just an opinion with justification, it seems to me that any opinion on arguably scientific matters qualifies for equal weight in the science classes of our schools.
Permalink muppet 
August 25th, 2005
Somehow you've extended that to mean "everything is an opinion", and if that's where you're headed then we may as well teach that the earth is a truncated icosahedron, that two plus two equals Jerry Springer, that whales are insects that live on bananas, that when you sail over the horizon you fall off the edge, and that if you stick your head in a fire it'll make you irresistible to the opposite sex.

(Up until you started sticking your oar in it had become a fairly reasonable discussion about moral absolutism and relativism, and then you show up and spout obvious nonsense and make the whole thing a bore. Good work.)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 25th, 2005
"&#8230; as you have yourself conceded &#8230; it's still possible to have two diametrically opposed moral choices within a single moral framework."

I don't believe I conceded that. Though I do recall asking you what would happen in such a situation. To which you responded with highlights of increasing levels of chaos.


"&#8230;people with their absolute morals cause an awful lot more problems&#8230;"

Only when they have the wrong morals &#8211; like in the instances that you go on to enumerate (e.g., murdering abortionists). See, the problem isn't that there are absolute morals, it's when we believe wrongly. But wrong belief doesn't discount the existence of absolutes, it merely calls into question an individual's understanding of what they are (or, as in your case, _if_ they are).


"&#8230;your unwillingness to accept that not everyone thinks as you do&#8230;"

On the contrary, I accept that you don't think as I do. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm not accepting. This exchange may last for a few more hours and then we'll both go our own ways with our own beliefs. I accept that. In fact, acceptance of people with beliefs contrary to my own is part of those morals I've been talking about.


"&#8230; your belief that your set of morals are the only right ones &#8230;"

Not so. I'm certain my set of morals is flawed &#8211; as am I. I'm not trying to argue my specific set of morals, only that there exists an absolute set of morals. Whether I know what they are or not is not my point.


Mat, you've asserted that self-centeredness is "not really a moral issue in and of itself". What definition of "moral" are you using? My dictionary state that morals are concerned with "right conduct" &#8211; and self-centeredness is certainly a manner of conduct. Personally, I think you're avoiding the challenge that you put forth.


"&#8230; people who are willing to accept that matters of right and wrong are not the same for all people."

But such people must be willing to accept any action on the part of someone else &#8211; regardless of the specific action. And this just doesn't make any sense to me. Any society made-up of such individuals would quickly lead to anarchy (chaos) &#8211; because they'd all be doing whatever they want and there'd be nobody to tell them otherwise.

Societal laws are a codification of morals. Not necessarily absolutes, but most certainly not the "live and let live" way of thinking you've professed.
Permalink bpd 
August 25th, 2005
"I'd say that's arrogance of the highest order, and that in fact people with their absolute morals cause an awful lot more problems -- murdering doctors who perform abortions because they're "wrong", killing infidels because they exhibit moral turpitude, etc. -- than people who are willing to accept that matters of right and wrong are not the same for all people."

How dare you judge someone else's opinion that murdering abortion doctors is any worse than your opinion that murdering abortion doctors is bad. That's such an arrogant, absolute belief of yours. Stop being so judgemental and forcing your beliefs on everyone.

Let me know when you're ready to stop digging.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 25th, 2005
Er, not quite English. Try

"...someone else's opinion that murdering abortion doctors is correct and moral is any worse than your opinion that..."
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 25th, 2005
Actually, Mat, let me help you out.

Unbeknownst to the good people at TCU, Jack Bauer has been informed by a terrorist that a nuclear device will be detonated in Los Angeles unless Jack successfully seduces and sleeps with the wife of his best friend. It will also be detonated if Jack tells any one, etc. etc.

See, sleeping with someone else's wife isn't bad! I mean, NOT sleeping with another man's wife could result in Los Angeles going up in a mushroom cloud!

You silly people with your silly moral judgements! You're just not being realistic!
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 25th, 2005
You know, I'm surprised that nobody here has pointed out that this would be an excellent opportunity for him to enter into the highly profitable lifestyle of being a pimp.

A few photographs combined with some ruthless blackmail, and you're all set.

What?
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 25th, 2005
Wow, this thread totally went off the deep end. Any time someone actually has an interesting topic, someone always has to hijack it (yes, that's you Jim) so they can say nasty things to other people. *sigh* At least some of the first responses were good.
Permalink Paul Rivers 
August 25th, 2005
Nonetheless, I somehow feel obligated to respond to something.

"Woman is glad she didn't sleep with that loser, and husband continues to enjoy his blissful life married to the woman of his dreams."

Among all the stupid statements made, this has to be near the top. She isn't exactly the woman of her husbands dreams if she wants to sleep with other guys, now is she? If he didn't alreay know here very, very well before she wanted to sleep with him, it's almost certain she's sleeping around already, or soon will be, with someone else. So again, not the women of her husbands dreams.

Simply put, if she wants to sleep around, and her husband isn't ok with that, then she's not the woman of her husbands dreams. If she wants to sleep around, her marriage isn't blissful as it is, and is unlikely to continue forever.



Since we have all kinds of stupid moral examples, let me throw one out there. Your brother is in a marriage he's not happy with. His wife makes him feel bad about himself. She spends all his money. She isolates him from his friends and family. He thinks he wants to get away from her, but he's afraid that if he moves out by himself, he'll just end up getting back together with her. He wants to move out from his wife and come live with you until he gets his self confidence back enough to resist her.

If you let him come live with you, you've broken up his marriage. They would still be together, probably as long as they're both alive, if it wasn't for you. This certainly hurts the woman - as she sees it, you're the reason he left her! Since you helped your brother do something that hurt someone, I guess you've done something morally wrong, huh? (rolls eyes)
Permalink Paul Rivers 
August 25th, 2005
Well, in the process of saying nasty things to people, most of what I said was on the same topic as the original post.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 25th, 2005
You get a new bike. Your friend, with your permission, takes it for a ride on the driveway. However, the pedal has a defect, and while riding it, the pedal breaks off.

Now you're mad at your friend for breaking your bike. That's what getting mad at "the other guy" is like. The problem is a fault with the bike/woman you married.
Permalink Paul Rivers 
August 25th, 2005
I was on topic.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 25th, 2005
Paul, maybe your friend just rode the bike a little too hard.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 25th, 2005
As a serious reply to the original question, although I don't my reason has nothing to do with morality, I would have to *really* want a married girl to even consider sleeping with her.

My logic is like this:

She's sleeping around -
1. If she's cheating, her husband is probably also cheating.
2. You're probably not the first person she's slept with.
3. If she's married but sleeping around, she's probably slept with other people who sleep around a lot. (not necessarily, but likely)
4. She's probably still sleeping with her husband.

I don't like the chances of getting a permanent STD in this situation. It give it a "likely" rating.

There are some other things to - she may be sleeping with you to send her husband into a jealous rage. Some girls love that. Plus, while I don't think of it as immoral, it's not really a good thing to do.
Permalink Paul Rivers 
August 25th, 2005
Believe it or not Paul, I actually agree somewhat with your facetious point.

If he wants out of the marriage, he needs the courage to tell his wife to her face. Until he's ready to do that, letting him sneak around and hide from his wife at my place probably isn't doing him any good.

No one except the couple themselves has full knowledge of the true nature of the relationship. You're only getting his side of events. I would hope that I would tell "my brother" to go home and tell his wife to her face what he just told me.

Now, if he had done that and a formal separation was in the works, it might be a good idea to let him crash at my place.

Having said all that, do you really see no distinction between letting someone stay at your place and sleeping with that person?

And back to the original example, do you really believe there's no difference between considering having an affair, and having an affair? By saying no to the woman, maybe she feels embarassed and changes her mind about sleeping around on her husband.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 25th, 2005
At let this be a lesson to everyone - if ever you have this dilemma just shag the woman.

If you ask for an opinion round here it just turns into an opportunity for the usual suspects to call each other names all day. The worst that can happen is distant prospect of devils sticking pitchforks up your bum for eternity. What have you got to lose?
Permalink a cynic writes... 
August 25th, 2005
Well, if you're going to talk about it here, shag her.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 25th, 2005
What have you got to gain?

Some fun.

Herpes.

Phone calls out of the blue 20 years later.
Permalink trollop 
August 25th, 2005
Jim, I am not particularly suprised that *you* think you should guide your own brother to staying in an abusive, destructive relationship. It's pretty consistent with the rest of your advice. What do you care if his psycho wife makes it so you never see him again? What do you care if his personality is demolished to the point that he's practically no longer a person? What's important to you is that your ideal of marriage is upheld.

And again, for anyone else reading this, in my example I didn't say that your brother would keep coming over and hiding out at your house periodically. I said that he wants to end the whole thing. That's seems to be the only way to get out of an abusive relationship - cut it off completely. While I agree that the brother in this situation should stand up for himself, if he married this crazy woman, he is probably incapable of doing that at this point. We all make mistakes, some worse than others.
Permalink Paul Rivers 
August 26th, 2005
Paul,

Why didn't you just stick with my Jack Bauer example? I think that one was a lot more fun.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 26th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics