don't care whether the male significant other agrees or not, doing anything with this woman would be stupid. Anyone saying that going on ahead once you had his permission is kinda dumb. As xkcd points out, even in trying to make sex simple and not mean anything, people are complicated.
But why not go for it and live a little? What's the worst case scenario? You lose two friends?
Umm, yeah, that is the worst case scenario. You lose two friends. Also, you potentially ruin a marriage. Or, at the very least, you help along what is clearly some marriage problem. Any married women seeking permission from her husband to do sexual things to another man (or woman) clearly has some issues with her marriage, and getting involved in that seems like an obviously bad idea.
You mean HIV, but yea and other fun sexually transmitted diseases. In general Herpies is on the low end of "You are fucked" but the high end of "I'm going to be dealing with this forever" kind of things to get. (Note: I know a lot about the Herpies Simplex virus a staple of GE to insert genes into DNA.) but not to derail the conversation into the realm of STDs.
Any married women seeking permission from her husband to do sexual things to another man (or woman) clearly has some issues with her marriage
Actually in my opinion it's quite the opposite. If they went and did sexual things without asking permission then there probably is a problem. Not everyone or all societies view sexual practices the same way as western "christian" culture.
Or, at the very least, you help along what is clearly some marriage problem.
A problematic marriage should probably just be ended anyway. If this is an issue, then the marriage was already broken. If it isn't an issue, then the marriage is fine, and you won't hurt anything.
Any married women seeking permission from her husband to do sexual things to another man (or woman) clearly has some issues with her marriage
How so? I've known people with open marriages. Who says spouses can't sleep around if they're both cool with it?
I was gonna argue more...But I realized how futile that is. I have a lot of good points to bring up, but it's so pointless, because this is just a difference of opinion. Whatever.
I was gonna argue more...But I realized how futile that is. I have a lot of good points to bring up, but it's so pointless, because this is just a difference of opinion. Whatever.
I could totally beat Michael Jordan at basketball, but instead I'm just not going to play.
I was gonna argue more...But I realized how futile that is. I have a lot of good points to bring up, but it's so pointless, because this is just a difference of opinion. Whatever.
I could totally beat Michael Jordan at basketball, but instead I'm just not going to play.
Except your claim is about a feat of physical ability that you probably don't have, whereas I've just realized arguing when it will boil down to a difference in opinion is POINTLESS. I have points that could further this argument and force people to come up with new arguments, but those arguments and my future arguments just center down to a difference in opinion that can't be shifted, because it's based on different life philosophies. So yeah, arguing is pointless.
I have a lot of good points to bring up, but it's so pointless, because this is just a difference of opinion.
It is, but an unbacked or indefensible opinion is effectively a nonentity.
Marriage is just an arbitrary contract between two people, and there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a "healthy" administration of said arbitrary contract. Thus, possibly disrupting a fragile one is not a legitimate concern: either the marriage was too weak to survive anyway, or the actions to be undertaken are part and parcel to the arbitrary contract.
I was gonna argue more...But I realized how futile that is. I have a lot of good points to bring up, but it's so pointless, because this is just a difference of opinion. Whatever.
I'll continue your line of argument in my head and respond here.
See, Yes, you do have a point. If one person is having trouble in the relationship already they probably should be either working on the relationship or ending it instead of doing these sorts of half measures. But if the relationship is open and honest and trusting you should be able to handle other people being involved if that is your thing. Obviously if both people in the relationship don't agree they shouldn't go further down that path or if one starts to pressure the other to agree it's also not good. Either way at that point you decide if you still want the relationship. Again we go back to communication and trust and empathy. If you don't have those your relationship is screwed up already.
Except your claim is about a feat of physical ability that you probably don't have, whereas I've just realized arguing when it will boil down to a difference in opinion is POINTLESS.
Opinions are physical abilities, as are thoughts and arguments. Why is triggering the electrochemical response to change a neuron different from firing the electrochemical response to interact with a muscle?
I have points that could further this argument and force people to come up with new arguments, but those arguments and my future arguments just center down to a difference in opinion that can't be shifted, because it's based on different life philosophies
So your only arguments boil down to the fact that you disagree with the life choices of others and want to impose your own philosophy on said decisions? My argument stems from the fact that marriage is an arbitrary contract, and thus two parties to a marriage are free to implement it however they like.
An opinion is a better opinion if it has factual backing and practical rationale. I see no compelling argument that "marriage" is special. Would your opinion change if the exact same situation occurred but the other two parties weren't married? Do you have a specific argument against polyamory?
Except your claim is about a feat of physical ability that you probably don't have, whereas I've just realized arguing when it will boil down to a difference in opinion is POINTLESS. I have points that could further this argument and force people to come up with new arguments, but those arguments and my future arguments just center down to a difference in opinion that can't be shifted, because it's based on different life philosophies. So yeah, arguing is pointless.
Hiding behind the word "opinion" when you make judgements about what is and what ought to be is an excuse for being unable to properly justify your view, and a terribly weak one at that. People are often wrong about things, but they are capable of changing their minds.
because it's based on different life philosophies. So yeah, arguing is pointless.
Some philosophies are better than others, because they can be more strongly and intelligently defended, and include a rational underpinning. Arguing opinion and philosophy is far from pointless. Don't confuse a weak position with an unarguable "difference of opinion."
No, if this situation involved an open marriage or polyamorous one I wouldn't argue. It's because this woman is just seeking out affection from ONE specific individual she's shown emotional attachment to in the past that I argue.
So your only arguments boil down to the fact that you disagree with the life choices of others and want to impose your own philosophy on said decisions?
This is why I stopped arguing, because I'm not going to impose my opinion on other people. Jeez, man.
Any married women seeking permission from her husband to do sexual things to another man (or woman) clearly has some issues with her marriage, and getting involved in that seems like an obviously bad idea.
This is not always the case, but I would agree that it is probably often the case. Most people suck at communicating their needs, and instead turn to passive-aggressive measures to accomplish what they want.
In the case of this girl, I'd be a little suspicious. A relationship that has been on-again-off-again over the course of 6 years may have some faults that neither party wants to address. The fact that the offer of sexual favors came from her without direct confirmation from her SO, combined with the likely instability of their relationship, sends up a warning flag for a "damsel in distress." At least, that's how I read it.
So, Axel, what if everyone involved sits down, hashes everything out, and agrees on the ground rules? Don't ask about likelihood; we're doing a "what if" thing here. Is there any way you think it could work?
This is why I stopped arguing, because I'm not going to impose my opinion on other people. Jeez, man.
Except you kinda are, in your own passive-aggressive way. "I'm not even going to bother arguing with my opinion, even though it's obviously correct, because none of you jerks are going to listen".
I'm not trying to be mean, or anything, but I've seen you pull this same argument "strategy" a few times.
This is why I stopped arguing, because I'm not going to impose my opinion on other people. Jeez, man.
Refusing to defend a challenged opinion is tantamount to admitting that its underpinning is weak at best. I enjoy Cowboy Bebop. If you challenge that opinion, I can cite a great deal of evidence and rationale for it. I can also defend and support all of those citations. It's a strong opinion. It can't be imposed, merely argued.
You fear defending this opinion because it would force you to bring to light even less defensible opinions with shakier underpinning.
No, if this situation involved an open marriage or polyamorous one I wouldn't argue. It's because this woman is just seeking out affection from ONE specific individual she's shown emotional attachment to in the past that I argue.
So your only arguments boil down to the fact that you disagree with the life choices of others and want to impose your own philosophy on said decisions?
This is why I stopped arguing, because I'm not going to impose my opinion on other people. Jeez, man.
First of all, most of your opinions aren't opinions. Saying something is an opinion, when it's not, isn't some magical way to make your argument invincible.
Also, even if your opinion really is an opinion, you still have to defend it. "I really like Star Wars" is an opinion. If someone asks you "Why do you like Star Wars?" you better have an answer. If you don't, then your opinion is worthless.
If you really don't want to argue or anything, then don't say anything at all. Making a post that says "I have an opinion, but I don't want to say it or argue about it" is pretty much the ultimate in cowardice. If you really didn't care that other people hear your opinion, then you wouldn't say anything at all. But instead you take a coward's path trying to share your opinion while trying to avoid any evaluation of said opinion.
In this forum, we pick apart everything everyone says. If someone disagrees with you, they will correct you on even the smallest of points. If you are an intellectual person, as are most of us here, this is a good thing. You should be happy when someone corrects you. It's free education! I would be disappointed if people let me get away with spouting bullshit. The fact that the community acts this way shows that our audience isn't obedient sheep. They know how to question everything, like intelligent and critically thinking individuals. If you are unwilling to be questioned, you're just a coward who is afraid to be wrong. If you are simply incapable of defending yourself, then you probably are wrong.
@Neito - That's not what I meant. If it came off that way, I'm sorry. I was simply admitting that this argument isn't worth having, like any argument I get involved in. I didn't seriously expect that most people would find this okay.
@Rym - You and Scott talk about backing up my opinions, but why should you care? If I stop arguing, you win. If I keep arguing, it's your forum, so again you win. What's the point? Why consistently pursue me when you have nothing more to gain from it? It's obviously not to help me, because you don't care about my opinion, your point is to make me believe YOUR opinion, and isn't that "forcing your opinion on others?"
@Pete - I wrote a long post about this, but my failing internet lost it, so I'll sum it up. If in this situation, the woman really had no emotional attachment to the outside man, the outside man had no emotional attachment to the woman, and the husband didn't care that his wife was having sex with someone else, then yes, it could work. However, getting to this situation is very difficult, and, if it's anything like the original situation brought up, this arrangement is being made drunkenly, so clearly that situation is not the right time to test this theory out and see if it works.
It's obviously not to help me, because you don't care about my opinion, your point is to make me believe YOUR opinion, and isn't that "forcing your opinion on others?"
It's obviously not to help me, because you don't care about my opinion, your point is to make me believe YOUR opinion, and isn't that "forcing your opinion on others?"
What if they believe their opinion will help you?
In this case, help to find casual sex from a married woman who just wants sex from me? I can see with Religion, but in this case, it's sorta not a relevant argument.
Comments
I say go for it.
It bugs me that my mom doesn't see my relationship as strong and doesn't respect it just because I'm not married. It's such bullshit.
Marriage is just an arbitrary contract between two people, and there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a "healthy" administration of said arbitrary contract. Thus, possibly disrupting a fragile one is not a legitimate concern: either the marriage was too weak to survive anyway, or the actions to be undertaken are part and parcel to the arbitrary contract.
See, Yes, you do have a point. If one person is having trouble in the relationship already they probably should be either working on the relationship or ending it instead of doing these sorts of half measures. But if the relationship is open and honest and trusting you should be able to handle other people being involved if that is your thing. Obviously if both people in the relationship don't agree they shouldn't go further down that path or if one starts to pressure the other to agree it's also not good. Either way at that point you decide if you still want the relationship. Again we go back to communication and trust and empathy. If you don't have those your relationship is screwed up already.
An opinion is a better opinion if it has factual backing and practical rationale. I see no compelling argument that "marriage" is special. Would your opinion change if the exact same situation occurred but the other two parties weren't married? Do you have a specific argument against polyamory?
In the case of this girl, I'd be a little suspicious. A relationship that has been on-again-off-again over the course of 6 years may have some faults that neither party wants to address. The fact that the offer of sexual favors came from her without direct confirmation from her SO, combined with the likely instability of their relationship, sends up a warning flag for a "damsel in distress." At least, that's how I read it.
So, Axel, what if everyone involved sits down, hashes everything out, and agrees on the ground rules? Don't ask about likelihood; we're doing a "what if" thing here. Is there any way you think it could work?
I'm not trying to be mean, or anything, but I've seen you pull this same argument "strategy" a few times.
You fear defending this opinion because it would force you to bring to light even less defensible opinions with shakier underpinning.
I think Churba could weigh in on "worst case scenario" when sticking your dick in crazy.
Also, even if your opinion really is an opinion, you still have to defend it. "I really like Star Wars" is an opinion. If someone asks you "Why do you like Star Wars?" you better have an answer. If you don't, then your opinion is worthless.
If you really don't want to argue or anything, then don't say anything at all. Making a post that says "I have an opinion, but I don't want to say it or argue about it" is pretty much the ultimate in cowardice. If you really didn't care that other people hear your opinion, then you wouldn't say anything at all. But instead you take a coward's path trying to share your opinion while trying to avoid any evaluation of said opinion.
In this forum, we pick apart everything everyone says. If someone disagrees with you, they will correct you on even the smallest of points. If you are an intellectual person, as are most of us here, this is a good thing. You should be happy when someone corrects you. It's free education! I would be disappointed if people let me get away with spouting bullshit. The fact that the community acts this way shows that our audience isn't obedient sheep. They know how to question everything, like intelligent and critically thinking individuals. If you are unwilling to be questioned, you're just a coward who is afraid to be wrong. If you are simply incapable of defending yourself, then you probably are wrong.
@Rym - You and Scott talk about backing up my opinions, but why should you care? If I stop arguing, you win. If I keep arguing, it's your forum, so again you win. What's the point? Why consistently pursue me when you have nothing more to gain from it? It's obviously not to help me, because you don't care about my opinion, your point is to make me believe YOUR opinion, and isn't that "forcing your opinion on others?"
@Pete - I wrote a long post about this, but my failing internet lost it, so I'll sum it up. If in this situation, the woman really had no emotional attachment to the outside man, the outside man had no emotional attachment to the woman, and the husband didn't care that his wife was having sex with someone else, then yes, it could work. However, getting to this situation is very difficult, and, if it's anything like the original situation brought up, this arrangement is being made drunkenly, so clearly that situation is not the right time to test this theory out and see if it works.