Married Women, Single Women

[Rollo Tomassi]

Having said that... as far back as the late 9th or early 8th century BC, Homer wrote a poem titled "The Iliad" in which two nations went into a long war because one man stole the woman from another man.

Having several women was not an issue in the past. But cheating with another man's wife has ALWAYS been an issue.

Bad example. You're using Homer's fanciful fiction to prove a point? Perhaps the cyclops and the sirens Odyessyus encountered on the way back to Penelope could explain something too? Please, you're smarter than this. I think we know wars are fought for a whole lot more than a piece of ass - married or not.

 

[Latinoman]

You are creating a strawman with a strawman. You absolutely did say there's not degrees of how immoral/unethical something is. How can you say my analogy does not totally match what you said previously?

Because you are talking about CRIMINAL acts that are punishable by the law.

I don't need a liberal professer to teach me his morals or what he believes is moral. Been there done that, and I saw how perposterous sociology courses really are.

Nobody can teach your morals. What they can teach you is the DIFFERENCE between "ethics", "morals", and "values".

If you do something that you can't justify then that is the definition of lacking morals and ethics.

You don't have to justify your morals. They are your own. That's the point I am trying to make.

And you cannot justify unethical behavior.

Str8up's postion is that he is not in a commited relationship.

And society position is that it is unethical to sleep with marry people.

You can disagree with his "justification" if you want.

I don't have to disagree with anything. It is unethical...there is NO justification when it comes to knowingly engaging on unethical behavior.

I never said it was the most moral and ethical thing to do.

You cannot say is the most moral situation to do anyhow...as morals are PERSONAL in nature. That would be the equivalent of your preaching your morality to him.

My postion is it's a neutral situation.

Nope. It is unethical.

 

[Latinoman]

Bad example. You're using Homer's fanciful fiction to prove a point? Perhaps the cyclops and the sirens Odyessyus encountered on the way back to Penelope could explain something too? Please, you're smarter than this. I think we know wars are fought for a whole lot more than a piece of ass - married or not.

That's not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that having several women was not frown in the past. But cheating with a another's man's wife was frown to the point that books and poems as old as 11 centuries ago were written on the topic.

That's why King Solomon sent the husband of this woman he desired to War...so he could be killed and he could get involved with her. Not arguing about the religion or validity aspect of this...simply illustrating that taking another's man's wife has ALWAYS been an issue. While having several women became an issue "recently" (by historical standards).

 

[STR8UP]

Having several women was not an issue in the past. But cheating with another man's wife has ALWAYS been an issue.

You missed Rollo's point entirely.

Is adultery frowned upon by society? Yes. Why? Well the church has a BIG part in that.

In the animal world is cheating wrong? Animals are driven by the instincts to eat and fukk. this might mean defending territory and access to mates, but there is no "right" or "wrong".

This concept is entirely a man made.

"But we are ABOVE that!", you say.

To which I will answer "Yes, and no".

Why?

Because as much as we would LIKE to believe that we no longer need, use, or are governed by biology, WE ARE. We have the same urges to eat and fukk that a gorilla or a fish does. Despite whatever constraints popular social opinion attempts to shackle us with, no matter how smart or conscious we become, nature and biology will RULE.

The day a human figures out a way to build another human from a stick of chewing gum and a pack of matches, I might bend a little on this, but until that day I hold my stance that biology will trump all else in the long haul.

 

[ketostix]

Having said that... as far back as the late 9th or early 8th century BC, Homer wrote a poem titled "The Iliad" in which two nations went into a long war because one man stole the woman from another man.

Having several women was not an issue in the past. But cheating with another man's wife has ALWAYS been an issue.

OK let's just end this right here. You are dismissing things that have been said in this thread long ago. You believe if a woman signs a marriage certificate than no man should touch her even if she is throwing herself at them. That's your moral stance (coming from a guy who cheated with married women). Just because some people think they are entitled to retaliate against the guy doesn't mean they're right either. This is a practicality issue.

Other people have a different stance. They believe that a married woman that is putting herself out there on the market to be fvck by whoever she meets that night who tickles her fancy, is no one's wife. She's already decided to break the commitment. And it doesn't matter if your fvcking a married woman or one with a BF or one that is "single". You are taking her from someone. I believe fvcking two or more women at the same time is less moral than being singl and fvcking a married woman. You probably don't agree with me, but why should I or anyone else agree with your beliefs either?

 

[ketostix]

That's not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that having several women was not frown in the past. But cheating with a another's man's wife was frown to the point that books and poems as old as 11 centuries ago were written on the topic.

That's why King Solomon sent the husband of this woman he desired to War...so he could be killed and he could get involved with her. Not arguing about the religion or validity aspect of this...simply illustrating that taking another's man's wife has ALWAYS been an issue. While having several women became an issue "recently" (by historical standards).

I think you are butchering the history. In those days a woman could not divorce a man unless he died. Also you couldn't just fvck a single woman and not marry her. Women were controlled by their male family members and it was very taboo for her to lose her virginity and not be married. It was the moral rules of the time that pressured Soloman to conspire for the husband to be killed in battle. He couldn't just sleep with her while he was still alive. That was the moral standard. What he did was wrong, but the moral of the story was not to covet another man's wife true. The thing is a wife meant something totally different than it does today. Today a wife is nothing more than a girlfriend. It;s different times today. They also stoned to death a woman for losing her virginity without marrying. Should we do that too?

 

[guru1000]

Because as much as we would LIKE to believe that we no longer need, use, or are governed by biology, WE ARE. We have the same urges to eat and fukk that a gorilla or a fish does. Despite whatever constraints popular social opinion attempts to shackle us with, no matter how smart or conscious we become, nature and biology will RULE.

The day a human figures out a way to build another human from a stick of chewing gum and a pack of matches, I might bend a little on this, but until that day I hold my stance that biology will trump all else in the long haul.

Let's put an end to this Choice vs Nature justification card.

Low Quality Man : Nature trumps Conviction
- Murderer, Rapist, Thief, 400 lb guy, Bum, Degenerate
Nature Trumps Conviction more often that not.


High Quality Man - Conviction Trumps Nature
-Any MAN of Discipline
Conviction trumps Nature more often than not

When you pull the NATURE card, you enable/justify your behavior.

 

[KontrollerX]

Man of conviction is only such because nature and genetics gifted him with an extremely sound mind and a natural determination.

Type A personality I believe its called.

The choice is made but it is extremely easier for such a man to make great choices as he is driven to do so just like the fat man is driven to eat twinkies and the rapist is driven to rape.

Biology encourages convictions of various sorts.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The problem with that equation is that the low and high quality man are the same guy.

 

[guru1000]

Man of conviction is only such because nature and genetics gifted him with an extremely sound mind and a natural determination.

Type A personality I believe its called.

The choice is made but it is extremely easier for such a man to make great choices as he is driven to do so just like the fat man is driven to eat twinkies and the rapist is driven to rape.

Biology encourages convictions of various sorts.

Total BS.

Twin brothers, same childhood, friends, upbringing parents and experience.

One is doing a life sentence and the other a successful businessman with a entourage of quality friends.

For a Anthony Robbins fan, I am surprised to see you hold these GENETIC ideals.

Discipline is not hereditary. It comes from within. The man who is genetically predisposed to be fat, can remain thin with hard work and discipline.

Your above statement is complete hogwash.

 

[STR8UP]

Let's put an end to this Choice vs Nature justification card.

Low Quality Man : Nature trumps Conviction
- Murderer, Rapist, Thief, 400 lb guy, Bum, Degenerate
Nature Trumps Conviction more often that not.


High Quality Man - Conviction Trumps Nature
-Any MAN of Discipline
Conviction trumps Nature more often than not

When you pull the NATURE card, you enable/justify your behavior.

The nature card explains a lot of behavior that most people like sweep under the rug.

We are not governed purely by our convictions nor purely by nature. You base your example above on YOUR convictions. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is the same as you.

 

[STR8UP]

The problem with that equation is that the low and high quality man are the same guy.

I'm glad some folks "get it".

 

[guru1000]

The problem with that equation is that the low and high quality man are the same guy.

Twin brothers, same childhood, friends, upbringing parents and experience.

One is doing a life sentence and the other a successful businessman with a entourage of quality friends

It would be nice to all be the same in spite of our choices.

 

[MacAvoy]

Yes St8up is a grown man. I personally like the guy. I won't defend him to satisfy his respect. When he is wrong, he is wrong. Plain and simple.

I'm not defending STR8UP, I'm just tired of the same responses to his threads over and over again. I've given my opinion of what he needs to deal with but he purposely ignores it and chooses to fight with all of you because its much easier than dealing with the real issue.

Props for remembering my love for the Rocky quote.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Twin brothers, same childhood, friends, upbringing parents and experience.

One is doing a life sentence and the other a successful businessman with a entourage of quality friends.

Another bad example. Genotype has nothing to do with phenotype. Identical genetics has nothing to do with it and there is no possible way to identically duplicate individual experience, interpretation and response to it.

Discipline is not hereditary. It comes from within. The man who is genetically predisposed to be fat, can remain thin with hard work and discipline.

Only if he's taught to do so. Discipline is a set of prescribed, learned behaviors as a response to external prompts paired with a desire to perform them. And again, the characteristic behaviors that define what "discipline" is are really only reinforced and rewarded actions as prescribed by social contrivances. Thus, if the 400lb guy in your low quality guy example was socially rewarded for being so, the "disciplined" high quality people would be the ones striving to hit that magic 400lbs.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

That now in addition to all women being immoral and not quality, that no women are truly single, either.

So... I don't know what the point is.

the age old cop-out.

MAN A: I tried and didn't get what I want. how I can I change my behavior to get what I want?

MAN B:I didn't get what I want. The world is fukked up! Goddamnn you world!!!!

which one are you?

 

[reset]

So, as I said, I ain't saying he should done it, but I understand,..

So you're saying you also understand why O.J. killed his wife!?!?

lol@chris rock reference.

wow this thread has gotten too big for me to keep up. Men see their women as their property, in this day and age, probably in every day and age. Another man gets involved, you're going to have a man who thinks someone has messed with his property and I guess you have to deal with any potential consequences.

But it still happens, our bodies say do one thing maybe our morals say do something else. Society is full of conventions that go against our natural impulses.

At this point I see marriage as unnatural. It may happen to me someday, but my marriage as goal/LTR as goal mentality is totally blasted thanks to ss.

 

[reset]

An interesting question would be, if one of us ss'er was married, would the wife be off limits to other ss'ers?

 

[KontrollerX]

Total BS.

Twin brothers, same childhood, friends, upbringing parents and experience.

One is doing a life sentence and the other a successful businessman with a entourage of quality friends.

http://www.eyeondna.com/2008/02/20/genetic-differences-between-identical-twins/

Not B.S at all.

You seem to not realize that research shows despite being twins that twins are still still different people with ever so slight genetic differences that may play a huge role in how they live their lives vastly different from the other.

"Discipline is not hereditary. It comes from within. The man who is genetically predisposed to be fat, can remain thin with hard work and discipline."

Opinion.

Research I have done has revealed to me that one can be genetically predisposed to have a disciplined lifestyle.

Thats not to say someone born without such great genetics cannot fight against what their genetics would have them be though ie be slovenly and lazy to become disciplined or that a guy naturally predisposed to be disciplined can't decide to go against that and be lazy for a change of pace.

People are predisposed to certain behaviours but at the same time have the choice to make a change and its all natural of humans but because of the pain pleasure principle we tend to go with what we are predisposed to be.

"For a Anthony Robbins fan, I am surprised to see you hold these GENETIC ideals."

People like Anthony Robbin's exist and are successful because they help people overcome their genetic predispositions.

And also while I am a fan of Tony's work I am not a blind follower.

He has not always been right ie see his ideas on food energy which the people on the James Randi forums debunked among a few other wacky things like fire walking he puts forward.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Do an image search on Google for "Girls Gone Wild." See that hot piece of ass flashing her t!ts while tongue kissing her girlfriend with a bud light in one hand on spring break in Panama City? That's the same girl who you'll describe as being "high quality" and introspective when you meet her in a coffee shop while she's reading a book for her humanities class that same year.

Morals are not absolute, they are relative to condition and circumstance. I think it's a much healthier outlook to accept this rather than using absolutism as an excuse to address our own shortcomings. The problem absolutists have is that they think this synonymous with apologizing or excusing behavior, it isn't. It's about understanding what prompts it and what constructs define an action as moral or immoral.