Married Women, Single Women

[KontrollerX]

You could say the sky is blue at this point and they'd come back with "What about clouds?", "what about the sky on Mars, which sky?".

Or he could say "Earth has a moon and its in outer space".

You and I would then say "Why yes of course it does and is, we can see this for ourselves when we go out at night".

Then they'd say...

"Hahaha Lemmings.

What bullsh!t."

*Pout pout pout snort snort snort*

*Stomps around thread angrily*

Then iqqi would come in and make some frivolous troll comment about how believing in the moon's existance and outer space's existance was proof Str8up had problems and we were all morons for agreeing with him.

*Shakes head in fear and dismay* :nervous:

 

[ketostix]

Or he could say "Earth has a moon and its in outer space".

You and I would then say "Why yes of course it does and is, we can see this for ourselves when we go out at night".

Then they'd say...



Then iqqi would come in and make some frivolous troll comment about how believing in the moon's existance and outer space's existance was proof Str8up had problems and we were all morons for agreeing with him.

*Shakes head in dismay* :nervous:

LOL exactly. Reps for best ownage. Not that you need more reps.

 

[Latinoman]

Dude they are both consider to be unethical by law. It's the matter of what degree the law sees an act as being unethical which, depends on the circumstances and not just the act. If it is highly unethical and clearcut it's criminalized. You could make another example: Speeding is considered unethical (presumably because it increases rsiks to other drivers) and depending on the sppeed it's usually just a noncriminal citation. Hitting someone car and driving off is more unethic and is at least in my state a criminal violation one degree below a felony. What are you trying to prove here other than what I've been saying all along?

Just re-read my other posts on this issue. Honestly...I did not even bother absorbing the above quote.

I'm starting to believe you might be A40 year old with a GED if you want to take things down that route.

Trust me...I have no problems going that route. But I rather not...because I am not here to brag about my education as quite honestly...it is irrelevant when it comes to Manhood.

You made your point about what society finds ethical/unethical about 10 times now and I've responded to it. It's like with that battery situation. You just keep making a simplistic argument over and over.

I am forced to make it simplistic. If I could explained it at the Sesame Street level...I would too.

Where do you think ethics and societal beliefs come from? From a general consensus of what is moral.

General consensus...meaning that NOT everybody's morals are the same.

What is reasonable and what is moral is seperate from what anyone individual choose to accept as moral.

EXACTLY!

This is an example of you not being able to grasp simple concepts.

Actually...that was an example of me communicating in very simplistic ways in order to help you grasp a simple concept.

And this is what I, Str8up and others are doing too. I guess your morals just conviently happen to match society's ethics .

Actually...my morals in this particular case did not match societal ethics (or what society view as immoral). And here is the difference between you guys and I... I do NOT try to justify my behavior by implying that it was not wrong. I knew it was wrong. And I knew society would lable me. But at the time, I could see myself in the mirror.

Now...what makes this situation an unethical situation is that it is grounds for LEGAL divorce. This is not the same as sleeping with two women at the same time.

So what? Is it because you can't? What differences does it make. Why do you keep mentioning morals and ethics? You've just said a person's own morals should trump ethics.

What I said is that MY morals trump societal form of ethics as long as I am not committing criminal acts or engaging in professional unethical behavior.

You confused it not me. You made it totally clear that whatever society currently finds to be ethical can't be questiuoned.

All I am saying is that by societal standards it is either unethical or it is not.

No, dude you said morals are totally dependent on each person's beliefs. Do you not even know what you are writing? LOL

Okay...let me simplify my statement. My morals are MINE. Your morals are YOURS.

OK genuis, you said ethics is dependent on society's predominate belief. Then what do you think the first cause of those beliefs were based? Moral reasoning maybe?

You wrote "So preaching ethics IS preaching morals."...and my remark was to how that statement is NOT necessary true.

Example...you have lawyer and also a you have man accused of child molestation. Of course, I am using ethics from the perspective of a professional group and not from the perspective of society in general.

1- Do you think is legal to deny a child rapist from legal representation?
2- Do you think a Lawyer has an ethical (professional in this case) responsibility to provide the best defense possible in this case?
3- Do you think a Lawyer assigned to defend a child rapist makes that lawyer one with similar morals?

Here are the answers:
1- No. It is illegal.
2- Yes.
3- No.

So...if a lawyer talks about how he has to do his best in this particular case...does that make him a man with similar moral standards of the rapist?

there is not a huge difference. If that's the case then ethics are meaningless if they're not based on well reasoned morals. They are totally related. The only thing I'm learning here is you have a very narrow way of thinking about things.

I see your point. But you don't see mine.

Here is the HUGE difference...just because 90 people out of 100 in a particular nation believe in one thing to the point that it becomes societal standards...does not mean that there is a huge difference between (a) what is societal standards of ethics and (b) what the other 10 remaining people has defined as morals. You see? Maybe societal standards of ethics is the SAME to the morals of 90% of those individuals or based on the morals of 90% of the people (I would argue that societal standards are actually based on what the most powerful in our society defines as standards more so than what the majority defines, but that's another topic). But...the fact that it is not the SAME to the morals of the other 10% makes the "there is not a huge difference" incorrect.

Just because you have 90 yellow bananas, 5 rotten bananas, 3 green bananas, and 2 baby bananas. And all 100 together are considered bananas...that does not mean there is a huge difference between the vast population of bananas and the rotten ones. A HUGE difference.

 

[Latinoman]

Maybe you should repeat that a few more times becuase I don't think anyone heard you say it the first 8 times.

That's not different than dealing with AFCs. You can say the same thing 100 times...and they will find justifications.

 

[Latinoman]

I will give you guys the last word.

 

[STR8UP]

My issue was when you were justifying the behavior as implying you did nothing unethical. You and I know that what you did was wrong and in our society is viewed as unethical (also called "immoral" for lack of better term). If you would have accepted that fact...I would have actually jumped on the OTHER people that were attacking you. Because you know what? As long as you can look yourself in the mirror and as long as you are not committing any criminal acts or violating any professional codes of ethics...then who cares about what society consider "immoral" or ethical?

The sticking point here is that you personally believe that what I did was wrong , and that i have a problem admitting that it was wrong, so I felt the need to justify what I did.

The problem here is that YOU personally believe that it was an "immoral" or "unethical" act. But this is according to YOU personally, and although most people might tend to agree with you because they subscribe to the same religious or societal "norm" that doesn't make it an absolute truth, as you would have us believe that it is.

 

[ketostix]

Just re-read my other posts on this issue. Honestly...I did not even bother absorbing the above quote.

That's the problem right there. You are not absorbing what I'm saying.

Trust me...I have no problems going that route. But I rather not...because I am not here to brag about my education as quite honestly...it is irrelevant when it comes to Manhood.

You started down that route first not me, so whatever.

I am forced to make it simplistic. If I could explained it at the Sesame Street level...I would too.

See this your problem just because someone disagrees with you and even tells you why they disagree with you, you assume they didn't understand your simple argument. They did, you just didn't understand their counter points maybe.

General consensus...meaning that NOT everybody's morals are the same.

A general consensus means that most people hold that moral to be true, therefore it is believed that the few people who don't hold that moral to be true are the ones in error. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but people tend to go with the majority over the minority unless and until the minority can convincingly justify their opposing belief and convince the majority.

EXACTLY!

You act like you are agreing with me here then you go right on to disagree with me. What I am saying here is what is moral is moral regardless if any one particular person believes it is moral. That person simply has an incorrect belief. Another example, every person in a population sample can believe a lie, but that doesn't make it to be true. Are you still exactly agreeing with me?

Actually...that was an example of me communicating in very simplistic ways in order to help you grasp a simple concept.

I am grasping your concepts even though they don't all add up. I'm not only grasping what you're saying, I'm disagreeing and I'm even trying to explain why I'm disagreeing and where I think you are wrong. So it's beyond ridiculous for you to keep saying I don't even grasp your concepts. You are the one quilty of not comprehending things.

Actually...my morals in this particular case did not match societal ethics (or what society view as immoral). And here is the difference between you guys and I... I do NOT try to justify my behavior by implying that it was not wrong. I knew it was wrong. And I knew society would lable me. But at the time, I could see myself in the mirror.

Dude what does it matter if you justify something or not? You are not making sense here. If you're morals didn't match societal ethics, then how can you say you knew you were wrong? Which is it? Either you knew your morals were wrong or you knew society's ethics were wrong. You said you know you were wrong because of societal ethics, then you said society didn't match your morals. Then you are saying society's ethics were wrong. It doesn't matter whether you justified it to anyone else or not, but you must've justified it to yourself. If you thought fvcking married women was morally wrong too, then of course you wouldn't want to justify it. What you are trying to say is if something is considered to be unethical by society and even if you have a moral belief that justifies doing it, you can't justify it. Look I'm getting your argument, I'm just disagreeing with it.

Now...what makes this situation an unethical situation is that it is grounds for LEGAL divorce. This is not the same as sleeping with two women at the same time.

Dude lots of things could be grounds for a divorce. The real grounds for divorce is that the woman has already decided to break her commitment regardless if she finds Strr8up or whoever else to physically act that broken commitment out. You are now starting to argue contexts and degrees, inn other words justifications for your belief. Yet, you shun anyone else from justifying their beliefs.

What I said is that MY morals trump societal form of ethics as long as I am not committing criminal acts or engaging in professional unethical behavior.

Well it's not illegal to have sex with a married woman and it wasn't violating anyone's professional ethics of behavior. So if a person's moral belief is that fvcking a married women isn't wrong and their moral beliefs should trump societal ones with the 2 conditions you gave, legality and professional ethics, then you just gave the green light to do it and have just totally contradictd your whole premise of not fvcking a marrid girl because of societal ethics.

All I am saying is that by societal standards it is either unethical or it is not.

The point is society's ethics can be in fact not so ethical and it can be a good thing to question/change the ethics. And now you previously said a person's morals should trump ethics. You are going around in circles.

Okay...let me simplify my statement. My morals are MINE. Your morals are YOURS.

OK but that doesn't mean they're both right. If they are not in agreement then one of us has to be wrong, otherwise morals have no value and are just preeferences. What needs to happen is a person should give their justification for their view of the moral in question. And see if they can come to some agreement and maybe even adopt the other person's view. Your view that fvcking a marrid woman is wrong just because they're married on paper isn't good enough to sway my belief. My morals on this matter are based on context and yours seems to be based on whether there's a claim of marriage on paper and what you belive society's ethics are.

You wrote "So preaching ethics IS preaching morals."...and my remark was to how that statement is NOT necessary true.

Example...you have lawyer and also a you have man accused of child molestation. Of course, I am using ethics from the perspective of a professional group and not from the perspective of society in general.

1- Do you think is legal to deny a child rapist from legal representation?
2- Do you think a Lawyer has an ethical (professional in this case) responsibility to provide the best defense possible in this case?
3- Do you think a Lawyer assigned to defend a child rapist makes that lawyer one with similar morals?

Here are the answers:
1- No. It is illegal.
2- Yes.
3- No.

So...if a lawyer talks about how he has to do his best in this particular case...does that make him a man with similar moral standards of the rapist?

Your scenario is a little shaky but I see what you are getting at. You're saying a person's morals doesn't have to match society's ethics for him to follow them. No sh!t, I never said they did. My point is whether your personal ethics coincide with society ethics or not, it's the issue of whether you will or won't follow society ethics. the overall context of the situation and the degree to which you are violating societal ethics will be your guide. When you justify it, what you are showing is that the ethics in question aren't that storng/and or violating them isn't really considerd that ethical.

I see your point. But you don't see mine.

This is a common backwards misconception you have.

Here is the HUGE difference...just because 90 people out of 100 in a particular nation believe in one thing to the point that it becomes societal standards...does not mean that there is a huge difference between (a) what is societal standards of ethics and (b) what the other 10 remaining people has defined as morals. You see? Maybe societal standards of ethics is the SAME to the morals of 90% of those individuals or based on the morals of 90% of the people (I would argue that societal standards are actually based on what the most powerful in our society defines as standards more so than what the majority defines, but that's another topic). But...the fact that it is not the SAME to the morals of the other 10% makes the "there is not a huge difference" incorrect.

The point is the societal ethics were based upon a majority of people's moral belief. The fact that a few may disagree strongly doesn't change what the ethics were based upon in the first place, being the majority's moral belief

Just because you have 90 yellow bananas, 5 rotten bananas, 3 green bananas, and 2 baby bananas. And all 100 together are considered bananas...that does not mean there is a huge difference between the vast population of bananas and the rotten ones. A HUGE difference.

Again you are confusing a minority's opposition to societal ethics as meaning that ethics aren't based on morals. Just because not everyone has the same morals as an ethic is based on doesn't mean ethics and morals are way different things. It just means some people's morals are different from others. Why do you keep making the point that a person's morals and society's ethics don't always match? No one is bound to or is following every societal ethic anyway.

You don't need to keep repeating your point. I got your point from the get go:

Cheating with a married woman is considered unethical.

I will not cheat because it's unethical.

One cannot justify going against an ethic.

So if you do cheat with married woman, do not try to justify it.

I got your points, I'm just disagreeing with them as follows. I don't think most people really find cheating unethical or there wouldn't be so much of it. How unethical and the consequences of breaking an ethic are dependent on context. And I think you can justify go against an ethic.

 

[ketostix]

The sticking point here is that you personally believe that what I did was wrong , and that i have a problem admitting that it was wrong, so I felt the need to justify what I did.

The problem here is that YOU personally believe that it was an "immoral" or "unethical" act. But this is according to YOU personally, and although most people might tend to agree with you because they subscribe to the same religious or societal "norm" that doesn't make it an absolute truth, as you would have us believe that it is.

Yeah that's a succinct way of putting it. What I don't get is why does Latinoman say this:

..as long as you are not committing any criminal acts or violating any professional codes of ethics...then who cares about what society consider "immoral" or ethical?

Then why is he the one going on and on about society considering this situation unethical?

 

[STR8UP]

If society defines what is "not right." And "phuck society." Then all i have left is me defining for myself what is right or wrong.

Glad you caught this cause it just goes to show how confused some people are.

 

[STR8UP]

I totally 100% disagree. I don't know who you hang around with but I can say that would not be true in my case.

What are you gonna do? Pull him to the side, shake your finger at him and tell him how disappointed you are?

Unless you guys met through a church group or something I seriously doubt you would have a problem with it, and the majority of men would encourage it.

 

[cordoncordon]

What are you gonna do? Pull him to the side, shake your finger at him and tell him how disappointed you are?

Unless you guys met through a church group or something I seriously doubt you would have a problem with it, and the majority of men would encourage it.

You're wrong, I dont know what else I can say, and please don't try to instill what you would do into what I would do or think. If one of my married friends or my brother was out with me one night and was thinking about going home with a woman, I would simply ask them to think very carefully about what they were about to do, and is it something they could be proud of.

 

[STR8UP]

I think we know wars are fought for a whole lot more than a piece of ass - married or not.

And I still hold my ground when I say that a man, ANY man, and that includes the most bad ass "alpha" mothafukka out there, is an out and out AFC to the "nth" degree if he resorts to violence over a woman.

If a woman has THAT much control over your emotions, deep down you're a little b!tch, i don't care if you're a king or an aerobics instructor.

 

[guru1000]

And I still hold my ground when I say that a man, ANY man, and that includes the most bad ass "alpha" mothafukka out there, is an out and out AFC to the "nth" degree if he resorts to violence over a woman.

If a woman has THAT much control over your emotions, deep down you're a little b!tch, i don't care if you're a king or an aerobics instructor.

What if you steal money from him and then he comes after you. Would that make him an AFC b!tch?

 

[STR8UP]

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.

Exactly!

A woman who spends a grand total of about four hours with a guy, tells her friend to call him up in the middle of the night to come over for some fun, then proceeds to fukk his brains out three hours before she goes back home to her husband ISN'T a wife. Her husband lost her LONG ago, if he ever had her in the first place.

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?

Some of these guys are hung up on the legal aspect (a guy could lose all his sh!t), and some are hung up on the "vow" itself I suppose, but what it comes down to is that any time a guy has feelings for a woman, EVEN if there is no trust bond, feelings can and do get hurt when a woman swings branches or simply samples another branch.

Like you said.....if you're gonna deal with women, you're gonna get dirty.

 

[STR8UP]

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.

Rollo, me and you might debate minor details from time to time, but I have to say, we are in complete and total agreement when it comes to this. And I think this is still a lot of guys problem. They continue to hold on to this notion that there are two kinds of women, and that they are easy to tell apart.

Sadly, this is one of the only things that anchors them firmly in the matrix, despite their belief that they have managed to escape it.

 

[lookyoung]

Everyone get off STR8UP back. He fvcked a married chick that wanted to fvck him. He doesn't know her husband personally. I am not saying what he did was right, but I think everyone should get off his back. If there was a girl that was from out of town and was an HB10 and wanted me to tag it, I and most of the guys on here that are critizing STR8UP would do the same thing.

Lets be honest with ourselves.

Have any of you guys fvcked a girl just to get your nut off?

Have any of you guys cheated on a GF?

Have any of you guys lied to a girl?

Do you guys spin plates?

Do You could consider all these things immoral?


The guy got some azz from a married chick. Why don't we say way to go. Instead of trying to be choir boys. All the men that say this is morally wrong should not bring that point of view to this forum. This is the wrong forum to do that in. Judging from STR8UP previous threads and posts he seems to be a pretty good guy.

STR8UP maybe you should come in on a different user name. There are too many people here who will slam you no matter what you do. You could say you fvcked 3 girls at the same time at a party and instead of everyone saying thats awesome we will get people saying well you shouldn't be hanging out with this type of crowd.

I was one of this guys harshest critics but the way he is getting slammed in this thread is unfair and complete BUULLL SHIIIIT.

 

[hithard]

Women are not a physical possession that you own. There are a lot of guys here that are making the assumption that in marriage you own the other person. And if someone takes her it’s stealing. Now if there is that much fear, that in reality you do not dictate how another person acts. And you don’t own them, then I hope you don’t come to grief.

Marriage is not a case of I've locked in a partner now I can slack off in the relationship department. If you have something someone else wants, then they will take it. You can cry morals to the wind after the fact.

 

[RedPill]

This is a marriage thread, cleverly disguised as a STR8UP thread.

 

[STR8UP]

No none answered my question, which is cool.

Where would you personally draw the line. Best friend, relative, ss'er, etc.

I draw the line when I have a trust bond with the guy, or if I perceive the situation to be unstable (not worth the drama).

A friend of mine is getting rid of his girl of many years. I'm even letting him stay in one of my empty condos.

The other day I get a friend request on Myspace from her. Why the hell would she request me as a friend NOW????

Now this guy probably wouldn't even CARE if I were to fukk his ex...he's done with her. But I won't touch her for numerous reasons, the main one being that I know him. It's an entirely different story if you know the guy and especially if you are at all tight.

If it gets too close to home you're better off walking away.

 

[ketostix]

Women are not a physical possession that you own. There are a lot of guys here that are making the assumption that in marriage you own the other person. And if someone takes her it’s stealing. Now if there is that much fear, that in reality you do not dictate how another person acts. And you don’t own them, then I hope you don’t come to grief.

Marriage is not a case of I've locked in a partner now I can slack off in the relationship department. If you have something someone else wants, then they will take it. You can cry morals to the wind after the fact.

Well what I've said is a person shouldn't break a commitment. You may not own someone but they should be bound to an agreement they made unless they notify you they no longer want to keep the commitment.

But my whole point in this thread is there is a difference between a married woman who's husband is unknown to you who's offering this pvssy on the market, and a scenario where you are co-wokers and you slowly seduce the married women emotionally and with the goal of convincing her to break a commitment.

There is a ethical line that probably should be drawn even on here, but I don't think it starts at a random hookup with a married woman who was already set on fvcking someone. Let's face it, this woman will probably go home and if it did anything it probably strength her already weak marriage more than it damaged it. I'm not going to go into explaining why I think that could be the case though.