Your bud's trolling ya, m8.CapnNismo wrote:
My friend says this is not cheating...
Chou wrote:
tuckergustav wrote:
cheating.
Discussions that arise while under the influence. Nonetheless, I thought it interesting. Clearly so does BF2s.
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.Ticia wrote:
Always found funny how sex is always the deal breaker when it comes to faithfulness when in fact it probably is the one that means the least when it comes to trust.CapnNismo wrote:
Let me ask you guys this question (this was the result of a convo with a mate of mine the other night): can you have sex with another person while you're in a committed relationship and still be faithful? I.E.: you have absolutely ZERO romantic feelings for the person you are sleeping with (like a one night stand), you're just looking for a bit of quick sexual gratification. Is in in that case cheating? You're still emotionally faithful to the person you are with but for just one sliver of time you're unfaithful physically.
My friend says this is not cheating, I honestly can't make up my mind. Thought it would be an interesting topic, something non-political and non-religious for once.
Try having a a closer bond with someone from the opposite sex (or same if you're gay) doing everything together except intercourse and then tell your partner is not cheating, most will probably won't even care and then get surprised one month later when you leave them.
I have an aunt and uncle that have been separated for the past ten years. They still live in the same house as each other, it's just partitioned (they had a tenant prior to the separation). They're still technically married but they each have someone else now. It's a weird situation and it's tough on my cousins but it's what they decided to do. They're only still married because they didn't want to have to sell the house.Ticia wrote:
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.Ticia wrote:
Always found funny how sex is always the deal breaker when it comes to faithfulness when in fact it probably is the one that means the least when it comes to trust.
Try having a a closer bond with someone from the opposite sex (or same if you're gay) doing everything together except intercourse and then tell your partner is not cheating, most will probably won't even care and then get surprised one month later when you leave them.
In a situation like this, neither of them could be accused of cheating. It's one of those gray areas.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-12-06 07:33:29)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I agree, but I think that a lover sometimes has to draw the line. For example, jealousy is normally an irrational response, but it's understandable if a guy or girl wants to restrict his/her lover with regard to the time he/she spends with someone that he/she views as a threat to the relationship.Ticia wrote:
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.Ticia wrote:
Always found funny how sex is always the deal breaker when it comes to faithfulness when in fact it probably is the one that means the least when it comes to trust.
Try having a a closer bond with someone from the opposite sex (or same if you're gay) doing everything together except intercourse and then tell your partner is not cheating, most will probably won't even care and then get surprised one month later when you leave them.
It's kind of like what Uzique said on the last page. Sometimes feelings for someone else that undermine a relationship never occur if someone is restricted from interacting with that particular person to a degree.
You could argue that this is an admittance of the vulnerability and possible eventual failure of the relationship, but then again, it is consistent with the concept of there being multiple people you are compatible with. The idea that there is only one person in the world you are "meant to be with" is obviously antiquated, and so this necessitates certain precautionary measures.
For example, if you could somehow quantify the percentage of the general populace you could feasibly maintain a long term relationship with, this percentage would give you an idea of how likely your current relationship will fail if your lover is not careful about interaction with potential "competition" so to speak. Granted, it's very easy for someone to go overboard in this and become overly possessive.
On the other hand, a certain minimal amount of possessiveness is probably necessary to avoid certain threats to the longevity of a relationship. One form of this is sexual exclusivity. Emotional exclusivity is obviously harder to maintain, but it can be somewhat aided through communication and in being mindful of the history between your lover and a given friend.
This is ridiculous, FEOS. I outright said that it's dense to dismiss the commitment between two people because their relationship doesn't conform to your idea of how one should work. I did not refer to you as dense because your take on sex differs from anyone else. I will refer to you as dense because after this long, you still argue points that you've drawn out of thin air.FEOS wrote:
mikkel wrote:
What I accused you of doing was dismissing the commitment in relationships that don't adhere to your idea of how a relationship should be. You keep saying that you're justified in saying "ditto," and you also keep failing to show just where I'm supposed to have dismissed the commitment in any kind of relationship. I realise that it's because can't. Repeating the accusation ad nauseam doesn't make it any more right.This is what I said "Ditto" to.mikkel wrote:
It's pretty dense to dismiss the emotional commitment between two people merely because their take on sex differs from yours.FEOS wrote:
If you have an "agreement" then you aren't in a "committed" relationship.
You referred to me as "dense" because my take on sex differs from yours.
Again.FEOS wrote:
I didn't dismiss the emotional commitment between two people. Hence my statement that "you were wrong". At no point did I dismiss anything.
When you decide that people aren't committed in their relationship, then you dismiss their commitment. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.FEOS wrote:
If you have an "agreement" then you aren't in a "committed" relationship.
If you pet a dog you own, with which you have an "emotional commitment," is it any different - during the act - from petting a random dog with which you have no "emotional commitment?" I bet any dog owner would tell you that the answer, of course, is that it is.FEOS wrote:
If you are having sex with someone with with whom you have an "emotional commitment," how are they any different--during the act--than the random person with whom you have no "emotional commitment?" The answer, of course, is they aren't.
You need to pose an argument that makes sense, FEOS. Being physically indiscriminate does not magically remove your ability to be emotionally discriminate. Also, kindly don't reply with the kind of dishonest nonsense one would expect from you. Yes, a dog is different from a person. No, it does not change the point of the argument.
Christ, FEOS, you're making my point for me. You're contradicting yourself over the short span of two contiguous paragraphs. First you say that, during sex, a person with whom you have an emotional commitment is no different from a person with whom you have none, if you're able to separate the emotional from the sexual. In the following paragraph, you say that the physical act is different with the person with whom you're emotionally involved, by virtue of that emotional involvement.FEOS wrote:
That means you have no real relationship with the first person if you have truly de-linked the emotional and the physical--during the physical act, the one you have an "emotional commitment" to is identical to a random stranger. Thus the "physical prop" remark.
If you say, "but the difference is that I have an 'emotional commitment' to the first person" then you have linked the emotional and the physical, because the two people/relationships are now different, making the physical act different between the two because of the emotional commitment you have with the first.
Thus, my point. I'm not dismissing anything. It's intrinsic to my argument.
So your entire argument rests on some weird notion you have that being able to separate sex from emotional involvement somehow make the two mutually exclusive, an argument which you then dismiss yourself by saying that an emotional attachment makes sex different from sex with a person with whom you have no such attachment.
This is of course absolutely irrelevant, unless you think that sex is the deciding factor in establishing commitment in any relationship, which in itself is a preposterous thing to argue.
This is getting pathetic, FEOS. If you're going to argue against my points, then argue against my points. Invoking layers of abstraction until you reach a point you can argue that your reply to me, arguing against the merits of content authored by me, was really a reply to the OP, is a waste of time. These attempts at backtracking and snaking around an argument in order to save face is typical of you, FEOS, and it's why I hesitate to engage in anything with you. This is what defines any interaction with you every time I give you a chance.FEOS wrote:
This is ridiculous even for you, mikkel...which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.mikkel wrote:
You replied to a post of mine, arguing against the contents of that post, authored by me. This is ridiculous even for you, FEOS.
I replied to the OP. You replied to my reply to the OP. I replied to your reply to my reply to the OP. It all relates back to the OP, which the content of my original reply was based on, to which you were responding, to which I was responding. And you still say the OP isn't relevant?
Geez, mik. It's not all about you...
When the love/infatuation/desire is gone nothing of that really matters, of course you can keep the relationship but is that the ideal for anyone? Unless is some arrangement like the one G@lt mentioned?Turquoise wrote:
I agree, but I think that a lover sometimes has to draw the line. For example, jealousy is normally an irrational response, but it's understandable if a guy or girl wants to restrict his/her lover with regard to the time he/she spends with someone that he/she views as a threat to the relationship.Ticia wrote:
I just don't see the point in being exclusive when the feelings are not there anymore. A piece of paper or a promise made can tie you to someone but your needs and feelings won't care about any of that.Turquoise wrote:
This is a good point... I suppose a certain amount of possessiveness concerning that makes sense.
It's kind of like what Uzique said on the last page. Sometimes feelings for someone else that undermine a relationship never occur if someone is restricted from interacting with that particular person to a degree.
You could argue that this is an admittance of the vulnerability and possible eventual failure of the relationship, but then again, it is consistent with the concept of there being multiple people you are compatible with. The idea that there is only one person in the world you are "meant to be with" is obviously antiquated, and so this necessitates certain precautionary measures.
For example, if you could somehow quantify the percentage of the general populace you could feasibly maintain a long term relationship with, this percentage would give you an idea of how likely your current relationship will fail if your lover is not careful about interaction with potential "competition" so to speak. Granted, it's very easy for someone to go overboard in this and become overly possessive.
On the other hand, a certain minimal amount of possessiveness is probably necessary to avoid certain threats to the longevity of a relationship. One form of this is sexual exclusivity. Emotional exclusivity is obviously harder to maintain, but it can be somewhat aided through communication and in being mindful of the history between your lover and a given friend.
For me the moment a couple wants different things and starts looking for an escape whether is sex or an emotional link with someone else then it means the relationship is done.
Sometimes it can be only the wish but if it is constant and people only don't act on it because of lack of opportunities or restriction partners have put on them then there's a word for it and that is settling. Some have no problems with it, many even say one way or the other everyone settles, but that is bullshit and deep inside we all know it.
Well, there comes the question of "I might feel stronger for someone else now, but will I return to my lover later?"Ticia wrote:
When the love/infatuation/desire is gone nothing of that really matters, of course you can keep the relationship but is that the ideal for anyone? Unless is some arrangement like the one G@lt mentioned?
For me the moment a couple wants different things and starts looking for an escape whether is sex or an emotional link with someone else then it means the relationship is done.
Sometimes it can be only the wish but if it is constant and people only don't act on it because of lack of opportunities or restriction partners have put on them then there's a word for it and that is settling. Some have no problems with it, many even say one way or the other everyone settles, but that is bullshit and deep inside we all know it.
Emotions can be very fickle. By nature, we can go back and forth on things. Even the sanest, most logical people on the planet experience this.
So, I guess I've always felt like a period of losing that desire doesn't necessarily end things permanently. Sometimes, people come back to their lover when the feelings return. In other cases, it really is gone forever, but you never know until a certain amount of time passes.
What complicates this further is when one person has the feelings return but the other doesn't.
I'm not exactly the most experienced person with relationships, but it seems clear that they take a lot of work to maintain in the long run. Some of that periodically involves dealing with decreases in desire or love. To enter a relationship with the expectation that a single period of this means the end nullifies the point of even trying, because it will happen no matter what you do.
Granted, the alternative is simply embracing this inevitability and enjoying whatever moments transpire. It is possible to function with the outlook that things should end when the desire leaves, but this requires accepting the possibility that your lover may reach this point before you do. That's when things tend to end more painfully.
Ideally, a breakup occurs when both people lose desire at the same time, but unfortunately, the odds seem to be against that most of the time.
I couldn't do an 'open' marriage. Missus would allow it either. However that's just one reason we're together. It all depends on your view of monogamy. I've heard the swinger 'ice-cream argument' -whereas 'x' is my favorite flavor so I usually stick with it (him/her), but I like to try others from time to time.... That wasn't my camp. I used the sample spoons first. I also showed enough respect to break shit off before I went elsewhere -even if it was through a voicemail... . . boosh
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
/threadDBBrinson1 wrote:
It all depends on your view of monogamy.
every relationaship is different. what is to be considered cheating is to be discussed with ones partner, not found out through deliberations with e-people on internetz.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
it depends on what 'committed' means to you.
my commitment was to forsake all others and I have done so for 16 years (20 if you count from day 1).
if one's commitment is based on a similar vow then it is cheating.
it doesn't matter if it is 'OK' with your partner. YOU gave a promise to your partner, in front of witnesses and probably a diety. If you have any honour and self-respect, you mean what you say, you say what you mean and cover the ground you stand on.
my commitment was to forsake all others and I have done so for 16 years (20 if you count from day 1).
if one's commitment is based on a similar vow then it is cheating.
it doesn't matter if it is 'OK' with your partner. YOU gave a promise to your partner, in front of witnesses and probably a diety. If you have any honour and self-respect, you mean what you say, you say what you mean and cover the ground you stand on.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
This ...tuckergustav wrote:
cheating.