Is it really safe, sane, and consensual?

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: My thoughts

I guess the point I am making is this; why do we insist on honesty in BDSM relationships, and then seem to turn a blind eye to lying and cheating in vanilla situations?

I do not turn a blind eye to either. My philosophy is simple. Take responsiblity for whatever you do. If I can get up in the morning and look myself in the eye, then I am happy.

I do what I want to do, I do not judge others who do the same. However, I think it is unwise to use any relationship as an excuse to do what you want.

If you are gonna cheat, then do it. Just be true to yourself. Don't scapegoat.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In answer to Pure’s comments;

I agree, cheating in my book does not have to do with SSC, those are different things. However honesty has to be a corner stone in a BDSM relationship, if you can not trust your BDSM partner then you might end up in a situation where you do not want to be.

There is a major difference between cultures where it is ‘permitted’ to cheat and those where it is not. In a way the cultures where cheating is allowed have a swinging culture, and like I have said before those are not the ones I am talking about. Interesting though most of the cultures where it is ‘permitted’ to ‘cheat’ are male dominated cultures. I wonder if those things have to do with each other.

And just to clarify one point made earlier by Catalina, it is not in any way accepted or justified in Mediterranean cultures to cheat, not by men or women. Women in Mediterranean culture just did not have any choice in the matter, being Roman Catholic and being condemned by the church if they would decide to divorce their partner. In a way those cultures have a catch 22 built in for women. It is not allowed for their partners to cheat but they are not allowed to act if they do. It is something you see a lot in male dominated cultures, where the women is mistreated and religion is used against them. And this I say being a Mediterranean man myself.

lady-kat I am tasting a lot of self sacrifice in your words, although self-sacrifice is a very honourable and worthy emotion I only want to say to you that you have the same right to happiness as your partner. Do not do anything that you might regret later in life. I have seen my mother sacrifice herself for my father for years and in the end neither was happy and both lives were destroyed, and they ended up in a very bitter divorce, not that I am saying that that is the case with you. Maybe it is time for you to start thinking about your own happiness and build up a life where you do not only have moments of happiness but where you are fulfilled and free to live as you want to live.

The same applies to Inner Darkness, make your life happy, fulfil your own needs, even if it seems selfish, in the end it is my belief that by fulfilling your needs and being honest about it you will make both lives better. And if I understand correctly your postings, this is exactly what you have been doing and are trying to do.

Netzach I was not saying it is ok to get drunk and then cheat, but what I am saying is that one mistake can be forgiven, not easily but it is possible. It becomes a different matter when it is not a mistake but a way of life.

Francisco.

 

[Master Bertch]

Re: Re: Re: My thoughts

My philosophy is simple. Take responsiblity for whatever you do. ...
I do what I want to do, I do not judge others who do the same.
...
If you are gonna cheat, then do it. Just be true to yourself. Don't scapegoat.

Very concise. Thank you EB.

 

[Desdemona]

Re: To clarify

My thoughts don't reflect on everybody out there. Just those who partake in multiple partners.

Just had to add a disclaimer. Poly doesn't equal cheating. It also doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. Some of us are faithful within our poly relationships.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: To clarify

Just had to add a disclaimer. Poly doesn't equal cheating. It also doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. Some of us are faithful within our poly relationships.

That is right. the concept of cheating only comes in without knowledge. I do whatever I want in a open and above board manner.

Is the condition of serial monogamy that many people call fidelity any better than polymory?

I think not.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Penguins

mate for life. I doubt if most of the people who post here can say the same.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

*edited flame towards cheating spouses who have no concern for anything but themselves*

 

[kayte]

Re: Re: To clarify

Just had to add a disclaimer. Poly doesn't equal cheating. It also doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. Some of us are faithful within our poly relationships.

Yes some of us are!!!

Hey sis

Nice to see you.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: To clarify

Just had to add a disclaimer. Poly doesn't equal cheating. It also doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. Some of us are faithful within our poly relationships.

And some of us are complete manwhores...but at least we are honest about it.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: To clarify

And some of us are complete manwhores...but at least we are honest about it.

Manwhore? I have seen you use this before. Definition please?

 

[Pure]

"Manwhore" (het)
Someone who fucks any female he's attracted to (which are very numerous), achieving his goal one way or another, within the law (more or less) and consensually, of course.

hows that, JM?

I wish I could remember the name of the French movie about such a person--"The man who loved women" (?): at his funeral, there was a line of women of all ages, lined up for several blocks! And of course there are self said record makers such as Wilt Chamberlain.

 

[Pure]

Originally posted by Johnny Mayberry
Sometimes, I think that some(not all) married women look to cheat in a submissive setting because they don't have to take full responsibility for their horrible dishonesty and lack of ethics. It is 'ok' for them to destroy a relationship, because their online 'Master'(who deserves nothing but disgust and contempt, IMO) tells them to, and they don't have to face up to the reality. That reality, of course, being that they are reprehensible human beings who trample on concepts like fidelity and honesty, out of their own self-centered desires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catalina replied,

I always question the authenticity of a dominant who is happy to accept this situation as in my experience the committed D's who were in the lifestyle for what it offered and not to exploit others would never have any part of these situations seeing them as a sign of dishonesty which not surprisingly was a strong element they insisted on being existant in the relationship.

C

All right, let's look at this. Let's leave aside the question, should a person 'cheat' (fuck someone other than their SO or spouse).

Both JM and Catalina are taking an even stronger position that it's dishonorable or 'inauthentic' to involve onself- by way of bdsm--with someone who's 'cheating' on that person's Other.
{ADDED: they may be limiting themselves to repeated or repeating cheaters. These are not distinguished from other cheaters in most of what follows. I address the 'repeat' issue in a subsequent posting.}

The argument seems to be that the 'cheater' is dishonest, and the dom/me require someone honest, because dom/mes, I guess, have a really high standards in that area; along with standards of non-exploitation, etc.

First, it seems to me that a sexual practice, giving beatings, getting cornholed, being felched, 'playing' the servant/slave, is only that. The group, say, of cornholers, have no superior morality or status; some are great people, lots of integrity; some are assholes and con-artists, thieves and scum. Nor do I obtain superior morals because I belong to the Cornholers Rights Advocacy and Protection Society whose banner has the letters SSC-- meaning Safe and Sensual Cornholing-- and who's devoted to fighting for oppressed cornholers around the globe.

This is sorta like the argument that 'gay' or lesbian relations, since they fly in the face of convention, risk penalties, etc are more open caring honest, what have you. Bull. I'd hold that there's in gays and their relationships the same spectrum.

It used to be said that lesbians had a special respect for women and weren't like men, in being inclined to physical abuse. Finally the truth is getting uncovered. Yes indeed there's spouse beating. Lesbians aren't any worse, of course, but they aren't any better, more authentic, automatically cuz they dive into muffs.

So dom/me superiority is a loada crap. Let's look at another side of the issue. It's the idea that the 'cheater' on her spouse is going to be a 'cheater' with her oh-so-authentic dom/me. Why, well a cheater is a cheater.

Again, Johnny, this is a another loada. There are any number of persons who take a lover and remain faithful to that person. OK, you don't see them on Springer (where you see daisy chains of cheaters) but they exist. Katherine Hepburn lived with a married man, Spencer Tracy, for years. He did not cheat on her. Lauren Bacall was involved with one too, Bogart, then married him. He didn't cheat on her.

{{ADDED-7-07 Deleted: Reference to Catalina and certain things she's posted, about her life.}}

Anyone around here ever 'shaved' their income a little, for the taxman? Do you, at the same time, cheat your friends and avoid paying them money promised?

Last point, you say, isn't the dom/me complicit in something dishonorable? Not unless the dom/me (third party) is best friends with the cheating lady's husband.

Assuming I'm the third party, why do I owe the cuckolded spouse anything? Likely they are cads and rounders, often cheaters themselves, or just miserably self centered and cruel, or off in la-la land with their computer addictions. Whattha fuck do I owe that person? (It's like the women who say; I don't touch a married man because I'd be hurting a 'sister'. Crap.) OK, no man is an island, we're all 'sods' in the same soil, but come on.!

I may be my brother's keeper if I find him bleeding on the street. But if he's bowling or watching TV while I fuck his wife,--esp. if this occurs over a long period-- and that's her decision, how she wants to treat him, why do I have an duty to 'keep' (protect) him?**

I suppose you're going to say, "Well, would you accept money to invest in your business that your lover robbed from hubby; say, as a recent TV plot went, by selling off his jewelry and replacing it with fakes." Answer: that's a criminal activity (unless the jewelry was a gift to her); it's stealing. The 'cheating' spouse, however, is not--in this day and age--violating a law.
Do youse guys think adultery should be something a person can be jailed for?

Why is there no legal penalty? Because everyone pretty much agrees it's between her and her husband. Society is not injured. Do you disagree?
Do you recognize a 'personal sphere' or are you like the Jesuits and Calvinists who want to legislate in every area?

Well, if 'society' is not injured, that's good enough for me. Else it's like me saying "I won't date someone who speaks harshly to her Dad." It's simply not my business. The 'injury' to Dad is a personal matter; maybe he injured her; in any case it's between them.

So I've given several reasons why it makes no sense for a dom/me to consider (as a big moral 'black mark') the 'cheating' of a person wishing to be a sub, or wishing for a good 'bottom' episode.

Here's one last point that may apply more with dommes. Some do not fuck, suck etc their male subs. Ergo the male married sub is not actually being unfaithful in this case. Indeed it could be argued that the domme stabilizes the marriage without any extra curricular fucking occurring, which would be more likely otherwise.

Best,
J.

 

[Netzach]

Pure, well-reasoned.

I've not got much respect for marriage anyhow, I've seen only one happy and healthy one in my entire 29 years.

I'm amazed that I'm getting into such an endeavor, in fact, and if I didn't consider myself a pioneer in remaking the institution, I'd still be spitting on it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Pure,

Time does not permit at the moment for me to address your over excited response which to me did not argue any valid points IMHO, but I do take a little exception at you trying to infer (well that's my take on it) I cheated on a long term, regular basis. I was honest and said I had one extenuating circumstance where I had sex once only (yes 1 fuck, not a night of passion even though I had not been allowed sex with my SO in many months) and that was where it began and ended because that was all it was needed for to serve it's purpose of which I decided before hand....and then surprise, surprise, I called the marriage quits as I had the answer to my question. And that was the end of any 'cheating' for the rest of my life, and was not a situation I would normally have been in due to my ethics. And I figure it was close on 20 years ago now and I have never been tempted again, nor did I run out at that time and find another lover, nor get into another screwed relationship. In fact I stayed single until 2002 when Master and I married because I chose to be alone rather than settle for something again which did not do my needs justice. I had relationships, most of them willing to give me the earth, but they weren't right for me and so each one I ended, I did so before moving on out of respect for the other person in the relationship. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you philosophy...little old fashioned, but so it seems are ethics, values, and morals in this world of greed and self satisfaction at the cost of everyone and everything.

But Pure, once again, as with others who find this issue a trigger, you missed one important fact, besides telling us how you know celebrities mentioned didn't cheat that is (and didn't Hepburn and Tracy live together openly for 27 years, not conduct a cloak and dager affair as was being discussed here?). We were discussing cheating on a long term repeated basis, while the SO remains so called blissfully aware for their own protection, and the cheater sets up a new life so when they leave they won't have any of the long, cold lonely nights to deal with unlike their unsuspecting, trusting spouse. There is a difference and I am surprised someone such as yourself who usually can comprehennd what is said etc., still does not seem to be able to read in all the posts that the stated situation of repeated cheating was the subject discussed and not one off incidents. Just goes to show you can learn something new everyday huh?!! Could it be you just ran out of any significant points to argue so had to try and skew the issue for sake of a comment? Shame on you.

Catalina:

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,

I corrected the impression about you. I will delete it if you wish, but I don't want to appear like I'm hiding the problem.

Does the issue of longterm "repeated" secretive, cheating and cheaters affect my arguments. Not much, in general.

It affects the examples, depending what you mean 'repeated'-- fucking one lover repeatedly, or a bunch of lovers.

I will concentrate on the first case, since you didn't specify.

First point was that there's no reason to suppose dom/mes are a morally superior group.

Second point was that it's questionable whether cheater once means cheater again. There are a number of longterm secretive affairs, where the cheater did NOT cheat on his/her lover. Probably the case of Emily Dickinson's lover fits. I'm sure you know of famous examples, e.g., Dwight Eisenhower. Public figures who can't let the mask slip.


{If, of course, you limit your argument to repeated cheaters with lots of different lovers , then of course, the second point would not apply; your argument, however, is simply true by definition; repeating cheaters repeat. It's a vacuous point.}

Third point was that it's not the third party's responsibility to 'keep'/protect the cheated-on spouse. That's unaffected by the duration and secrecy issues.

I see that 'darkening' the portrait of the cheater to make them a callous monster on a large scale does appear to strengthen your case. But generally the approach harms your position. It's a bit like if we were discussing, should you be friends with a "pot smoker", you specify that you mean the 'serious smoker' who smokes 20 joints a day and doesn't go to work to support the kids.

In the present case, if you make the repeat cheater leave children desolate, spouse confused, hop from lover to lover and never use condoms, then they are a pretty bad or reckless person maybe I don't want to be around.

This 'darkening,' then limits the application of your arguments, in relation to "Should a dom/me accept a cheater" or even "Should a dom/me accept a longterm cheater?"

Thanks for impelling me to clarify and strengthen my points.

J.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Pure, your long-winded posts are easily refuted by a few scant words of mine. Some people value honor, and others don't. Some of us value ethical treatment of others. You seem to place desire above ethics.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

"Manwhore" (het)
Someone who fucks any female he's attracted to (which are very numerous), achieving his goal one way or another, within the law (more or less) and consensually, of course.

hows that, JM?

I wish I could remember the name of the French movie about such a person--"The man who loved women" (?): at his funeral, there was a line of women of all ages, lined up for several blocks! And of course there are self said record makers such as Wilt Chamberlain.

Man, I wish I could pull it off...In truth, I am no manwhore, because I don't manage to fulfill this, or any other definition of 'whore', male or female. I use the term jokingly, since I am nothing but honest with people, only fuck females who I have respect for, and OF COURSE within the law, you goof!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

All right, let's look at this. Let's leave aside the question, should a person 'cheat' (fuck someone other than their SO or spouse).

Both JM and Catalina are taking an even stronger position that it's dishonorable or 'inauthentic' to involve onself- by way of bdsm--with someone who's 'cheating' on that person's Other.
{ADDED: they may be limiting themselves to repeated or repeating cheaters. These are not distinguished from other cheaters in most of what follows. I address the 'repeat' issue in a subsequent posting.}

You wasted a lot of time constructing a strawman argument. It would have been simpler for you if you had asked for a clarification of my position before setting off on your exposition.

he argument seems to be that the 'cheater' is dishonest, and the dom/me require someone honest, because dom/mes, I guess, have a really high standards in that area; along with standards of non-exploitation, etc.

I only sought to speak for myself. Obviously, many so called 'Dom/mes' have no ethica compass. I consider ANYONE who involves themselves as a disruptive third-party in a pre-existing relationship to be reprehensible. Strawman#1?

First, it seems to me that a sexual practice, giving beatings, getting cornholed, being felched, 'playing' the servant/slave, is only that. The group, say, of cornholers, have no superior morality or status; some are great people, lots of integrity; some are assholes and con-artists, thieves and scum. Nor do I obtain superior morals because I belong to the Cornholers Rights Advocacy and Protection Society whose banner has the letters SSC-- meaning Safe and Sensual Cornholing-- and who's devoted to fighting for oppressed cornholers around the globe.

This is sorta like the argument that 'gay' or lesbian relations, since they fly in the face of convention, risk penalties, etc are more open caring honest, what have you. Bull. I'd hold that there's in gays and their relationships the same spectrum.

It used to be said that lesbians had a special respect for women and weren't like men, in being inclined to physical abuse. Finally the truth is getting uncovered. Yes indeed there's spouse beating. Lesbians aren't any worse, of course, but they aren't any better, more authentic, automatically cuz they dive into muffs.

So dom/me superiority is a loada crap.

A long discussion, outlining the details of Strawman #1.

Let's look at another side of the issue. It's the idea that the 'cheater' on her spouse is going to be a 'cheater' with her oh-so-authentic dom/me. Why, well a cheater is a cheater.

The phrase "oh-so-authentic dom/me" appears to be an ad hominem attack...rather beneath someone who claims to be so aloof as regards ethical propositions.

Again, Johnny, this is a another loada. There are any number of persons who take a lover and remain faithful to that person. OK, you don't see them on Springer (where you see daisy chains of cheaters) but they exist. Katherine Hepburn lived with a married man, Spencer Tracy, for years. He did not cheat on her. Lauren Bacall was involved with one too, Bogart, then married him. He didn't cheat on her.

Strawman #2: you refute the claim 'once a cheater, always a cheater', which was at most a peripheral argument of mine.

Indeed Catalina herself says she cheated {ADDED: once} in the past, but doesn't now. How does that square with 'A cheater is a cheater.' {ADDED: the para is irrelevant if one is only discussing 'repeated' cheaters.}

Possibly an issue with catalina, if she made the previous 'argument', Strawman #2. I have not seen that, and will not comment.

Anyone around here ever 'shaved' their income a little, for the taxman? Do you, at the same time, cheat your friends and avoid paying them money promised?

Possible ad hominem, with shades of tu quoque fallacy...fallacy in either case.

Last point, you say, isn't the dom/me complicit in something dishonorable? Not unless the dom/me (third party) is best friends with the cheating lady's husband.

Assuming I'm the third party, why do I owe the cuckolded spouse anything? Likely they are cads and rounders, often cheaters themselves, or just miserably self centered and cruel, or off in la-la land with their computer addictions. Whattha fuck do I owe that person? (It's like the women who say; I don't touch a married man because I'd be hurting a 'sister'. Crap.) OK, no man is an island, we're all 'sods' in the same soil, but come on.!

Non sequitur...Wife A cheats, therefore husband B deserves it? Nice try, no dice.

I may be my brother's keeper if I find him bleeding on the street. But if he's bowling or watching TV while I fuck his wife,--esp. if this occurs over a long period-- and that's her decision, how she wants to treat him, why do I have an duty to 'keep' (protect) him?**

I suppose you're going to say, "Well, would you accept money to invest in your business that your lover robbed from hubby; say, as a recent TV plot went, by selling off his jewelry and replacing it with fakes." Answer: that's a criminal activity (unless the jewelry was a gift to her); it's stealing. The 'cheating' spouse, however, is not--in this day and age--violating a law.
Do youse guys think adultery should be something a person can be jailed for?

It is participation in the breaching of a interpersonal contract. While not always a function of the law to enforce such contracts, I'm sure you are more conversant with contract law than I am.

Why is there no legal penalty? Because everyone pretty much agrees it's between her and her husband. Society is not injured. Do you disagree?[/i] Another non sequitur, and in addition, it speaks to the heart of my position. A marriage is between two people, and until that relationship is resolved, I believe that other parties should avoid involvement.

Do you recognize a 'personal sphere' or are you like the Jesuits and Calvinists who want to legislate in every area?

Strawman #3, I presume? I have not spoke of legislating anything.

Well, if 'society' is not injured, that's good enough for me. Else it's like me saying "I won't date someone who speaks harshly to her Dad." It's simply not my business. The 'injury' to Dad is a personal matter; maybe he injured her; in any case it's between them.

#4, or a continuation of #3?

So I've given several reasons why it makes no sense for a dom/me to consider (as a big moral 'black mark') the 'cheating' of a person wishing to be a sub, or wishing for a good 'bottom' episode.

Let us turn this argument on its head, shall we? When entering into a contract with a person, said person's's prior ability to honor previous contracts is an issue. At the very least, it should be recognised that a 'cheater'(as you call them) is in a transitional phase, and to enter into a new agreement with them while they are in the process of resolving the old is, at best, a risky proposition. At worse, it is interfering with their ability to resolve their current situation objectively. In either case, it is putting desire before ethics and logic.

]Here's one last point that may apply more with dommes. Some do not fuck, suck etc their male subs. Ergo the male married sub is not actually being unfaithful in this case. Indeed it could be argued that the domme stabilizes the marriage without any extra curricular fucking occurring, which would be more likely otherwise.

This is another strawman argument, in a sense(what number are we on??). The argument I used is not based on activity, it is based on honesty. If a married couple decide together that one spouse will sleep with a different partner every day, then I have no logical argument against it. However, having even an online relationship behind a spouse's back is a violation of the 'contract' between the two parties.

Best,
J.

And to you as well.

 

[Netzach]

I'm still not buying "one night of stupidity is OK, a relationship aside of a relationship is not"

Basically, aren't we all victims here of "if I've done it, do it, believe it, it's good, if it makes me uncomfortable it's bad?" I include myself, for whom the idea of suffering and going without for the sake of ANY relationship is completely out of the question, been there done that, no way again.

It's two bites of the same enchilada, as I see it. I'm happy to down the whole thing and belch if the enchilada looks and smells OK to me.

Also not all long-term-extramaritals are about "setting up another relationship" out of fear.

Some are predicated specifically on the reality that spouse will NEVER leave unaware spouse for new person. It is what it is, it ain't what it ain't.

Not using your personal ethical handbook, does not a lack of ethics make.

I reiterate, don't like someone's ethics?
Don't fuck them, don't play with them.

Eb has managed to agree with the position without making it a moral crusade. If you can wake up, face the mirror and the music, that's the important thing, whatever you do.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Man, I wish I could pull it off...In truth, I am no manwhore, because I don't manage to fulfill this, or any other definition of 'whore', male or female. I use the term jokingly, since I am nothing but honest with people, only fuck females who I have respect for, and OF COURSE within the law, you goof!

Johnny, I did not think you were a manwhore, I did get the joke, however, I was interested in YOUR definition. That's all.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Johnny, I did not think you were a manwhore, I did get the joke, however, I was interested in YOUR definition. That's all.

My definition of a real manwhore is the same as anyone else's...I knew YOU got the joke, Eb.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,

I corrected the impression about you. I will delete it if you wish, but I don't want to appear like I'm hiding the problem.

Doesn't bother me as if you read it you would also have realised I 'fessed up of my own free will without provocation so don't feel I have anything to hide. See, this is one of many areas people think of me as weird for.....I tend to lead my life as an open book preferring any information about me, come from me so at least facts are dealt with, not gossip. I also have no problem admitting when I make a mistake, often presenting the reason if relevant, but never seeing it as an excuse. That being said though, I do not belong to the school of thought that says if I make a mistake, I should either continually repeat it as I am tarnished so it's too late, or set myself up as above others and beyond reproach for the same transgression. I also do not buy into the school of thought which thinks if someone else does me wrong, I have the right to return the favour or pass it onto another. 2 wrongs don't make a right and though some fool themselves to think they do, it is not something I am comfortable with. These are my ethics and I do not demand or expect others to live the same, that has to be their choice.

First point was that there's no reason to suppose dom/mes are a morally superior group.

No, I guess not as they are human after all, and some share a different view of the lifestyle to mine. My perception comes from those I met during my search for Master, and the reading I did on BDSM. The D's I met and communicated were all long term in the lifestyle as in 10 - 30 years. They all held basically the same beliefs about trust etc., from the old precepts I also found reflected in my reading. So from this and previous knowledge I did gather those who were in the lifestyle, especially as a lifestyle and not a phase, did see it as a lifestyle with a code of ethics shared by most.

Second point was that it's questionable whether cheater once means cheater again. There are a number of longterm secretive affairs, where the cheater did NOT cheat on his/her lover. Probably the case of Emily Dickinson's lover fits. I'm sure you know of famous examples, e.g., Dwight Eisenhower. Public figures who can't let the mask slip.


{If, of course, you limit your argument to repeated cheaters with lots of different lovers , then of course, the second point would not apply; your argument, however, is simply true by definition; repeating cheaters repeat. It's a vacuous point.}

I tend to look at the average Joe Blow, not celebrities in the public eye when trying to guage a pattern of human behaviour. Public personas are often fraught with cover ups, an exagerrated sense of reality, not to mention often lack of opportunity when under the watchful eyes of the world. So if I am talking about you and I, I reference to average, everyday people who have some similarity of life.

Third point was that it's not the third party's responsibility to 'keep'/protect the cheated-on spouse. That's unaffected by the duration and secrecy issues.

I see that 'darkening' the portrait of the cheater to make them a callous monster on a large scale does appear to strengthen your case. But generally the approach harms your position. It's a bit like if we were discussing, should you be friends with a "pot smoker", you specify that you mean the 'serious smoker' who smokes 20 joints a day and doesn't go to work to support the kids.

In the present case, if you make the repeat cheater leave children desolate, spouse confused, hop from lover to lover and never use condoms, then they are a pretty bad or reckless person maybe I don't want to be around.

Have to disagree as once again it comes down to ethics and trust issues. There is already an established relationship of which you are interferring in whether by invitation or your own desires. If you are out for number one I guess you don't owe anyone, but then nor does anyone else owe you so we may as well all go around killing each other when we have a bad day. Sure solve the world population issues.

As to the circumstances of the marriage and children etc., why should you worry if they leave their children, after all your getting your jollies aren't you and that is where the important buck stops? Also, quiet often you will find you are not enlightened to all the facts until well into the relationship. As to using condoms or not, well as I have stated before , whether you use a condom or not does not give 100% protection, maybe nothng at all if we are unfortunate enough to have a new STD in the near or distant future....and so both owe the unsuspecting spouse the chance to decide if they wish to be possibly exposed or not, not just decide for them and to hell with any consequences you may force them to face in the long run.

As to pot smokers, I am a little lost with that one as the connection for me is too distant from the issue here. And for the record I don't recall labelling anyone a callous monster.

Why is there no legal penalty? Because everyone pretty much agrees it's between her and her husband. Society is not injured. Do you disagree?

This 'darkening,' then limits the application of your arguments, in relation to "Should a dom/me accept a cheater" or even "Should a dom/me accept a longterm cheater?"

Legal penalties? Not everything which is unethical or immoral is outlined in law.....in fact the legal rpofession is a huge boys club that marches to it's own tune often. As to society not being harmed, I could argue that on several points for pages. Society is harmed everyday by the actions of people who do not think before acting...even the lighting of a cigarette by a smoker has far reaching effects on society in relation to health and economy alone. Society exists of all of us, so if one takes a course of action, it does affect others. Just because you can't see something, or it isn't immediately apparent, does not mean it does not exist...but we have been there before in other threads.

Thanks for impelling me to clarify and strengthen my points.

J.

No problems....been missing some lively discussion of late.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Originally posted by Pure
Assuming I'm the third party, why do I owe the cuckolded spouse anything? Likely they are cads and rounders, often cheaters themselves, or just miserably self centered and cruel, or off in la-la land with their computer addictions. Whattha fuck do I owe that person? (It's like the women who say; I don't touch a married man because I'd be hurting a 'sister'. Crap.) OK, no man is an island, we're all 'sods' in the same soil, but come on.!

Missed this one last post.......isn't this presuming a lot and generalising in a situation where you are getting involved with the spouse? Presumably the one you are involved with has been the one overworking the internet/computer as I think most of the discussion was around meeting through online more so than in the flesh at first. As for self centred...how do you get that just because they are being cheated on....isn't that being very judgemental yourself without any real foundation on which to base it except to think nicely and open minded about them might prick your conscience and therefore possibly rob you of your fun? Guess it may as well be you as the next guy though.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Johnny said in part,


Let us turn this argument on its head, shall we? When entering into a contract with a person, said person's's prior ability to honor previous contracts is an issue. At the very least, it should be recognised that a 'cheater'(as you call them) is in a transitional phase, and to enter into a new agreement with them while they are in the process of resolving the old is, at best, a risky proposition. At worse, it is interfering with their ability to resolve their current situation objectively. In either case, it is putting desire before ethics and logic.


quote:

[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument I used is not based on activity, it is based on honesty. If a married couple decide together that one spouse will sleep with a different partner every day, then I have no logical argument against it. However, having even an online relationship behind a spouse's back is a violation of the 'contract' between the two parties.

It takes more to succeed that labelling everything I say "straw man." It's possible I'm not totally clear about your argument, since it's rather sprawling and peppered with soapbox stuff and moralizing.

If you were more conscientious, you'd say, "let me clarify." and put down 5-10 sentences that *really* according to you, reflect your position.

The nearest you come, is perhaps in the two paras above.
Let's from now on, talk of the extramaritally active partner EAP, so as not to prejudge things. (marriage to include a wide variety of committed relationships.)

As far as I can make out, the first para says, the 'history {Added: including the present} of the
EAP is relevant in terms of contracts. In effect, they've just violated {Added: or are violating} one, so what can one expect of the other (the possible one with the authentic dom/me). Of course 'one' is not history {Added: in the sense of a series or repeated pattern}. Maybe it's the first (and last) 'extramarital' episode in the EAP's life. Kinda like Catalina.

The second makes almost the same point; the EAP is not honest, unless they had an explicit 'open' marriage contract. Thus their dishonesty will carry on. It's kind of an argument (in effect) in terms of character or essence, rather than history.

Now I'm not sure if you're speaking of a 'repeating' person, dyed in the wool long-term extramarital sexual varietist. That's where Catalina is coming from. It seems you are not just focussing on that person (??), and I think that's a better approach.

Johnny, its just saying if a person breaches one 'contract' they're likely to breach any other; or, alternatively, that the one who breaches a contract is dishonest fundamentally, and will likely breach another.

I don't see any evidence presented. You seem to think that repeating the claim, and denying that anyone else has anything intelligent to say will carry the day.

We see people who've gone from first marriage marked by their 'extramarital activity' to a second one that's exclusive. Often the second one has some key difference. I.e., one (the formerly EAP) has said, I won't marry a depressive again; I insist on communication.

Further the 'dom and sub set up is of a very different nature. Perhaps it's more suited to the person, more satisfying, especially in the sexual sphere. The degree of difference between the contracts makes extrapolation difficult.

It doesn't help to conceive things in terms of charcter or essence
(essential dishonesty), since that's essentially the same claim. If it (breach) happened in Sphere A today, it's going to happen in Sphere B tomorrow.

So there really isn't much to this 'argument'. It's hardly an improvement on your earliest denunciatory remarks that EAPs were blackguards and morally bereft individuals.

Let's look at one attempt by you to rebut an argument I made about the absence, for a third party, of any 'duty' to the spouse of the EAP in question.

I said,

[pure:]
I may be my brother's keeper if I find him bleeding on the street. But if he's bowling or watching TV while I fuck his wife,--esp. if this occurs over a long period-- and that's her decision, how she wants to treat him, why do I have an duty to 'keep' (protect) him?**

I suppose you're going to say, "Well, would you accept money to invest in your business that your lover robbed from hubby; say, as a recent TV plot went, by selling off his jewelry and replacing it with fakes." Answer: that's a criminal activity (unless the jewelry was a gift to her); it's stealing. The 'cheating' spouse, however, is not--in this day and age--violating a law.
Do youse guys think adultery should be something a person can be jailed for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny replies:

It is participation in the breaching of a interpersonal contract.
{Added: the two sentence following are as follows, in case someone thinks I've shortened Johnny's argument; it can be seen they do not develop it:

While not always a function of the law to enforce such contracts, I'm sure you are more conversant with contract law than I am.



Hmm. That's a wee bit brief, bro. Is that supposed to be an argument? A self evident principle? The contract is only between the EAP and his/her spouse. Why exactly is it that others have any duties to that spouse (aside from the law).

One can think of thousands of plausible exceptions to this alleged rule. The third party says, "It's just not my business." France's treatment of Polansky.

It's a moral busybody kinda thing that you're doing. I ask you to go on a trip with me, and you say yes. But I know you promised your brother to go fishing with him. Why should i get involved in your decision (and say 'I won't participate in a breach...'); maybe it's justified; you had set up fishing trips many times before and bro always canceled at the last minute. Or maybe you just found out that your bro was fucking your wife, or embezzling from your business.

We're teens, and you've promised your Baptist parents you won't dance, etc. You call me up, one night, and say "I want to go to this dance, you're going, take me with you." Do I owe anything to your parents? have a duty not to help you break a promise?

I say. Leave it to the person to assess what's to be done. In our case, you never know the real background of the EAP's life. Yet you JM presume to make all kinds of judgments about her (him). She may have been beaten every day, or subjected to a 'gaslight' scenario, or had her dog killed to intimidate her. And you're going to come along as say she's now got this 'history' or this fundamental dishonesty. And there's simply no reason to suppose that.

(It's worth noting that in contract law, the notion of fundamental breach is important; one party does something that goes to the fundamental agreement, e.g., not paying an installment on time. In such cases, it may be that the wronged party has no further contractual obligations. Here, it may be the case that EAP is the wronged party: the partner of the EAP is already in fundamental breach (e.g., is totally neglectful). In effect there's no longer a contract; the partner, as it were, tore it up. But you want to come along and moralize about the EAP's alleged 'breach' and dishonesty.)

Best,
J..

PS: This is rather surprising, JM, esp. since you throw around lots of terms from informal logic, with a mild degree of accuracy.

Pure, your long-winded posts are easily refuted by a few scant words of mine. Some people value honor, and others don't. Some of us value ethical treatment of others. You seem to place desire above ethics.

The purest of ad hominens. Rather than deal with the arguments which seem to elude you, it's that you 'value ethical treatment of others' and I allegedly don't. The fallacy, of course, is that even if I'm a scoundrel--which you have no evidence for--what I say may be true; and though you're a self-proclaimed paragon, the Mother Teresa of BDSM, your words may be unadulterated nonsense.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,


We were discussing cheating on a long term repeated basis, while the SO remains so called blissfully aware for their own protection, and the cheater sets up a new life so when they leave they won't have any of the long, cold lonely nights to deal with unlike their unsuspecting, trusting spouse.

You forgot to add, "[spouse], who spends all his/her free time working in a leper colony."

You've never answered my question. Does the phrase 'long term repeated' [cheating] include with one person, but many fucks (e.g. one lifelong, secret mistress)? or just repeated affairs with a number of persons?

As Netzach says, isn't it odd that you want to morally condemn the 'repeater' of extramarital sexual acts. Consider: Suppose I said, I wish to strongly condemn those who rob several of more banks. For one or two, there may be extenuating circumstances.
Suppose I said "I strongly condemn those who plan and carry out more than one or two murders."

Yes, I've use publicly known figures about whom we have extensive biographical material from multiple sources. They illustrate points as well as anything. To my mind, it's better than saying "Mrs. Jones up the street, ...." or "Sexy Slave of this board." Maybe you suggest first person. "I cheated repeatedly and believe me I'm not bad at all, and I've completely reformed." Seems weak, possibly self serving.

As to your statement:
//There is already an established relationship of which you are interferring in whether by invitation or your own desires. If you are out for number one I guess you don't owe anyone, but then nor does anyone else owe you so we may as well all go around killing each other when we have a bad day. Sure solve the world population issues.//

This is most unfair. I explicitly said that for your 'man at large' I acknowledge ('owe' as it were)the Criminal Code. I don't want to steal from him, or accept stolen goods a friend--or his wife-- has stolen. And I conceded certain 'good samaritan' duties. I also conceded duties to friends.

I did say, though, I wouldn't try to protect the (unknown) person (assumed male ftsoa) from the 'private sphere' acts of his wife. You've jumped from that to 'looking out for number 1' to going around killing. If I may say, it resembles JM's arguments from one act or episode, to an character/essence that works itself all the time.

Let me give you an example, Catalina. I do repay loans from friends. It's not criminal to default, but it's wrong. I also expect repayment, in most cases. Suppose, though, X borrowed $500 dollars from me, and is about to repay it. And I'm a bit strapped.
I find out that X also owes Joe blow $500 and that was promised and tardy. Do not assume X is my friend, or that Joe is.

The problem: X is going to repay me, and put the other guy on further hold. I don't know why I'm chosen. Should I refuse the money?

The seems to me to be the kind of scene JM and you like to consider and say, "You ought to look out for the other guy, Joe. " Iow, I'm to guard the morality of X, though he appears to be letting it slip (presuming the rule is, other things being equal, pay off the longest running debt first.)

I say here I will take the money. If I know Joe Blow's kids will be hied off to the orphanage, I might not, but in normal situations I would. It's simply not my role to sort out X's moral priorities, or second guess the apparent assignments. If X is my friend, as feels so obliged he's going to default on rent owed to his landlord, I would not accept repayment at that time.

No doubt it was a flight of rhetoric, but I believe these policies are something less than completely amoral ones, with the war of all against all.


Best,
J.