Loving Wives

[anthrodisiac]

Still disagree The difference is, if you are a religious person and by that I mean in the judeo-christian realm, The ten commandments say thou shalt not kill. By accepting the offer, you have morally and ethically violated that commandment even though there is a chance, a good one, that the person wouldn't die. Now my question to you, If instead of a poison pill it was a Uzi machine gun that had 500 rounds and just one bullet would you still take the bet?

I'm not saying I, personally, would. I'm not saying everyone would, or should, even. But morality is subjective, good and evil aren't so black and white. This is the whole point of the Trolley Problem and its variants. Do you make a sacrifice for the greater good, knowing the consequences of your actions could lead you to something awful, but is the price worth the net-positive outcome? A strict utilitarian believes in maximizing the best outputs for everyone, but that might mean doing something other people consider morally objectionable, and that person knows it is morally objectionable, but do you kill one person to save thousands? A billion dollars to the right charity could do an enormous world of good. Now, obviously the best thing would be for that person offering the money to donate it to charity without all this, but that person is clearly an asshole, morally bankrupt, without much question about it. Someone with a different set of beliefs, like Judeo-Christian, as in your example, might struggle more with it than a strict utilitarian, because the calculus is different due to their philosophical priorities and moral impetus. But, like your uzi example, the degree of viscerality changes the calculus for a lot of people. Look up variations of the Trolley Problem; some are fairly disturbing on purpose to show how the amount of being an active participant in the bad thing, and the way of dispatching of the one to save the many, result in many people changing their answer, even though the underlying calculus of kill 1 to save 100 doesn't change.

All this shows that morality is fairly subjective, not easy to pin down. Sometimes, actions can be justified, but how those actions are done can lead to people thinking about it a different way. People have different values and calculations for who is worth saving and who isn't. Is that good? Evil? Different cultures and religions have different sets of values. It's all really fascinating, which is why I like to explore the topic in my non-erotic writings with a degree of regularity.

 

[SmilingLez]

I'm not saying I, personally, would. I'm not saying everyone would, or should, even. But morality is subjective, good and evil aren't so black and white. This is the whole point of the Trolley Problem and its variants. Do you make a sacrifice for the greater good, knowing the consequences of your actions could lead you to something awful, but is the price worth the net-positive outcome? A strict utilitarian believes in maximizing the best outputs for everyone, but that might mean doing something other people consider morally objectionable, and that person knows it is morally objectionable, but do you kill one person to save thousands? A billion dollars to the right charity could do an enormous world of good. Now, obviously the best thing would be for that person offering the money to donate it to charity without all this, but that person is clearly an asshole, morally bankrupt, without much question about it. Someone with a different set of beliefs, like Judeo-Christian, as in your example, might struggle more with it than a strict utilitarian, because the calculus is different due to their philosophical priorities and moral impetus. But, like your uzi example, the degree of viscerality changes the calculus for a lot of people. Look up variations of the Trolley Problem; some are fairly disturbing on purpose to show how the amount of being an active participant in the bad thing, and the way of dispatching of the one to save the many, result in many people changing their answer, even though the underlying calculus of kill 1 to save 100 doesn't change.

All this shows that morality is fairly subjective, not easy to pin down. Sometimes, actions can be justified, but how those actions are done can lead to people thinking about it a different way. People have different values and calculations for who is worth saving and who isn't. Is that good? Evil? Different cultures and religions have different sets of values. It's all really fascinating, which is why I like to explore the topic in my non-erotic writings with a degree of regularity.

Then it comes down to, if the instrument of possible death is a machine gun or a military assault weapon versus poison, would a human take that chance. (messy painful death versus a clean painless death)

 

[metropolinational]

Someone who is utilitarian isn't necessarily morally bankrupt. You have a chance to potentially save a lot of lives, depending on the charity. Isn't it morally incumbent upon you to save the most lives possible? You have a slim chance of causing severe harm to someone you love or a concrete way of saving potentially hundreds of lives. The more selfish, morally bankrupt choice in this case would be to selfishly decide that the slight risk to one person isn't worth helping hundreds or thousands of people if you couch it in those terms. Now, would that person feel good about it? God no. It would probably be horrible, and the guilt would eat away at them even if nothing happened. But they did something good and worthwhile for the benefit of people they don't even know. That's about as altruistic as it gets, and altruism, in most people's mind, is objectively "good."

But this utilitarian view is anti-ethical. We've moved on far beyond that as a society. Rawls provided the original (doubt it was original but he gets credit) critique. Pure utilitarianism implies that it is ethical for the majority to exploit any minority if the overall mean benefit is positive. This can be used to justify torture, slavery, even genocide. That is all widely understood to be unethical today.

Instead, today, we believe that the individual matters, and that:
1. the individual with the greatest risk must also stand to earn the greatest benefit
2. individual agency in that tradeoff cannot be simply ignored

if you go to any IRB with this ethical question, they would all come up with the same answer.

 

[metropolinational]

Then it comes down to, if the instrument of possible death is a machine gun or a military assault weapon versus poison, would a human take that chance. (messy painful death versus a clean painless death)

I never said the death was painless. There are a range of bad outcomes, from a bad night to being disabled for life, to death, to a fate worse than death. In my analogy, this is what happens when you cheat on someone. You don't know if you will be caught, but you also don't know the outcome if you get caught. The person you cheated on might be angry for a week and then move on, or they might kill themselves. Or they might kill themselves, miss, and be disabled, paraplegic and in pain for 40 years.

 

[SmilingLez]

I never said the death was painless. There are a range of bad outcomes, from a bad night to being disabled for life, to death, to a fate worse than death. In my analogy, this is what happens when you cheat on someone. You don't know if you will be caught, but you also don't know the outcome if you get caught. The person you cheated on might be angry for a week and then move on, or they might kill themselves. Or they might kill themselves, miss, and be disabled, paraplegic and in pain for 40 years.

True and we mustn't forget the person who was cheated on could be a pathological crazy person and that opens up a whole other set of deliciously torturous possibilities

 

[AStrangeDesire]

<snip>A strict utilitarian believes in maximizing the best outputs for everyone, but that might mean doing something other people consider morally objectionable, and that person knows it is morally objectionable, but do you kill one person to save thousands? <snip>

Tangential, but I think relevant:
In healthcare decisions like this are made all the time.

A new widget can reduce waiting times for determination of XYZ which helps 99% of people who use it, but kills 1%
We compare that against what the non-widget approach would result in, and if 1% of the deaths for 'widget use' is < current deaths of non-widget use (say death rate is 3%), we go ahead and use the widget. Reduced deaths by 2/3

Note, that the 1% that die using the widget may well be different than the patients that would have died had we not used the widget. Meaning, we're now killing people that would have otherwise lived. But we go ahead and use the new widget anyway.

Note: I'm leaving out tons of assumptions, because it would bloat the post.

 

[metropolinational]

Note: I'm leaving out tons of assumptions, because it would bloat the post.

says on page 7 of a discussion about something else...

 

[metropolinational]

In healthcare decisions like this are made all the time.

with consent. only in the most dire of emergencies would the patient's agency be ignored.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Or, they might blow your brains out, rig your brakes, hire a hit man, push your lying, cheating ass off the balcony of a luxury resort, put dynamite in your workshed, put and exceessive amount of nitro in your drink, and watch you die of a massive heart attack. Fuck your best friend, and send you the video evidence. When you open a box of full-blown cat-shit crazy, you never know what you're going to get. But most people don't kill themselves or you. They get made, get a lawyer, and find a new person.

with consent. only in the most dire of emergencies would the patient's agency be ignored.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

with consent. only in the most dire of emergencies would the patient's agency be ignored.

You're thinking about procedures. I'm thinking about things like switching to a certain type of new imaging, which may cut wait times for results for ER cases, thereby saving lives, but introduces some other nuanced issues.

Again, left out a lot of details from my post on purpose, so it didn't bloat

 

[SmilingLez]

with consent. only in the most dire of emergencies would the patient's agency be ignored.

Depends on who is giving consent. Actually that might be a cool plot for a story. The ultimate revenge.

 

[lc69hunter]

The problem is that the damage often only becomes apparent over time—through a lack of honesty, warmth, and respect. The unfaithful partner often doesn’t even realize that their behavior has changed.

That is a very presumptuous statement to make, but it makes for a good plot line in a BTB story

 

[MillieDynamite]

The cheating factor is way down from the last century. One key to the numbers (and the possibility they aren't accurate), these are people who have admitted to cheating.

 

[lc69hunter]

This is a completely non-confrontational question. I would simply like to understand what you are saying here.

Let's say someone offered you a billion dollars to perform a task, plus a matching billion dollars to a charity of your choice. The task is simple. Sneak a poison pill into the daily vitamin bottle of someone you love, and then remove it after one day. There are 500 pills in the bottle, so there is a 1 in 500 chance that your loved one will take the pill during that one day. The task is very easy because this person loves you and trusts you completely. You have total access to them and sneaking the poison pill in and out of the bottle is trivial. Now you don't really know what the pill will do. It will be somewhere between bad (a night worshipping the porcelain gods), very bad (a week in the hospital), horrific (permanent lifetime disability) to death. The catastrophic outcomes are less likely than the merely bad outcomes, but they are still possible (if rare). Your loved one will only know it was you who put the pill in there if they take the poison pill, otherwise they will live in blissful ignorance unless you confess. There will be zero negative financial or legal consequences for you either way, other than receiving the reward.

Would it be inherently evil to agree to this deal? How many times would you be willing to agree to this if the reward doubled each time you did it?

That is an interesting math/statistics problem, but has absolutely no relevance to the issue

 

[metropolinational]

That is an interesting math/statistics problem, but has absolutely no relevance to the issue

sure, but can you answer?

 

[MillieDynamite]

More facts from self-proclaimed adulterers.
KEY INSIGHTS - STRAYING PARTNERS:

Women feel less regret during the affair than men. (Q19)
More men reported still being in love with their spouse during the affair than women. (Q24)
Men endorsed being in a "mental fog" during the affair more than women. (Q26)
Women reported experiencing more limerence during the affair than men. (Q29)
Men who stray reconcile at higher rates than women who stray. (Q34)
Men are more committed to their original relationships after their affair than women. (Q104)
Men are more likely to feel their relationship or marriage is better after the affair. (Q105)

Women are more likely to stop straying after 1 affair. 55.4% of men reported having 1 affair, 16.7% reported 2 affairs versus 63.5% of women reported having only 1 affair and 18.7% reporting 2 affairs.The average (mean) number of affairs for all men who reported cheating was 2.18; the mean for all women was 1.72. (Q7)

Women have affairs younger. When we asked all participants what age they were when they had their affair, 27.3% of women reported age 35-39, 21.6% reported 25-29, and 21.4% reported 30-34. This differs from men: 29.1% of men reported straying at ages 35-39, 27.0% reported 40-45, and 24.8% reported infidelity from 30-34. Age 35-39 was the age range where both men and women reported the most affairs, suggesting 35-39 is the highest time of risk for an affair. (Q8)

Men are more likely to have an affair with a stranger or sex worker versus women. 4.6% of men reported their AP was a sex worker, as opposed to 0.0% of women. 14.8% of men reported that their AP was a stranger, versus 12.0% of women. However, most men and women report that their affair partner was a coworker (42.0% men, 35.8% women) or friend (17.4% men, 28.0% women). (Q10)

Men are more likely to have an either/or affair, women are more likely to have a both affair. Women were more likely to have an affair that was both physical and emotional (79.8% of women v. 66.5% of men). Men were more likely to have an affair that was just emotional (12.1% for men v. 9.8% for women) or just physical (21.4% for men v. 10.4% for women). However for both men and women, the majority of respondents reported having an affair that was physical and emotional. (Q11)

Men were more likely to rewrite their relationship history with their partner and tell themselves that their original relationship was worse than it was. 56.9% of men reported this versus 41.8% of women. (Q17)

Men were more likely to tell their affair partner negative stories to make their partner or spouse seem worse than they were. 46.4% of men endorsed this behavior, as compared to 36.1% of women. (Q18)

Women feel less regret during the affair than men. 67.4% of women reported experiencing regret during the affair, as compared to 82.5% of men. (Q19)

Women are more likely to feel "in love" with their affair partner than men. 71.8% of women reported this compared to 50.6% of men. (Q21)

Women are more likely to report that their feelings of being in love with the AP were genuine than men. 46.1% of women said that in hindsight, they were in love with their AP, as compared to 20.7% of men. (Q23)

More men reported still being in love with their spouse during the affair than women. 88.7% of men said they still loved their spouse/partner during their affair, versus 71.1% of women. This and the three findings above suggest that affairs are much more emotional for women and that women are more emotionally disconnected from their original partners during the affair. (Q24)

Women are more likely to confide in a family member or friend about the affair than men. 62.5% of women shared details about the affair with a friend or family member versus 33.5% of men.(Q25)

Men endorsed being in a "mental fog" during the affair more than women. While both genders reported experiencing a mental fog, more men (79.0%) reported this experience than women (68.6%). (Q26)

Women reported experiencing more limerence during the affair than men. Both genders highly endorsed experiencing limerence, 67.8% of women reported this as compared to 54.5% of men. (Q29)

Men who stray reconcile at higher rates than women who stray. 84.6% of men who strayed reported that they reconciled with their original partner after the affair, compared to 68.0% of women. (Q34)

Women are less likely to want to reconcile after their affair than men. 17.4% of women reported not wanting to reconcile after they strayed, versus 6.0% of men. (Q35)

One question that I am asked often: Is it worse when a woman cheats? Yes, the data suggest it's worse predictor for reconciliation when a woman cheats. Our findings show that when women have affairs, they feel less regret than men, they feel more love for their affair partner, they are more emotionally disconnected from their original partner, they reconcile with their original partners at lower rates and they are less likely to want to reconcile with their original partners.

Men who stray remain with their original partner more often than women who stray. 82.1% of men reported that they are still with their original partner versus 71.3% of women. (Q36)

Women are more likely to form long-lasting relationships with their affair partner if/when they leave their primary relationship to be with their AP. 12.6% of women left their original relationship to be with their affair partner (Q38) and of these women, 3.5% reported their new relationship had lasted 10+ years (Q39). This is compared to men, who report their new relationship with AP lasted 0-6m (7.0%), 6-12m (2.4%), and 10+ years (1.4%). (Q38-39).

Men are more likely to believe that their AP specifically targeted them for an affair because they were in a committed relationship. 42.7% of men reported feeling this way versus 31.0% of women. (Q41)

Women report remembering more of the affair details than men. 52.7% of women reported remembering "nearly everything" about the affair, as compared to 23.4% of men. (Q43)

Men report that their partner still believes they are withholding information about the affair at higher rates than women. 74.3% of men endorsed this question affirmatively on the survey versus 41.4% of women. (Q44)

Women tend to withhold more information from their partner after the affair. 73.5% of women reported their were withholding a little or a lot from their partner after the affair, compared to 46.7% of men who reported the same. (Q45)

Women who strayed reported feeling more distant to their mothers when they were growing up. 36.4% of women reported feeling very or somewhat distant from their mothers, as compared to 25.6% of men who reported feeling the same way. Notably, 46.3% of women and 44.8% of men reported feeling very or somewhat distant from their fathers while growing up. (Q56-57)

More women felt their relationship with their partner was very or somewhat bad before the affair. 48.4% of women reported their relationship was very or somewhat bad versus 34.1% of men. This may suggest that women wait longer for the relationship to deteriorate before reaching out for an affair. (Q63)

Men were more likely to avoid conflict before the affair. 81.1% of men reported they avoided conflict before the affair as compared to 68.7% of women. This may suggest men who have an avoidant attachment style are more likely to stray in long-term relationships. (Q70)

More women reported feeling that their partner was not supportive or appreciative enough and instead made them feel that they were not good enough. 77.6% of women endorsed this question versus 64.4% of men. (Q76)

Men reported looking at pornography before the affair at higher rates than women. 80.2% of men looked at porn before the affair as compared to 37.4% of women. (Q82)

Men believe that substance use and pornography played a greater role in their straying behavior. 20.9% of men believed that looking at pornography led them to have an affair versus 1.7% of women. 27.9% of men identified as porn addicted versus only 2.9% of women. 21.6% of men endorsed substance use as a contributing factor to the affair, versus 17.6% of women. (Q84, Q87, Q90)

Women who strayed benefited more from talking to friends and family about the affair than their partners. 40.4% of women reported that talking to friends and family helped them cope with the pain from the affair. Men benefited more from talking to their partner; 54.5% reported that this helped them cope with the pain while healing. (Q92)

Women reported that their partners did not help them heal from the affair; 57.8% of women reported this as compared to 26.7% of men. When asked what their partners did that helped their healing, men reported that understanding, patience, and affection were most valuable. (Q93)

Men felt their partners did more to hinder their healing. 52.9% of women reported that their partner did not hinder their healing versus 32.7% of men. Men reported that the following behaviors by their partners hindered their healing most: told others about the affair, was harsh/mean to them, made me feel like a monster. (Q94)

Men are more committed to their relationships after their affair than women. 73.3% of men endorsed being very committed to their relationship after the affair, as compared to 45.3% of women. (Q104)

Men are more likely to feel their relationship / marriage is better after the affair. 56.7% of men reported that their relationship is better after the affair, compared to 38.7% of women who strayed. (Q105)

 

[MillieDynamite]

I can answer that question. I wouldn't put a poison pill in reach of my wife, no matter the odds. Because 1 out of 500 isn't zero!

sure, but can you answer?

 

[metropolinational]

Women report remembering more of the affair details than men. 52.7% of women reported remembering "nearly everything" about the affair, as compared to 23.4% of men. (Q43)

Men report that their partner still believes they are withholding information about the affair at higher rates than women. 74.3% of men endorsed this question affirmatively on the survey versus 41.4% of women. (Q44)

Women tend to withhold more information from their partner after the affair. 73.5% of women reported their were withholding a little or a lot from their partner after the affair, compared to 46.7% of men who reported the same. (Q45)

so many euphemisms for penis size...
/LW

 

[lc69hunter]

View attachment 2620791

The cheating factor is way down from the last century. One key to the numbers (and the possibility they aren't accurate), these are people who have admitted to cheating.

An interesting graph, and again, you are probably correct on the overall validity, as there is a bit of self-selection involved. The one stat that I take exception to is the relative rate of cheating between men and women. Men, in general find it fairly hard to find a willing partner. A woman, on the other hand, if she breathes and has a heartbeat, she is swarmed with opportunity. On a personal note, I never stepped out when I was married, but over a long lifetime (I am 75), I have slept with quite a few married women, and I didn't seduce them. I believe that chart could be reversed and not be that far off.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Really, you get that out of those stats? Despite the tropes, most affairs by women are because of emotional infidelity by their partner. That is cheating, having more love for work, friends, golf, or coffee or drinks with a colleague rather than spending time with them. Since I can't stand cock, I wouldn't cheat with a man if I did cheat, which I don't.

so many euphemisms for penis size...
/LW

 

[MillieDynamite]

Spoken by a man, about women, so, you know, you ain't all that unbiased.

An interesting graph, and again, you are probably correct on the overall validity, as there is a bit of self-selection involved. The on state that I take exception to is the relative rate of cheating between men and women. Men, in general find it fairly hard to find a willing partner. A woman, on the other hand, if she breathes and has a heartbeat, she is swarmed with opportunity. On a personal note, I never stepped out when I was married, but over a long lifetime (I am 75), I have slept with quite a few married women, and I didn't seduce them. I believe that chart could be reversed and not be that far off.

 

[SmilingLez]

An interesting graph, and again, you are probably correct on the overall validity, as there is a bit of self-selection involved. The one stat that I take exception to is the relative rate of cheating between men and women. Men, in general find it fairly hard to find a willing partner. A woman, on the other hand, if she breathes and has a heartbeat, she is swarmed with opportunity. On a personal note, I never stepped out when I was married, but over a long lifetime (I am 75), I have slept with quite a few married women, and I didn't seduce them. I believe that chart could be reversed and not be that far off.

I definitely agree that in a heterosexual world a woman can find a sexual partner quicker than a man can. I also think that's the reason why misogyny, INCELs, and patriarchy are now commonplace.

 

[metropolinational]

Really, you get that out of those stats? Despite the tropes, most affairs by women are because of emotional infidelity by their partner. That is cheating, having more love for work, friends, golf, or coffee or drinks with a colleague rather than spending time with them. Since I can't stand cock, I wouldn't cheat with a man if I did cheat, which I don't.

It was a joke (though evidently not funny). the "/LW" notation at the end was meant to imply that this is the view of the LW genre, in general, on why cheating happens.

 

[metropolinational]

I also think that's the reason why misogyny, INCELs, and patriarchy are now commonplace.

I really have to take issue with that "now" there... you surely don't mean in comparison to the past? I am pretty certain we right now live in the peak of human civilization in terms of the lack of those things?

 

[metropolinational]

The one stat that I take exception to is the relative rate of cheating between men and women.

Sadly, it's a survey. It just reflects the relative rate of willingness to answer yes or no. It has more to do with what people believe to be the "right" answer rather than reality.

It's the same reason why pollsters are always shocked when Trump wins an election.