Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Because he used the statement that he typed "solemnly" and insulted anyone else that thought differently and that isn't fair just because he's heartless and only needs sex doesn't mean everyone else is/does.
If you think about what I said, hardly anyone would disagree: Having a wife but ****ing a multitude of other women would not show "true/real" love.
What is your refutation to that?
Silly tactic, "your just a fat loser who has never seen a boob."
Fact is, you are making a ridiculous claim (that love need be monogamous) without offering any logical argument, much less any type of proof. You claim in order to identify exceptions from your silly belief one need to define love, but that is just moreover ridiculous seeing as one need to have an idea of what love is in the first place in order to be able to make your original (silly) claim.
Originally posted by backdoormanHmm.. red herring. Try reading his post next time.
Silly tactic, "your just a fat loser who has never seen a boob."Fact is, you are making a ridiculous claim (that love need be monogamous) without offering any logical argument, much less any type of proof. You claim in order to identify exceptions from your silly belief one need to define love, but that is just moreover ridiculous seeing as one need to have an idea of what love is in the first place in order to be able to make your original (silly) claim.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually yeah, loose your temper, and you will do it without really meaning to.Now, don't dodge again, how do you accidently cheat on someone?
Get horny and then sleep with someone? 🙄
Or allow yourself to be seduced? 🙄
From what some people have said when it comes to so called "accidental affairs" (one off sexual encounters) it seems to often involve a copious amount alcohol or something that occurs in a period of stress when a person "isn't thinking straight".
That is the question, is it not?
Yes, your not going to have a go at answering it? For you sexual exclusivity might be the bread and butter of a relationship, the foundation, and that is fine, but are your relationships more then just that?
You are missing the point. Friends who have a sexual arrangement, i.e. friends with benefits, may be more comfortable defining this arrangement in the context of a relationship. By your reasoning, i.e. that relationships should be defined subjectively, this arrangement would qualify as a relationship, because the parties involved define it as such, even though you acknowledged in your previous post that it is merely a sexual arrangement. Can I call a shovel an ice-cream machine or not?
Ah, so your what if friends with benefits decide to who call their arrangement a relationship? They can call it what they wish. Friends with benefits is a fairly denotative term, I have heard it called far more base things and far more pleasant things.
Your problem here is you are now making the titles absolute objectives. "But if friends with benefits call it a relationship then that is so because they have defined it thus. Ergo just because they call it something doesn't make it so."
Of course it doesn't make it so.
The friends with benefits can call what they have whatever they want, and I never said anything different. You are the one who is questioning titles. I said, and have been saying, that it is how they perceive it, define it, the intent and understanding of what they are doing together.
Another False Analogy; in the case of a man and a woman, two men, or two women, the execution is the same, i.e. sexual exclusivity with a single partner. It is in the case of open-relationships alone that the execution is different.
Gahhhh! Not the point! Commitment has nothing to do with it! I was pointing out the madness in the world that comes from people automatically assuming that because another couples approach to a relationship is not a carbon copy to their own they devalue it or question whether it qualifies the same.
Ie. A defacto relationship - the people who believe that marriage is the ultimate sign of commitment. Screw not sleeping around, if you don't get married what does that say about your relationship? Billy Joe can't love another man the way he loves a women, so he thinks "well, a gay man can't really be committed, can he? I mean it is natural to be attracted to women, so deep down that is where he really is at."
Commitment - nothing to do in those examples. History of people using their own relationship values to devalue or disregard other relationships is what that is all about.
Of course that hasn't gone on at all in this thread. There hasn't been any value judgements of relationships that are different asking anything like "What is in question is what those relationships would qualify as."
If a friend and I have romantic feelings for one another but do not pursue them, then by your reasoning, because the way we feel “doesn't differ from a sexually exclusive . . . relationship where the people feel they are in love,” then we are in a relationship, even though this is not the case. Clearly, our relationship is not defined by our feelings for one another, but how we choose to act in accordance with those feelings.
Would you give me an example where I said something to the effect of "all you need is love and you are in a relationship" without saying things to the effect of "so, aren't their other aspects that set apart romantic relationships other then sexual exclusivity" or "doesn't the way the individuals themselves perceive their interaction have any bearing?"
You'll have hard time because I never did. That a relationship has its groundings in the feelings the people involved have for one another + the intent and understanding that they are in a relationship with those aspects and boundaries that set apart a relationship from just "friends with benefits (regardless whether they are strict or very liberal boundaries.)
If anything you have essentially finished with what I have been saying all along about how "Clearly, our relationship is not defined by our feelings for one another, but how we choose to act in accordance with those feelings" - feeling + intent.
The main difference is that you feel the way people in open relationships act in accordance to those feelings is not right since you can't reconcile commitment without exclusivity, where as I think it's important since that is simply the way in which they are happy to approach their relationship. Clearly they don't think of sexual exclusivity in the same light as many off us. Different boundaries? Sure. Different take on commitment? Absolutely. Different values? You bet. Are the feelings and intent behind it different? No one has presented anything to show that other then saying "without sexual exclusivity what are you committing to".
And until someone can then "what is in question is what those relationships would qualify as" is: exactly what they are, a relationship between to people with an open attitude on sexual fidelity.
Originally posted by backdoormanA strawman is a type of red herring whereby you create an imaginary opponent to fight. Make up claims for them to make which are easily refuted and assign these claims to the person you were responding to. Its considered a type of red herring because it does nothing to address the original point, even if you leave the imaginary opponent, the strawman, in a smoldering pile of burned cinders.
Do elaborate.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraMmm...
From what some people have said when it comes to so called "accidental affairs" (one off sexual encounters) it seems to often involve a copious amount alcohol or something that occurs in a period of stress when a person "isn't thinking straight".
You make a good point. I'll ponder more on this later.
Originally posted by Creshosk
A strawman is a type of red herring whereby you create an imaginary opponent to fight. Make up claims for them to make which are easily refuted and assign these claims to the person you were responding to. Its considered a type of red herring because it does nothing to address the original point, even if you leave the imaginary opponent, the strawman, in a smoldering pile of burned cinders.
Originally posted by CreshoskThat's precisely the problem with people that use logical fallacies in arguments. They believe that just stating the term is enough for them to not have to address something. Latest example is Creshosk, who really loves to use them wrongly.
A strawman is a type of red herring whereby you create an imaginary opponent to fight. Make up claims for them to make which are easily refuted and assign these claims to the person you were responding to. Its considered a type of red herring because it does nothing to address the original point, even if you leave the imaginary opponent, the strawman, in a smoldering pile of burned cinders.
Originally posted by chithappens
If you think about what I said, hardly anyone would disagree: Having a wife but ****ing a multitude of other women would not show "true/real" love.What is your refutation to that?
Originally posted by Bardock42🙄 Riiight...
That's precisely the problem with people that use logical fallacies in arguments. They believe that just stating the term is enough for them to not have to address something. Latest example is Creshosk, who really loves to use them wrongly.
Goes to show you don't know them then. no2
Originally posted by Kelly_BeanGuess I was wrong about you. ermm
Really? I see no one defending you. Sure there are people in this world that can combine love with sex, and imo that's because they've never experienced love before so all they can condone is sex.
Originally posted by Kelly_BeanDisregard the part of the post above to you.
Really? I see no one defending you. Sure there are people in this world that can combine love with sex, and imo that's because they've never experienced love before so all they can condone is sex.
I'm not sure if you're reading him properly, but he's not condoning sex. More he's condeming sex outside of marriage or other commited relationships.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, it almost sounds like you're saying, through a blanket statement attack, that love and sex should always be seperate. But that would seem to imply that if you love someone you shouldn't have sex with them.
Which really sounds rather ridiculous.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Disregard the part of the post above to you.I'm not sure if you're reading him properly, but he's not condoning sex. More he's condeming sex outside of marriage or other commited relationships.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, it almost sounds like you're saying, through a blanket statement attack, that love and sex should always be seperate. But that would seem to imply that if you love someone you shouldn't have sex with them.
Which really sounds rather ridiculous.
Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Really? I see no one defending you. Sure there are people in this world that can combine love with sex, and imo that's because they've never experienced love before so all they can condone is sex.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all.
But I was talking about committed relationships not just people having casual sex.
That was the reason for my edit in MY first post.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not sure if you're reading him properly, but he's not condoning sex. More he's condeming sex outside of marriage or other commited relationships.
Originally posted by Kelly_BeanWhat's pretty clear is you misunderstood all of his posts. So your attacks on his posts make no sense. THAT is why your posts aren't able to be understood.
Actually no, you, for one did not read every post that I've made in this thread, and even if you have, you've completely misunderstood them.