Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, I did not state that it was a question. I said it was not a question aimed at me. A statement for example is not a question aimed at me. So I certainly didn't say it is a question. Who taught you grammar?
No, it was not a question. It was a statement to what we are discussing. And I am not saying it was specifically aimed at you, I am saying that it is quite possible to think it was aimed at you. To be fair, it probably was aimed at me, but I am not psychic, I did not realize that at the time and it did fit as a reply to what you said too.
Again, what I write is usually made to be taken the way it was written down. So, just read it that way.
No I did not. I explained to you what I meant and it is the grammatically correct meaning of the sentence
Yes, I am telling you that your scenario is to unspecific.
To make an analogy again, it is like me asking you "Would you rather have a gun or a parachute" .... kinda depends on the situation, doesn't it?
too unspecific? YOUR GIRL IS FUKKING ANOTHER MAN, SHE COMES HOME AND TELL YOU SHE IS FUKKING ANOTHER MAN. whats unspecific about that? all you told me was like "well, if we talked about it, and if things were a certain way, and maybe it'll be OK"
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
No, I stated that you would not want to hurt him through infidelity.
I never stated that.
Motivation is incidental. Sometimes the motivation for an action is not known even to the person performing the action. Therefore, concerning yourself with the motivations of others is futile.
I did not state that he did not love you, but that he did not love you enough.
The point is that his actions caused harm to another, and this is not acceptable, regardless of his intentions.
The harm caused by his actions is what I am addressing. If the driver who harms your loved one is not absolved of his actions because he did not have bad intentions, then why would you regard an unfaithful partner any differently?
"Boredom comes from a boring mind."
__________________
Last edited by Adam_PoE on Aug 6th, 2007 at 08:54 PM
This is a false analogy, because there is still sexuality fidelity between the partners in the above situations, whereas there is not sexual fidelity in open-relationships.
Relationships are either defined objectively or subjectively; you cannot have it both ways. Case in point:
"You know, you can call a shovel an ice-cream machine, but it's still a shovel, Mom and Dad."
So it's okay to hurt your partner, as long as it's not through infidelity ?
My apologies, I assumed you were a moral relativist, since you tend to side with others on this forum who are moral relativists.
That is true. Therefore, a person who performs a "wrong" action may not know or understand why he or she is doing such a thing. I think it is important for both parties to understand why it happened, as to better come to a solution.
I disagree. Concerning myself with the motivations of those I love, is of absolute necessity and in my best interest.
But you previously stated that you cannot truly love a person you cheat on. Which is it ?
I never said cheating was acceptable. What I am arguing is that just because someone cheats, does not mean they didn't love you. Sex and Love are not the same thing.
If Sex is the most basic center of your relationship, and the thing you hold most valid, then that's pretty superficial.
If the driver kills my loved one by accident, it's manslaughter. If the driver kills my loved one with intention, it's murder.
Do you see the difference ?
If someone cheats on me, I want to know why.
Sexual boredom can arise from a lack of stimulation, and is highly common in many relationships, especially where marriage is concerned.
It wasn't about the fidelity (which as I mentioned in case B. can be complex) it was about features of relationships other then sex altogether - what is the difference between them and friends who don't have sex?
Why commitment keeps coming up since that was never what the examples were there for is beyond me. Unless it is because people really are saying the only difference between those two examples and friends who aren't having sex is, once again, the fact they are "sexually exclusive", just while not having sex.
Are you prepared to say there is more to a romantic relationship then sexual exclusivity? I can only imagine the answer being yes. And if that is the case would those features be present even in an open ended relationship? And if so then there would most certainly be a difference between an open relationship (or a couple that engages in a threesome or does things like swingers) and just "friends having sex".
In the example you gave I indicated the subjective nature - you defined it as friends with benefits. Friends with benefits are just that, because that is how the friends are defining it - commitment free sex between friends. If you are in such a position and you consider it something more and want to label it a relationship then you are defining it - subjective. Does the other person feel the same? - subjective. Do you tell them - "I know we are just friends with benefits but I actually consider this a relationship"? How do they respond - subjective. Tell you they don't feel the same - does the relationship continue and how do its participants handle the different expectations? - subjective. Do they still only see you as a friend and it was only about the sex? Tell you they actually feel the same and consider it a loving relationship? Maybe it ruins the friendship altogether because it is no longer comfortable, since you are looking for more from them then they have to other. If it is the case it is no longer just friends with benifits because the feelings within it no longer match the title.
You don't believe the people actually in the relationship have any kind of control over how it is defined? What they themselves perceive it to be? That a relationship is purely objective based upon predetermined criteria like "sexual exclusivity"?
There is an interesting phenomena in the world. It has pretty much always been here. It is homosexuality. I believe, and have always believed, that a gay relationship is no different from a straight one.
Yet interestingly enough for quite a long time there have been people who, by applying their own definition of what makes a relationship valid, have tried to dismiss gay relationships as somehow less or different from a "real relationship" - certainly this can be seen by some of the absolute dribble people have come up with on this very board. Such as claims about the validity of love between two men or two women for example.
The same was once said for De Facto relationships - oh, they aren't getting married, how can they really be in a loving relationship? They're living in sin, it's just about the sex. If they were really committed they show it with marriage.
People who say such things are wrong in my opinion. And that is the danger I feel of applying ones own relationship values to another, "different relationship". Just because we couldn't reconcile love with an agreement that essentially grants sex outside of a relationship doesn't mean others can't because it seems they can and do.
If two men or women love each other then they are in love and that is their relationship. If two people are in love but have very liberal ideas about sexual commitments then they are in love and that is there relationship. In both cases while the execution might be different the intent and the way the people actually in the relationship feel doesn't differ from a sexually exclusive, heterosexual relationship where the people feel they are in love.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Last edited by Imperial_Samura on Aug 7th, 2007 at 03:42 AM
"It depends." I am not saying it will be Sara, she seems like a nice girl. But chances are that eventually some girl will do this to you. Until it happens, you dont know WHAT you will do. trust me on this.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Isn't that what he was saying anyway - that it would depend on the situation and it would have to be worked out on the features of what has occurred at the time, so he can't say for certain?
Or do you mean "you don't know WHAT you will do" more like "you might seem rational now but you never know, if someone did this to you could loose it, kill them and then hide the body beneath the floorboards only to be driven mad by the imagined, accusatory beating of their heart."
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You idiot. That's what I have been saying the whole time.
You just don't understand anything and you make inane, invalid, childish, moronic points. What was the point of the question. Just STFU you idiot.
People can have open relationships and be in love. That's all it comes down to, your idiotic pseudo-solomonic questions just try to hide the fact that you do not understand what is going on around you, do everyone a favour and stop replying to serious threads. It's for people that have an understanding of the English language as well as more serious topics and Jackie Malfoy.
Ok so were being a bit more honest now. So if was a statement aimed at you do you think he wnated you to pick your nose with it or respond to the statement?
Whatever.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
It wasn't a question. I responded to his statements though. That one I did not realize was aimed at me. Anyhow the point is the first time he stated the question certainly addressed to me I replied.
the point of the question is the topic at hand. you are saying what you might do if things went a certain way. I am saying that it has never happened to you and that you dont know how you will react until it does.
You are a true child, B. like a girl with a skinned knee. hurl the insults all you want, go ahead, throw some more at me if it pleases you, girlie.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 6th, 2007 07:47 PM
