Married Women, Single Women

[guru1000]

. Identical genetics has nothing to do with it and there is no possible way to identically duplicate individual experience, interpretation and response to it.

I am glad we agree. Choice is an option not predetermined by genetics.

Only if he's taught to do so. Discipline is a set of prescribed, learned behaviors as a response to external prompts paired with a desire to perform them. And again, the characteristic behaviors that define what "discipline" is are really only reinforced and rewarded actions as prescribed by social contrivances. Thus, if the 400lb guy in your low quality guy example was socially rewarded for being so, the "disciplined" high quality people would be the ones striving to hit that magic 400lbs.

Discipline is mental fortitude to ACT on your decision. It may be mimicked but not learned.

Discipline or lets say APPLICATION has nothing to do with pain/pleasure or reward/punish. It is merely taking ACTION on a DECISION whether or not it creates pain or pleasure.

Your motivation for APPLICATION/ Discipline is what you are getting at.

The 400 lbs guy with bad genetics is only of less discipline than the bodybuilder (Dave Palumbo) with bad genetics because he could not take APPLICATION on what he truly desired.

 

[Latinoman]

You missed Rollo's point entirely.

Is adultery frowned upon by society? Yes. Why? Well the church has a BIG part in that.

No offense...but "BC" = Before Christ. So...what church we are talking about?

In the animal world is cheating wrong? Animals are driven by the instincts to eat and fukk. this might mean defending territory and access to mates, but there is no "right" or "wrong".

I am a rational being...not a dog or cat or some cow. And by the way...why even bother living in your nice building? Why not sh_it in the street and lay in the corner while you are at it.

This concept is entirely a man made.

Ain't that what ETHICS is all about?

"But we are ABOVE that!", you say.

I am not saying that.

Because as much as we would LIKE to believe that we no longer need, use, or are governed by biology, WE ARE. We have the same urges to eat and fukk that a gorilla or a fish does. Despite whatever constraints popular social opinion attempts to shackle us with, no matter how smart or conscious we become, nature and biology will RULE.

I have control over my emotions. That is what makes me a Man. I don't go on acting out of control and then blame it on some "biology" excuse.

 

[KontrollerX]

"I have control over my emotions. That is what makes me a Man. I don't go on acting out of control and then blame it on some "biology" excuse."

Remember this when and if you get alzheimer's some day or get a concussion and can't stop crying at innappropriate moments.

Hmmm, yeah forgot if you got alzheimer's you wouldn't remember lmfao.

The concussion one though is a good example.

 

[Latinoman]

OK let's just end this right here. You are dismissing things that have been said in this thread long ago. You believe if a woman signs a marriage certificate than no man should touch her even if she is throwing herself at them.

I wonder if you have any reading comprehension. Listen, I did not say that. All I am saying is that it is unethical and NO ONE can say otherwise. He can touch her all he wants as it is NOT illegal. But that don't change the fact that under our society...it is unethical.

That's your moral stance (coming from a guy who cheated with married women).

That's NOT my moral stand. I don't preach MY morals to anyone. All I am doing is telling YOU that in our society...that's unethical and we cannot change that fact.

Just because some people think they are entitled to retaliate against the guy doesn't mean they're right either. This is a practicality issue.

No...the issue here is that you have serious issues with reading and comprehension. Similar to the "battery" debate.

Other people have a different stance. They believe that a married woman that is putting herself out there on the market to be fvck by whoever she meets that night who tickles her fancy, is no one's wife. She's already decided to break the commitment.

Hahaha. Ridiculous. She still married. There is a LEGAL document out there stating that.

And it doesn't matter if your fvcking a married woman or one with a BF or one that is "single". You are taking her from someone.

I won't debate this issue again as I clearly stated the difference about 3-5 pages ago.

I believe fvcking two or more women at the same time is less moral than being singl and fvcking a married woman. You probably don't agree with me, but why should I or anyone else agree with your beliefs either?

What I believe is that you lack the maturity to form your own opinion. That your opinion WILL always be based on whichever STR8UP writes. That does NOT make you a Mature man. That makes you a sheep. To this day I have not seen you disagree with him. To the point that you have contradicted your views.

 

[Luveno]

"I have control over my emotions. That is what makes me a Man. I don't go on acting out of control and then blame it on some "biology" excuse."

Remember this when and if you get alzheimer's some day or get a concussion and can't stop crying at innappropriate moments.

I think what Latinoman was saying is that women are very affected by the high concentrations of estrogen in their body. It's believed that it is the estrogen that gives them their moody, emotional nature. Additionally, very little is known about the differences in brain biology between the two sexes. Given the obvious difference in emotional responses and expression between guys and girls regardless of the culture, biological cerebral differences are highly probable.

Your comment about alzheimers and concussions are a bit out-of-context in this regard. At that point the emotional disturbance is due to true pathology and not normal biological function.


I am not against the expression of emotions. I am, however, against expressing emotions that interfere with someone else's well-being. This is why I do not tolerate a woman giving me attitude when she's on her period.

 

[ketostix]

Because you are talking about CRIMINAL acts that are punishable by the law.

That's why it was an analogy . You made it perfectly clear earlier that having sex with a married woman is an ethics violations just as violating any criminal law is an ethics violation of more magnitude (although apparently you don't believe in the concept of magnitude and ethics). I think you are arguing in circles at this point.

Nobody can teach your morals. What they can teach you is the DIFFERENCE between "ethics", "morals", and "values".

All I need is a dictionary to do that. To be honest most sociology professors are zealots and don't know anything about morals, ethics and fair play.

You don't have to justify your morals. They are your own. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't have to but when people question someone's ethics/morals like they did here ,then If you have a justification you should show it. And if you don't even have a solid justification then you probably don't have any morals.

And you cannot justify unethical behavior.

Yes you can. You can also demonstrate how an ethics rule or law is unethical its self.

And society position is that it is unethical to sleep with marry people.

But it's society's position that it's unethical to sleep with two women at the same time. Are you going to stop doing that too or just pick and choose which ethics you choose to follow?

I don't have to disagree with anything. It is unethical...there is NO justification when it comes to knowingly engaging on unethical behavior.

This is just silly. In Nazi Germany it was ethical to kill Jews. Sometimes "ethical" behavior is actually unethical. But you would never question it right?

You cannot say is the most moral situation to do anyhow...as morals are PERSONAL in nature. That would be the equivalent of your preaching your morality to him.

This is just wrong. What is moral and immoral is independent of what any one person chooses to believe is moral and immoral. Besides, ethics are presupposed on what's moral and immoral. So preaching ethics IS preaching morals.

Nope. It is unethical.

Unethical, immoral or not it makes no difference.

 

[Luthor Rex]

I'm absolutely amazed that more men are defending str8up's fvcking of a married women, just because he "got some", rather than defending morals and integrity.

Wow this forum has gone to sh1t. Is getting laid THAT IMPORTANT that you sacrifice what is morally right??

You've been living in the Western world for 34 years... take a wild guess... :yawn:

 

[Latinoman]

I think you are butchering the history. In those days a woman could not divorce a man unless he died. Also you couldn't just fvck a single woman and not marry her. Women were controlled by their male family members and it was very taboo for her to lose her virginity and not be married. It was the moral rules of the time that pressured Soloman to conspire for the husband to be killed in battle. He couldn't just sleep with her while he was still alive. That was the moral standard. What he did was wrong, but the moral of the story was not to covet another man's wife true. The thing is a wife meant something totally different than it does today.

I am not butchering history. If anything, I can teach you history.

Here is a fact...it has ALWAYS been frown when a man sleeps with another's man's wife. It is frown today in America and was frowm 8 BC (that is Before Christ) in Ancient Greece.

Today a wife is nothing more than a girlfriend.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever been married? Do you understand the FINACIAL and LEGAL responsibilities? Dude...after reading this quote, I have reached the conclusion that you might be under 25.

They also stoned to death a woman for losing her virginity without marrying. Should we do that too?

Who is talking about stoning people? Are we stoning people in America?
I don't remember saying that.

It is impossible to debate you...because you always come with this crazy examples that has NOTHING to do with the debate.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Choice is an option not predetermined by genetics.

Predetermined? No. Predisposed to? Possibly, depending on genetics, prior experience, establishing operations (such as deprivation or hunger), risk to reward ratios, and tons of other conditions specific to an individual.

Predetermination is an absolutist term.

Discipline is mental fortitude to ACT on your decision. It may be mimicked but not learned.

Learned behaviors ARE mimicked behaviors.

The 400 lbs guy with bad genetics is only of less discipline than the bodybuilder (Dave Palumbo) with bad genetics because he could not take APPLICATION on what he truly desired.

You're completely missing the point. What you perceive as being disciplined is defined by what behavior is reinforced as being so. For example, if the 400lb guy was socially reinforced for being fat HE would be the idealization for discipline.

 

[Latinoman]

The nature card explains a lot of behavior that most people like sweep under the rug.

Let's assume you truly believe that. So...if you truly believe that...why have you been whinning for the last 12 months about "NO quality women" thing?And God knows you have been whining thread after thread after thread.

A man that accepts what you just wrote above is a man that would not even categorize women into "low quality" or "high quality". In fact, would not even whine about women's behavior.

 

[Latinoman]

"I have control over my emotions. That is what makes me a Man. I don't go on acting out of control and then blame it on some "biology" excuse."

Remember this when and if you get alzheimer's some day or get a concussion and can't stop crying at innappropriate moments.

Hmmm, yeah forgot if you got alzheimer's you wouldn't remember lmfao.

The concussion one though is a good example.

If I ever fall a victim of alzheimer...I would not longer be a "M"an. I would simply be a sick human being.

 

[STR8UP]

Here's something for the "married women are off limits" crowd to chew on.....

What if I met this chick and we hit it off from the first moment we spoke.

What if we get into a conversation and she starts to tell me how she just found out that her husband has been cheating on her for the past 3 years, and that she had told him that she wanted a divorce, and that he had agreed without hesitation because he truly wanted to be with the other woman.

What if you REAAAALY liked this woman? What if she was an innocent victim and they had mutually agreed that their marriage could no longer continue, but that it would take six months for it to be finalized?

What if this girl seemed to be a one of a kind woman- everything you are looking for and more?

Would you tell her, "Hey baby, sorry, but you signed a piece of paper. Come back and see me in six months!"

Of course not. She's gonna want something to take her mind off of everything, and you two get along fabulously, so you will be fukking like bunny rabbits in less than a week.

Now of course you see where I am coming from with this example, so you are likely to respond with "But....well....I wouldn't want to be in THAT situation...the REBOUND guy", and you have a point, but lets throw that out due to the fact that it is irrelevant to this discussion, and focus on my point, which is that some of you are COMPLETELY hung up on the idea of drawing the line at that point, when in fact life is never that black and white.

 

[reset]

No none answered my question, which is cool.

Where would you personally draw the line. Best friend, relative, ss'er, etc.

 

[ketostix]

I wonder if you have any reading comprehension. Listen, I did not say that. All I am saying is that it is unethical and NO ONE can say otherwise. He can touch her all he wants as it is NOT illegal. But that don't change the fact that under our society...it is unethical.



That's NOT my moral stand. I don't preach MY morals to anyone. All I am doing is telling YOU that in our society...that's unethical and we cannot change that fact.


No...the issue here is that you have serious issues with reading and comprehension. Similar to the "battery" debate.



Hahaha. Ridiculous. She still married. There is a LEGAL document out there stating that.



I won't debate this issue again as I clearly stated the difference about 3-5 pages ago.



What I believe is that you lack the maturity to form your own opinion. That your opinion WILL always be based on whichever STR8UP writes. That does NOT make you a Mature man. That makes you a sheep. To this day I have not seen you disagree with him. To the point that you have contradicted your views.

I can probably comprehend the English language much better than you. You bring up that battery thing but you didn't know what you were talking about and kept repeating the same simple point over and ovver. The problem is you are just not making much fvcking sense. We all are aware of what most of society believes is ethical/unethical behavior, but since when did we on here allow society's ethics to control what we believe and do? Just because something is considerd ethical/unethical doesn't automatically mean the reasoning for that is sound and that it is sound to follow someone else's ethics.

 

[guru1000]

Predetermined? No. Predisposed to? Possibly, depending on genetics, prior experience, establishing operations (such as deprivation or hunger), risk to reward ratios, and tons of other conditions specific to an individual.

Predetermination is an absolutist term.

Agreed.

Learned behaviors ARE mimicked behaviors.

Goes back to the "How to become a successful plate spinner".

I agree with the "Fake it till you make it" (Mimick till its learned). However, if results are not actualized, the behavior will never be learned because CHANGE will not occur.

So the above statement is an incorrect ABSOLUTE.

You're completely missing the point. What you perceive as being disciplined is defined by what behavior is reinforced as being so. For example, if the 400lb guy was socially reinforced for being fat HE would be the idealization for discipline.

If hard work and fortitude did not get him there, he would not be considered disciplined in anyone's standards.

Sure it may be easier for him to take on 10K calories a day. However as a bodybuilder, you do know that even the skinny guy who practices high caloric intake trains his body to DESIRE more calories.

In this sense, the skinny guy who ACHIEVED the 400 lbs status is disciplined while the natural 400 lb guy is genetically blessed.

 

[MacAvoy]

An interesting question would be, if one of us ss'er was married, would the wife be off limits to other ss'ers?

I bang your wife or any SS'er if she was attractive and came on to me. As for where would I draw the line, I've banged my boss's g/f. I don't recall ever sleeping with a friends' g/f though. Although when I was in high school I use to always say that if given the opportunity, I'd bang my best friends' g/f to do him a favour & expose her for the cheating hor she is.

 

[cordoncordon]

What I believe is that you lack the maturity to form your own opinion. That your opinion WILL always be based on whichever STR8UP writes. That does NOT make you a Mature man. That makes you a sheep. To this day I have not seen you disagree with him. To the point that you have contradicted your views.

I said this 3 pages ago. Amazes me how many lemmings there are in here nowadays. If str8tup had come on here and said how a married woman came on to him and that he turned her down, these same guys would be saying "Good for you" and "great show of character". All because he is str8up. And ya know i just don't get it. I like the guy, but personally i think he's one of the more fvcked up guys in here right now mentally.

 

[ketostix]

No none answered my question, which is cool.

Where would you personally draw the line. Best friend, relative, ss'er, etc.

I think the line is clear. If you know the husband then you base that knowledge on how you proceed. If you know the guy is a good guy and he isn't cheating on her of course it would be wrong, hell you'd tell him what his wife is up to. Now if he is a cheating d1ckhead who would screw your girl behind your back, it might be different. But you bring up a good point. One side says it's always wrong to fvck a married woman, and the other side believes it depends on the context. Rollo has already gotten into this concept.

 

[cordoncordon]

Would you tell her, "Hey baby, sorry, but you signed a piece of paper. Come back and see me in six months!"

Actually that is EXACTLY what man of high moral character do say.

 

[MacAvoy]

Here's something for the "married women are off limits" crowd to chew on.....

I'm beginning to think your seriously gonna give MNIN a run for the title of resident Soap Star.