Questioning morals if you had sex with engaged/married person.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

My code is not inconsistent, but it's clear there is no making you see my side, so believe what you want.

Saying they would have ****ed someone else, is not like saying "someone else would have stolen something". If someone is actively looking to cheat, then they are going to, and there's really no denying that. You can deny that an object would be stolen, much more easily. Not even the same class. Theft is an act, against a person. ****ing someone is, well, ****ing someone..a consensual act.

[Maple1714]

Backup - when you participate in any activity, knowing it could cause emotional pain to another, you are at fault. Period.

I thought about my statement all night lol. I should revise.

We are responsible for all of our actions. ALWAYS. That is all we can be responsible for. I do think that if you (man or woman) are sexually/emotionally involved with a married person then you are also at fault for causing any emotional pain to that persons spouse. We all have a choice...so make the morally correct choice (what is morally correct has a lot to do with the society/culture you were raised in I think) Unless the couple wants to have a threesome, go find someone else that is not attached to get your "nut" off.

Backup - does your current GF know this Brazilian women comes by your house still? Just curious...

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Wakeup, you choose your personal boundaries, just like you choose to give into temptation. Temptation means its something you want to do. This married chick that is still after me, is not tempting at all, because I don't wanther. If someone is willing to have sex with me, then they want me more than their partner, and to me, that's as good as the relationship being over. I'm talking in circles now, and no one is going to agree or even understand what I'm saying, so I'm done. I can't take your bleeding heart arguments anymore.

[Maple1714]

Backup - I understand what you are saying...my ex told me about a relationship he had with a girl who had a boyfriend. I felt sorry for him...he was being used. She didn't love her BF anymore and was just looking to find emotional validation/sex somewhere else. They were both just cheating themselves.
I do realize that if someone isn't happy with their current husband/BF then the relationship is over and therefore you are not REALLY doing anything "wrong" by sleeping with that person. BUT it's still a sticky situation and someone is hurting and you are inlvoled. Why put yourself in that situation in the first place when we do have choices?? I think it's just more fun in a way....to be involved in an affair.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

The Brazilian chick doesn't come over. She calls me, texts me, and IMs me at work, asking if she can come over(this is the one that's mad I don't want a relationship with her). I had(have) zero emotional attachment to this crazy broad, so I'm not cheating myself of anything.

You are right. There is a thrill aspect to it, but to me it is more a of a curiosity; will they actually go through with it? Anyway, no one's mind is going to be changed in either direction, so I suggest we drop it.

[Maple1714]

I actually do not fully believe that humans should be monogamous in the first place....but I am still wrestling with this whole idea.

[searock]

BackUp, do you believe that cheating is wrong? If so, then by sleeping with a woman who is in an exclusive relationship, you are allowing something that you personally think is wrong to happen. Therefore *your* behavior is wrong (never mind hers), according to your own moral code. It's like seeing a puppy being kicked to death by teenagers, and not even trying to stop them, because "they'd do it with another dog anyway".

[IndiReloaded]

BackUp, do you believe that cheating is wrong? If so, then by sleeping with a woman who is in an exclusive relationship, you are allowing something that you personally think is wrong to happen. Therefore *your* behavior is wrong (never mind hers), according to your own moral code. It's like seeing a puppy being kicked to death by teenagers, and not even trying to stop them, because "they'd do it with another dog anyway".

Well, his argument is that theft, rape and killing a dog is not consentual. Cheating is. He's got a point. Still thinking about this one. Stung seems pro-choice to the nth degree. But if that's the case, then why hold anyone to any standard regarding sexual faithfulness? Why not just be completely sexually free, with himself and his partners?

Curious, but where is your boundary on this, Stung? Do you think its okay for a drug dealer to provide drugs to minors? When does 'choice' become active for you?

[Maple1714]

Backup - This Brazilian women is of weak character...or else she wouldn't have cheated. Sooo you had sex with her and now she still bugs you? Is there a part of you that likes the attention? I am sure there is. You chose this type of women to become involved with...and now I bet your current GF knows nothing about her? What if she does show up at your house one night when you GF is there? What if you all 3 get into some stupid fight? Lol. You could have just avoided it all and held out for your current GF...that is where the cheating yourself comes in. When we waste time on people of weak character we are just putting obstacles in our way to finding those that are not of weak character AND we are the company we keep right? I wonder what your current GF is like? Anyway...you usually have an opposite view on things than me, so keeps this forum interesting!

[IndiReloaded]

When we waste time on people of weak character we are just putting obstacles in our way to finding those that are not of weak character.

This is the selfish gene argument. LOL. I agree, tho, that if Stungs GF doesn't know about this gal, he may pay for it later. Or not (maybe she holds the same values). But isn't that part of the price for the inconsistent code? Without invoking that stupid law, people do tend to attract like.

Here's a question for Stung: if you were dating a gal you really liked who you knew would have an issue with you messing with a married woman, would you lie to her about it?

[Maple1714]

Assuming here...

I don't think Stung would lie about...I think he would only commit to being with a girl who didn't care...a girl who lives in a city apartment and owns a pet husky.

[Wakeup]

The Brazilian chick doesn't come over. She calls me, texts me, and IMs me at work, asking if she can come over(this is the one that's mad I don't want a relationship with her). I had(have) zero emotional attachment to this crazy broad, so I'm not cheating myself of anything.

You are right. There is a thrill aspect to it, but to me it is more a of a curiosity; will they actually go through with it? Anyway, no one's mind is going to be changed in either direction, so I suggest we drop it.

Sorry: More "bleeding heart" following:

My question is if you have plenty of woman who will oblige you and you are currently in an exclusive relationship then why to you continue to keep in contact with the Brazilian? Why, particularily do you allow her to continue with her "madness." To me, this too is a form of enabling. As we all know by now, enabling is a symptom of co-dependency. Does she stroke your ego? Does she give you a sense of accomplishment?
Serious question: Why wouldn't you just tell her to quit contacting you and then make it so by blocking and deleting her from being able to reach you? What do you get from her crazy, lack of self-worth, begging?

[searock]

I think it comes down to the fact that he doesn't think that enabling someone to do something that he personally thinks is wrong, is wrong. Basically his point is that it's their choice, so it's their responsibility, and he does nothing wrong by enabling them. He doesn't think that any particular behavior is right or wrong per se, which is why he has no trouble allowing cheating to happen: it's not the cheating per se that is wrong (otherwise he would feel compelled to stop it from happening), it is the choice of betraying a partner's trust that is wrong, and he does not do it, somebody else does. He *does* enable them to make that wrong choice, but he also believes that the women who end up cheating have made that choice way before meeting a man willing to be their "accomplice".

I'm just trying to understand an otherwise (seemingly, to me at least) inconsistent behavior.

[Maple1714]

Searock - I agree with you.

[Wakeup]

I think it comes down to the fact that he doesn't think that enabling someone to do something that he personally thinks is wrong, is wrong. Basically his point is that it's their choice, so it's their responsibility, and he does nothing wrong by enabling them. He doesn't think that any particular behavior is right or wrong per se, which is why he has no trouble allowing cheating to happen: it's not the cheating per se that is wrong (otherwise he would feel compelled to stop it from happening), it is the choice of betraying a partner's trust that is wrong, and he does not do it, somebody else does. He *does* enable them to make that wrong choice, but he also believes that the women who end up cheating have made that choice way before meeting a man willing to be their "accomplice".

I'm just trying to understand an otherwise (seemingly, to me at least) inconsistent behavior.

I understand his stance. He's voiced it earlier.\
That's not what I'm asking him. My question is, if he thinks she's crazy and he doesn't want to be with her, then why keep entertaining her? What is he getting out of her persistance?