Is there ever a justified case for adultery?

ssnapier · Post by **ssnapier** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:57 am

This is a question that I am sure will get some people fired up so please remain calm. I just want to know if you can see any scenario in which adultery would be justified.

ShadowRishi · Post by **ShadowRishi** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:44 pm

Darren wrote:
ShadowRishi wrote: Obviously freedom is not only a political or legal entity.

Are you free to neglect your child?
Yes. What has that to do with anything?
ShadowRishi wrote: Obviously there's no law that makes you play with your kid. That child, however, also has the freedom to disown you or find new parents; or, at least, has the freedom to hate you.
Right, and would be justified in doing so.
ShadowRishi wrote:
I mean it is my child --as in, my son or daughter-- not my slave.

It's common English vernacular to say "she's my sister" and not mean "she's my slave, I own her."
You are mistaken again here. What it is is her decision to incubate or not. Once the child is born, you may have some claim, but until then, it is not a child - to anyone buy the pregnant woman.
You never get to tell a woman she must have a baby - you aren't qualified to give that advice.

My point is, every relationship you have limits certain freedoms you have in your life if you want to sustain those relationships; you may not make fun of your friend and still be their friend.

Likewise, you may not be someone's partner and be cheating on them or not tell them about major decisions in your life. Relationships don't work that way; my partner does not get to choose for herself what she wants to do if it pertains to us --certainly, she is legally allowed to do as she pleases, she is not, however, able to do whatever she pleases without talking to me first.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:51 pm

You guys are talking about different things. One thing is the ultimate right of doing what one wishes to do (within legal boundaries) without regard for common sense, another thing is to judge one's behavior taking into account the objective of achieving healthy relationships.

It seems pretty obvious to me you're not discussing the same.

ShadowRishi · Post by **ShadowRishi** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:58 pm

Beto wrote:You guys are talking about different things. One thing is the ultimate right of doing what one wishes to do (within legal boundaries) without regard for common sense, another thing is to judge one's behavior taking into account the objective of achieving healthy relationships.

It seems pretty obvious to me you're not discussing the same.

I think this is probably true.

Darren · Post by **Darren** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:26 pm

ShadowRishi wrote:
Beto wrote:You guys are talking about different things. One thing is the ultimate right of doing what one wishes to do (within legal boundaries) without regard for common sense, another thing is to judge one's behavior taking into account the objective of achieving healthy relationships.

It seems pretty obvious to me you're not discussing the same.
I think this is probably true.

The original question was 'Is there ever a justified case for adultery?'. Yes there is. I could site several examples, but they wouldn't matter.
She is justified in cheating on you, just as you would be justified in leaving her for it.
What I am trying to show with the 'Mother and me' analogy is that, when you have trust, you don't need a requirement of honesty. You trust the person. You trust your Mom to hold your wallet, but a stranger who happens to be a bank teller has to have binding contracts.
If you Mom said she couldn't tell you why, but the money was gone, would you 'leave her'?

ShadowRishi · Post by **ShadowRishi** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:07 pm

Darren wrote:I think this is probably true.

The original question was 'Is there ever a justified case for adultery?'. Yes there is. I could site several examples, but they wouldn't matter.
She is justified in cheating on you, just as you would be justified in leaving her for it.
What I am trying to show with the 'Mother and me' analogy is that, when you have trust, you don't need a requirement of honesty. You trust the person. You trust your Mom to hold your wallet, but a stranger who happens to be a bank teller has to have binding contracts.
If you Mom said she couldn't tell you why, but the money was gone, would you 'leave her'?[/quote]

I don't believe in an absolute justification for any actions, so I think we may already be a non-sequitur for continuing debate.

No one is justified or unjustified for their actions. We merely do things; we rationalize why we are or are not doing them, but that's the only type of justification. And we all create our justification, so the concept to me is completely arbitrary.

Depending on the result you want however, there are good and bad justifications.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:26 pm

McCulloch wrote:
ShadowRishi wrote:It's my soon-to-be-child as well, ...
Children are not property that belongs to someone. It may be your child in the same sense that your brother is your brother but not in the sense that you own the child.

ShadowRishi wrote:This seems to be a silly conclusion from my statement, McCulloch. Are you not your father's son? (Is not your father your father?

I mean it is my child --as in, my son or daughter-- not my slave.

It's common English vernacular to say "she's my sister" and not mean "she's my slave, I own her."

What I mean is that just because you have a relationship with another person, does not give you ownership of that person or the right to make decisions for that person.

ShadowRishi · Post by **ShadowRishi** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:48 pm

McCulloch wrote:What I mean is that just because you have a relationship with another person, does not give you ownership of that person or the right to make decisions for that person.

For every case but young children and elderly parents --yes, true. I never stated that though, so what are you getting at?

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:30 pm

ShadowRishi wrote: ... she is not, however, able to do whatever she pleases without talking to me first.

Wait. She's not able? Why not? She is able, you just wouldn't like it. They're not the same. How are you going to stop her?

ShadowRishi · Post by **ShadowRishi** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:57 pm

Fallibleone wrote:
ShadowRishi wrote: ... she is not, however, able to do whatever she pleases without talking to me first.
Wait. She's not able? Why not? She is able, you just wouldn't like it. They're not the same. How are you going to stop her?

People are reading way too far into my statements, so I'll be as explicit as I can be:

If a woman wishes to be with me, she must have me be a part of her life. That includes decisions that we, as a couple, should decide upon. If she goes ahead and makes the decision behind my back, then our relationship will end if I find out (Or least ways, I have a right to be seriously pissed). If a woman wishes to be with me, that involves caring about what I think and how I feel; if she doesn't care about what I think or feel, then I will terminate the relationship. Call this chauvinistic if you like, it's my life and my decision. Sorry for giving a **** about the person I intend to be living with.

(Okay, the last bit was just sarcasm, I cannot help myself. =P )

Darren · Post by **Darren** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:46 am

ShadowRishi wrote:Call this chauvinistic if you like, it's my life and my decision. Sorry for giving a **** about the person I intend to be living with.[/i]

(Okay, the last bit was just sarcasm, I cannot help myself. =P )

You earlier said something about it being your business if your partner was to get an abortion.
You have yet to justify it.
If you are going to say something about her treatment of 'your potential child' (as I believe you did), I would be forced to ask how carefully you steward your ejaculate. Did you ever masturbate and toss the ejaculate into the trash? Did you ask your partner if she minded you killing your 'potential child'?