|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is it possible to cheat on someone you genuinely love? |
| Yes (male) |
|
42% |
[ 17 ] |
| Yes (female) |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
| No (male) |
|
27% |
[ 11 ] |
| No (female) |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think its very possible to love someone but have sex with another. In our culture this is frowned upon, and it's for that reason most of us choose to be faithful to our mate. However, if this was not an 'unwritten law' we'd probably stray regularly from the marital bed. I sleep only with my husband, not because of any natural compulsion, but because I know that both he and society consider it a grave betrayal to do otherwise.
| HighTreason wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| If there is any chance the lady you love will discover it, or someone else will, then pain will ensue. That's just obvious - it's a mistake, a wrong action to be avoided, becasue of the risk of harm to someone you love. |
Yes, that is true. That's why it's even worse to cheat with her best friend, sister, mother, etc; people who would have a good chance of telling her at some point. It would not be that bad to cheat on her with some Korean girl while your wife is in another country and has no chance of finding out. There is an old saying that "everything is legal if there are no police around." While that saying is flawed in many ways, in this case, it may just be right on the money. |
Bobster, I agree that if one 'slips up' the best thing to do is to keep it to yourself. I think there's a lot to be said for "what you don't know can't hurt you." The problem then though is what will you do if, at a later time, you are asked outright if you've ever strayed. Will your conscience allow you to continue to deceive? And if so, will you be able to lie with a straight face?
I have some sympathy for your position, High Treason, provided that one is not exposing oneself (and by extension ones partner) to disease. If not, then in this case "what she doesn't know" could in fact be harming her very seriously, perhaps even silently destroying her fertility.
For myself, I'd be far more devastated to discover my SO was in love with another that he hadn't had sex with, than to discover he'd had sex with another he wasn't in love with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jizzo T. Clown
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Location: at my wit's end
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I remember reading that women find it more despicable for a man to be emotionally attached to another woman than to have sex with another woman. Men don't mind their wives being emotionally involved with another man as long as they don't fuck him.
Not my words, btw... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I think there's a lot to be said for "what you don't know can't hurt you.". |
Which is what this gal was banking on:
http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/cheating_girlfriend_dumped.mp3
(curtesy of uberscheisse).
In this case- the woman clearly was looking forward to marrying her b/f of 4 years- but could still put that aside while she orally pleasured her boss in the bogs at the christmas party.
Hmm. How would she have felt if the infidelity had never been discovered and she'd gone on to marry her b/f and have kids?
Methinks she would always know the relationship was somehow flawed. She'd always remember she'd disrespected him. On some level she'd even view him as a dupe. This would, consciously or not, have implications for the way she interracted with and percieved him long term. It would remain as something she would continually have to cover up, knowing that other people knew as well. The overall longterm effect is not good, even if the episode had never been discovered.
The telling question to be posing is..
"If your partner cheated on you, would you want to know?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
koon_taung_daeng
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Location: south korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| is it cheating to put peanut butter on your balls and have your dog lick it off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In Canada it was found that one of the largest causes of murder cases in the courts was cheating wives. It was second only to murder in the commission of a crime.
It is not only morally wrong but downright dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
In Canada it was found that one of the largest causes of murder cases in the courts was cheating wives. It was second only to murder in the commission of a crime.
It is not only morally wrong but downright dangerous. |
| contrarian wrote: |
| As to Islamic terrorists or whould be terrorists, the answer is simple. Kill then all and let God sorth them out. |
Should I  or should I  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| For myself, I'd be far more devastated to discover my SO was in love with another that he hadn't had sex with, than to discover he'd had sex with another he wasn't in love with. |
Don't be so greedy!
Love is unlimited. Do you not agree? So, why does one have to love only one other? I think that is rather strange and unnatural.
OK, practically, it is easier to devote oneself to one other person, and the joys are limitless there, too, if one goes about it right. But the "morality" of monogamy is only the flip side of jealousy.
I shared Draupadi with my four brothers, and I had four other wives.
Arjuna & Draupadi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draupadi
| Quote: |
His skill in archery was to have an unlikely utility: it won him the hand of Draupadi, his first wife, the daughter of Drupada, king of Panchala. A contest was held by Drupada to choose a suitable match for his daughter. A wooden fish was suspended high above a pool of water; furthermore, the fish rotated in a circle. Contestants were required to string a heavy bow and then use it to hit the eye of the rotating fish. They were allowed to take aim at the eye of the fish only by looking at its reflection in the pool of water. Many princes and noblemen vied for the hand of the princess of Panchala. Some, (including Karna, another hero of the Mahabharata) were disqualified on grounds of supposedly low birth. However, although the Pandavas and their mother were in hiding at that time, Arjuna had prudently dressed as a high-caste Brahmin and was allowed to compete. This was just as well, since it was eventually Arjuna, the peerless archer, who alone was able to accomplish the set task; he won the hand of Draupadi.
All the five Pandava brothers had attended the tournament without informing Kunti, their mother, about it. They returned home in triumph, bringing the princess Draupadi with them. From outside the house, they shouted out to their mother: "Mother, you will never believe what we have got here! Make a guess!". Busy with her work, Kunti refused to be baited. "Whatever it is, share it between yourselves equally, and do not quarrel over the matter" she said. So seriously did the brothers take even this casual statement of their mother, that they resolved upon making Draupadi their common wife! It says something about the magnanimity of Arjuna that, having won his bride single-handedly, he 'shared' her with all his brothers willingly. One possible reason he took this action was to prevent any breach or jealousy arising between the brothers. However, despite marrying all five brothers, Draupadi loved Arjun the most and always favoured him. And Arjun loved Draupadi the most out of his four wives. There is another story about Draupadi, which mentions the boon she received in her previous birth of having five of the most desired men, as her husbands. Initially Draupadi's parents didnt agree to her marriage to all the Pandavas. But when he was told about this boon she had, King Drupad agreed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
It is not only morally wrong but downright dangerous. |
Indeed. "While the concept of the crime of passion is not officially recognized in law, it is sometimes used by defense lawyers because in popular opinion, if not in courts of law, the commission of murder or of grievous bodily harm is viewed more sympathetically."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Don't be so greedy! |
You've been quite happy for your g/f to cheat on you in the past then?
| Quote: |
| Love is unlimited. Do you not agree? |
The more people it is spread around, the more limited it becomes for you, yes.
| Quote: |
| So, why does one have to love only one other? I think that is rather strange and unnatural. |
Don't play the trendy emotional sophisticate. In theory what you're saying sounds "enlightened". In reality...people get murdered, easily and often, over cheating.
Polygamous societies are hardly what you would call happy and functional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In Canadian law there is a doctrine, called provocation, that reduces murder to manslaughter. It requires catching the offender in flagrante delicto and acting before there is a chance for reflection.
I practiced law in Canada for a large number of years and used that defence successfully four times [twice for the same guy - he caught his wife and best friend in the saddle and used both barrels of a 12 guage.]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
byunhosa
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Location: Center Ice
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The same rule applies under the Model Penal Code in the United States; it is called "extreme emotional distress", and carries the same requirements.
If successfully invoked (meeting the same requirements you describe), it reduces premeditated murder (aka "murder one") to voluntary manslaughter (aka "murder two").
However, the MPC has not been adopted by all states and so the defense may not be available in all jurisdictions.
The MPC also, until recently, endorsed what is called the "marital rape exemption", which defined rape as unconsented penetration of a woman not the defendant's wife. This exempted both marital rape and male rape from the definition of rape (both might be considered felonious sexual battery, however).
The latter is very controversial and has been struck down in many states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| You've been quite happy for your g/f to cheat on you in the past then? |
It all depends on the nature of the relationship. "Cheating" implies that there is an agreement of monogamy. If there is such an agreement, then I abide by it, and I expect my woman to do the same. If the agreement is broken, I don't shoot her. The disappointment is not over the act, but over the betrayal of trust. But why make such an agreement at all when it doesn't mean anything in any meaningful sense--other than the idiocy that I own my woman/man.
What is meaningful is how I treat myself and others. Am I a petty conniving clawing demanding acting hysterical sorry excuse for a human being? Or am I a self-respecting smiling giving and no-nonsense-taking beautiful human being?
Monogamy is a very primitive morality that may be effective in keeping primitive human animals from killing others and themselves over jealousy. But FVCK, does anyone really follow the rule? I am so fvcking sick and tired of human hypocrisy!
| nautilus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Love is unlimited. Do you not agree? |
The more people it is spread around, the more limited it becomes for you, yes. |
That is the opposite of love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
byunhosa:
Without proocation it would be either First Degree murder, 25 years before parole, or Second degree murder, 15 years before parole consideration. The maximum penalty for Manslaughter is life but is strictly with judicial discretion. In the double case it was life but that left parole consideration at seven years.
I the other two the penalties were 15 months and 24 months.
Some readin I did a while back told me that Texas allowed a husband who caught his wife in the act and shot he an aquittal. The womens lobby complained and the Texans in their wisdom just give women equal shooting right.
Gotta love them Texans (inclding George Bush). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ella
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're cheating, it isn't love. Love isn't just a feeling, it's a behavior. Without one or the other, it's not love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jarome_Turner
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| princess wrote: |
| Not to mention cheating is so engrained into the culture here, as is visiting the dirty girls. |
Is visiting the "dirty girls" different from cheating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
