Eliot Spitzer Involved in Ho' Ring?

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Dari
I think I'll drop this one as there are many out there on a moral crusade. Unless there is a giant wink that I'm not seeing I find it hard to believe that individuals will happily have sex with one person for half a century. I also find it hard to believe that for those who would do such a thing, they'd be happy to watch pornographic films, magazines, or fantasize about other women and not consider it cheating. I guess when you're flirting with an office-mate, you wouldn't consider that cheating? But it is because your wife doesn't know about it and she certainly wouldn't approve.

But, then again, many of you are probably no better than Spitzer, Jim Baker, Ted Haggert, Larry Craig, Mark Foley. You know, the pricks that scold others for leading a sinful life but do it themselves. You claim to have the moral high ground but are even worse than the common man. What are they called? Oh, that's right. The word is hypocrite. And it makes your wives, children, and the larger public cynical.

I'm being perfectly honest here and some here are pretending to be choir-boys. Spare me the moral fortitude that you have built up over the years. Whether it was caused by emasculation, timidry, or the very act of marriage, I still think there is a little man in all of us. There is no shame in that.

Wow, what a douchebag. How can you honestly consider getting married with an attitude like this? You have absolutely no intention of being faithful and are perfectly comfortable with causing your future wife loads of pain. Do her a favor and break it off now.

Being a man doesn't mean sticking your dick in anything that moves. It means being honest with the person you're "committing" to (I'm using this term very loosely in your case), and sticking to those commitments. You have some serious growing up to do "little man".

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett
Wow, I'm just simply amazed at some of the reponses here that try to downplay was Spitzer has done.

Soliciting prostitution is illegal, even if people don't believe it should be.

Compound that with the fact that Spitzer is the freaking GOVERNOR os New York, and you have an even bigger problem. Any person in an elected position like Spitzer is automatically put on a higher level of accountability than most.

Now add to that the fact that Spitzer has absolutely railed against people in the past for committing acts of indiscretion, be it sexual or conflict of intrest and you have an even bigger issue.

The most astonishing thing about this entire mess is that in typical democrat fashion, when a scandal is brought out about a democrat, they don't resign, they say its "personal" and continue to downplay it as if it is something that WONT be a black cloud over their head for the rest of their lives.

In most intances, when a Republican does something not becoming to that of an elected official, they throw him off the train. When a democrat does the same, its time to circle the wagons and defend yourself to the very end, while only admitting to partial guilt.

Like Larry Craig?

??? Larry Craig was tossed out on his butt almost immediately.

Larry Craig is still in the Senate.

Unfortunately this is one of those that falls under where I said "In most instances" While Craig is still in the senate, most republicans do not believe he should be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that Dari is being completely honest and is being unfairly railroaded by people trying to sound morally righteous when they have no ground to do so. For those that are bashing him for being engaged and holding this viewpoint, does anyone know for certain if he and his fiance have discussed or have decided to have an open relationship? What about a polyamorous relationship?

Everyone is so quick to try to squeeze everyone else into their box of morality and right and wrong rules without ever questioning whether the box that they have confined themselves to is a one size fits all option.

Just like the relationship that people have with whatever higher power they subscribe to or choose not to subscribe to, the relationship between two human beings is never the same as the relationship that two other humans will have. What is good for the Muslims is unacceptable for the Christians. What is good for the Moonbeams may not be acceptable to the Daris. Neither is right or wrong except in the other's eyes.

If they have discussed this and are in agreement with it, then no one has any right to judge them for it nor are they wrong, immoral or bad people for choosing it.

So if his morality is that he can have sex with other women, but doesn't tell her about it, then it's OK, because he's honest with everyone but her?

Note he's been asked if she knows and is OK with this, but has dodged. If she knows about it, and they get married I think she's exceedingly naive, but she's an open eyed fool.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: Dari
I think I'll drop this one as there are many out there on a moral crusade. Unless there is a giant wink that I'm not seeing I find it hard to believe that individuals will happily have sex with one person for half a century. I also find it hard to believe that for those who would do such a thing, they'd be happy to watch pornographic films, magazines, or fantasize about other women and not consider it cheating. I guess when you're flirting with an office-mate, you wouldn't consider that cheating? But it is because your wife doesn't know about it and she certainly wouldn't approve.

But, then again, many of you are probably no better than Spitzer, Jim Baker, Ted Haggert, Larry Craig, Mark Foley. You know, the pricks that scold others for leading a sinful life but do it themselves. You claim to have the moral high ground but are even worse than the common man. What are they called? Oh, that's right. The word is hypocrite. And it makes your wives, children, and the larger public cynical.

I'm being perfectly honest here and some here are pretending to be choir-boys. Spare me the moral fortitude that you have built up over the years. Whether it was caused by emasculation, timidry, or the very act of marriage, I still think there is a little man in all of us. There is no shame in that.

Oh come off your high horse. Are you saying that because there are people who are hypocits we should just throw out all standards and just have an anarchical society? Remove all laws and standards, both moral and ethical, and where does it leave us. Sure, Jesus Christ was right when he said, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". So you may have a point in saying that none of us can be critical of the NY state governer. Yet, we as a society, and US/NY citizens have a responsibility to uphold law and standards regardless. Because if we don't, we abdocate our responsibilities to society and the generation that follows us. It is still a really good idea to uphold standards despite our imperfections as individuals. A really good idea. Otherwise we slide down the slippery slope its won't just be sex, it will be other standards, one by one that are compromised. Integrity is still a concept worth pursuing, even if non of us can attain it 100%.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Like Tom DeLay? Did they throw him off the train or did they promote him to Speaker of the House? Please refresh my memory.

Oh, you mean that guy who later resigned and helped attribute to the disaster in 2006 for republicans?

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: techwanabe

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Dari
Is that considered cheating? He didn't love the whores. He paid for the sex. Just asking.

Ask the wife.

Well the vows said to love, cherish, and obey. It didn't say he couldn't have sex. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. So long as he's not giving his heart to another woman, he isn't technically cheating. Besides, women care more about love than sex when it comes to relationships. Men are opposite.

It's not techically cheating to have sex with a prostitute (or any other woman for that matter) when you are married? Did we just make a major revision of the definition of cheating?

Just because women (in general) are interested more on love than sex, doesn't mean they won't have a serious problem with their husbands "getting it" with another woman.

What is the definition of cheating?

Lets ask Eliots wife to start with.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Like Tom DeLay? Did they throw him off the train or did they promote him to Speaker of the House? Please refresh my memory.

Oh, you mean that guy who later resigned and helped attribute to the disaster in 2006 for republicans?

Did the party force him out like you suggested is the norm? Hell no. He was censured numerous times and was the subject of numerous other investigations and didn't resign his seat until it was completely apparent that he was going to loose in his re-election bid.

Nice revisionist history attempt though.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: techwanabe

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: techwanabe

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Dari
Is that considered cheating? He didn't love the whores. He paid for the sex. Just asking.

Ask the wife.

Well the vows said to love, cherish, and obey. It didn't say he couldn't have sex. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. So long as he's not giving his heart to another woman, he isn't technically cheating. Besides, women care more about love than sex when it comes to relationships. Men are opposite.

It's not techically cheating to have sex with a prostitute (or any other woman for that matter) when you are married? Did we just make a major revision of the definition of cheating?

Just because women (in general) are interested more on love than sex, doesn't mean they won't have a serious problem with their husbands "getting it" with another woman.

What is the definition of cheating?

Lets ask Eliots wife to start with.

Ask any woman and they'll tell you it's more than sex. If you come home every night, pick up the phone, and have deep, personal phone conversation with any woman not in your family, you think your wife will be OK with that so long as you're not banging her? Hell no. To them, there is no difference. Cheating is far less rigid to women than it is to men.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Like Tom DeLay? Did they throw him off the train or did they promote him to Speaker of the House? Please refresh my memory.

Oh, you mean that guy who later resigned and helped attribute to the disaster in 2006 for republicans?

Did the party force him out like you suggested is the norm? Hell no. He was censured numerous times and was the subject of numerous other investigations and didn't resign his seat until it was completely apparent that he was going to loose in his re-election bid.

Nice revisionist history attempt though.

Revisionist history? Perhaps you are the one who isnt ready to admit why republicans lost the election in 2006. Maybe his constituants didnt throw him out on his butt, but the citizens did by sending a message in the voting booth.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that Dari is being completely honest and is being unfairly railroaded by people trying to sound morally righteous when they have no ground to do so. For those that are bashing him for being engaged and holding this viewpoint, does anyone know for certain if he and his fiance have discussed or have decided to have an open relationship? What about a polyamorous relationship?

Everyone is so quick to try to squeeze everyone else into their box of morality and right and wrong rules without ever questioning whether the box that they have confined themselves to is a one size fits all option.

Just like the relationship that people have with whatever higher power they subscribe to or choose not to subscribe to, the relationship between two human beings is never the same as the relationship that two other humans will have. What is good for the Muslims is unacceptable for the Christians. What is good for the Moonbeams may not be acceptable to the Daris. Neither is right or wrong except in the other's eyes.

If they have discussed this and are in agreement with it, then no one has any right to judge them for it nor are they wrong, immoral or bad people for choosing it.

So if his morality is that he can have sex with other women, but doesn't tell her about it, then it's OK, because he's honest with everyone but her?

Note he's been asked if she knows and is OK with this, but has dodged. If she knows about it, and they get married I think she's exceedingly naive, but she's an open eyed fool.

Of course it isn't ok. If you read what I wrote, it has to be a consensual agreement that both have to be amenable to. If either are not, then it is not something that either should be participating in.

My wife and I are in a discussion lately where we have tried to define morality and we are having a very difficult time in doing so. We are battling whether situational ethics are ok.

One of the scenarios that has come up is stealing. Under "normal" circumstances we both believe it to be wrong. Then, we add in that a mother is stealing food to feed her family and we both kinda think that it is morally justified for the woman to do it.

I guess we both view right and wrong as something more dynamic than static. I guess it's very easy to see how I was able to come up with my handle now.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: techwanabe

Originally posted by: Dari
I think I'll drop this one as there are many out there on a moral crusade. Unless there is a giant wink that I'm not seeing I find it hard to believe that individuals will happily have sex with one person for half a century. I also find it hard to believe that for those who would do such a thing, they'd be happy to watch pornographic films, magazines, or fantasize about other women and not consider it cheating. I guess when you're flirting with an office-mate, you wouldn't consider that cheating? But it is because your wife doesn't know about it and she certainly wouldn't approve.

But, then again, many of you are probably no better than Spitzer, Jim Baker, Ted Haggert, Larry Craig, Mark Foley. You know, the pricks that scold others for leading a sinful life but do it themselves. You claim to have the moral high ground but are even worse than the common man. What are they called? Oh, that's right. The word is hypocrite. And it makes your wives, children, and the larger public cynical.

I'm being perfectly honest here and some here are pretending to be choir-boys. Spare me the moral fortitude that you have built up over the years. Whether it was caused by emasculation, timidry, or the very act of marriage, I still think there is a little man in all of us. There is no shame in that.

Oh come off your high horse. Are you saying that because there are people who are hypocits we should just throw out all standards and just have an anarchical society? Remove all laws and standards, both moral and ethical, and where does it leave us. Sure, Jesus Christ was right when he said, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". So you may have a point in saying that none of us can be critical of the NY state governer. Yet, we as a society, and US/NY citizens have a responsibility to uphold law and standards regardless. Because if we don't, we abdocate our responsibilities to society and the generation that follows us. It is still a really good idea to uphold standards despite our imperfections as individuals. A really good idea. Otherwise we slide down the slippery slope its won't just be sex, it will be other standards, one by one that are compromised. Integrity is still a concept worth pursuing, even if non of us can attain it 100%.

NO, you come off your high horse. The world you (think you) live in is synthetic. Look at all the animals around you. Only a very few amount have one partner in life. To pretend that you are better than your animal instincts is like those morons in Iran and Iraq flailing themselves every year to honor Hussain or the idiots in the Philippines hanging themselves on the cross (nails and all) to bear the pain of Christ. It's simply unnatural to pretend to pretend to be someone you're not.

If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Like Tom DeLay? Did they throw him off the train or did they promote him to Speaker of the House? Please refresh my memory.

Oh, you mean that guy who later resigned and helped attribute to the disaster in 2006 for republicans?

Did the party force him out like you suggested is the norm? Hell no. He was censured numerous times and was the subject of numerous other investigations and didn't resign his seat until it was completely apparent that he was going to loose in his re-election bid.

Nice revisionist history attempt though.

Revisionist history? Perhas you are the one who isnt ready to admit why republicans lost the election in 2006. Perhaps his constituants didnt throw him out on his butt, but the citizens did by sending a message in the voting booth.

Once again, that was YEARS after the fact. The Repubs didn't loose in 2006 because of DeLay. They lost because of DeLay, Lott, Boehner, Harris, Santorum, Ney, etc, etc, etc.

To try to claim that it was only DeLay and not what seemed to be the entire party is trying to revise history.

http://nationaljournal.com/delay/timeline.htm

Nov. 1997 - Ethics Committee warning letter
May 1999 - Ethics Committee rebukes DeLay
Sept. 2004 - Delay is indicted
Sept. 2004 - Ethics Committee admonishes DeLay (censured)
Oct. 2004 - Ethics Committee admonishes DeLay (censured again)
Nov. 2004 - Republican led House votes to repeal rules against indicted party leaders having to step down
Apr. 2005 (six months later) Republican led House FINALLY reverse the above mentioned DeLay-stay in leadership free card
Sept. 2005 DeLay is indicted AGAIN
Jan. 2006 - Repubs finally tell DeLay that they will not allow him to hold leadership positions
Apr. 2006 - Amid polls that show him trailing opponents by a wide margin, DeLay tells colleagues that he will not seek re-election.

Yeah.....the Repubs really stood up for truth and justice there. :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
Sigh. At least it was with women. Adult women. Adult, consenting women.

Yeah, obviously it's "better" than just an affair... :roll:

Sheesh..

Indeed it is. While both are "adultery" in principle, one of them is merely a physical act of sex while the other is physical sex with all sorts of emotional relationship complications. There is a huge difference between the two. While your personal morality may find both to be wrong, you can surely rise above self-righteous indignation for just a moment to recognize that one is more wrong, more harmful, than the other.

Pssstt. An "affair" does not have to be an emotional thing. An affair can and often is a one night stand.
But yes, one is more "wrong" - obviously paying for sex(being involved in a prostitution ring) is much worse than someone seeking sex with someone without pay. Sheesh...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

How did I know that responce is coming. I cant imagine living in such a sad world as yours where you dont believe anyone can live a faithful and devoted life to their spouse.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Once again, that was YEARS after the fact. The Repubs didn't loose in 2006 because of DeLay. They lost because of DeLay, Lott, Boehner, Harris, Santorum, Ney, etc, etc, etc.

To try to claim that it was only DeLay and not what seemed to be the entire party is trying to revise history.

http://nationaljournal.com/delay/timeline.htm

Nov. 1997 - Ethics Committee warning letter
May 1999 - Ethics Committee rebukes DeLay
Sept. 2004 - Delay is indicted
Sept. 2004 - Ethics Committee admonishes DeLay (censured)
Oct. 2004 - Ethics Committee admonishes DeLay (censured again)
Nov. 2004 - Republican led House votes to repeal rules against indicted party leaders having to step down
Apr. 2005 (six months later) Republican led House FINALLY reverse the above mentioned DeLay-stay in leadership free card
Sept. 2005 DeLay is indicted AGAIN
Jan. 2006 - Repubs finally tell DeLay that they will not allow him to hold leadership positions
Apr. 2006 - Amid polls that show him trailing opponents by a wide margin, DeLay tells colleagues that he will not seek re-election.

Yeah.....the Repubs really stood up for truth and justice there. :roll:

You just proven my point. Though DeLay was warned in 97 and 99, this did not become the national issue that it was until 2004. Thus, attributing to the downfall of the republican party in 2006. I never claimed he was the soul reason republicans lost in 06, but he sure did aid in it.

So like I said, when a republican does something wrong, most of the time he is thrown overboard for it. When a democrat does something wrong, its time to circle the wagons!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

How did I know that responce is coming. I cant imagine living in such a sad world as yours where you dont believe anyone can live a faithful and devoted life to their spouse.

And I can't imagine living a lie. I guess all those men and their porno collections, frequenting strip clubs or reading Playboy live a sad life as well. I prefer and honest life to a sterile one.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

How did I know that responce is coming. I cant imagine living in such a sad world as yours where you dont believe anyone can live a faithful and devoted life to their spouse.

And I can't imagine living a lie. I guess all those men and their porno collections, frequenting strip clubs or reading Playboy live a sad life as well. I prefer and honest life to a sterile one.

Guess you weren't done here after all.

I dont live a lie. I do none of those things you just described and know pleanty more who dont either who live full and happy lives. You may want to seek some pre-marital counseling if this is your view on how a marriage should be.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

How did I know that responce is coming. I cant imagine living in such a sad world as yours where you dont believe anyone can live a faithful and devoted life to their spouse.

And I can't imagine living a lie. I guess all those men and their porno collections, frequenting strip clubs or reading Playboy live a sad life as well. I prefer and honest life to a sterile one.

Guess you weren't done here after all.

I dont live a lie. I do none of those things you just described and know pleanty more who dont either who live full and happy lives. You may want to seek some pre-marital counseling if this is your view on how a marriage should be.

I don't do any of those things either. But there are many who do. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. I was just thinking out loud.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Dari
I don't do any of those things either. But there are many who do. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. I was just thinking out loud.

Well your "thinking out loud" shows some seriously flawed views on marriage if you are planning on getting married. You may not do them, but you ARE trying to justify those who do, which shows a serious problem.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My wife and I are in a discussion lately where we have tried to define morality and we are having a very difficult time in doing so. We are battling whether situational ethics are ok.

One of the scenarios that has come up is stealing. Under "normal" circumstances we both believe it to be wrong. Then, we add in that a mother is stealing food to feed her family and we both kinda think that it is morally justified for the woman to do it.

I guess we both view right and wrong as something more dynamic than static. I guess it's very easy to see how I was able to come up with my handle now.

"More dynamic than static"? Talk about your slippery slopes! The problem with situational ethics is that once a rule has exceptions (especially those exceptions defined by someone seeking to bypass the rule), it ceases being all that effective as a rule. Taking your example of a mother stealing to feed her family, why is that "kinda" morally justified? What if that theft meant another mother couldn't feed her family, because her food was stolen by the first mother? Still justified? What if the first mother could earn the food, but chose not to - then what? You're just opening a Pandora's box at this point.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
I don't do any of those things either. But there are many who do. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. I was just thinking out loud.

Well your "thinking out loud" shows some seriously flawed views on marriage if you are planning on getting married. You may not do them, but you ARE trying to justify those who do, which shows a serious problem.

It does not. It may shows flaws in YOUR viewpoints on marriage. Quit projecting what you believe to be the gold standard for what everyone else believes.

The fact that you can't see that what you are doing is just as bad as what you think he is doing shows a serious problem.

I don't think that it is right to sleep with other people either. That doesn't mean that he is wrong for believing the opposite. It just means that he is different. Good for him for having the courage to not cower down and conform to other's beliefs on such a mundane topic as monogamy if he and his fiance are in agreement on their viewpoint of the practice.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
I don't do any of those things either. But there are many who do. Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. I was just thinking out loud.

Well your "thinking out loud" shows some seriously flawed views on marriage if you are planning on getting married. You may not do them, but you ARE trying to justify those who do, which shows a serious problem.

The difference is that I can think about these things and talk to them with my fiancee. She knows that I'm very conservative when it comes to family but she also knows that I'm no purist. Those two statements aren't contradictory. If I think something, I will happily discuss it with others. The hypocrisy comes when you have men of "high standards" look aghast at my thoughts and call me all sorts of names. Then, lo and behold, they're doing some freaky shit behind everyone's back.

I don't claim to be perfect, just honest. And I don't like moralists telling me what's right and wrong when they don't hold themselves to higher standards. So, you guys can lambast me for my thoughts, but at least I have the gumption to display them for all to see. Heavens know what's in your closet.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Dari
If anyone here can honestly tell me that they have no problem having sex with the same person for 50 years (no porno, no outside assistance), then I'll end this discussion. Otherwise, please STFU.

/raises hand. Now please end the discussion.

I think you're lying but I'll end the discussion anyway. 50 years? Liar.

How did I know that responce is coming. I cant imagine living in such a sad world as yours where you dont believe anyone can live a faithful and devoted life to their spouse.

It's probably a lot like your world... just much, much more fun.