• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Eliot Spitzer Involved in Ho' Ring?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.
That's some pretty slippery slope you are clinging to there.

If the second mother is able to get to a store and purchase the food and realizes that it isn't there, she will more than likely have the means to get to another store.

Have you ever been homeless? What about have a criminal conviction? Spend anytime in a mental facility? Of course we all know that businesses are to follow the anti discrimination laws of the land. And of course they all do....right?

These are all things that will and have kept people from getting jobs. I have no problem stating that if I were in those circumstances and was unable to find work and I had a hungry child....you can bet everything that you own on my stealing to feed him/her. Somehow I think that you would too.

It's always easy to judge what is right and wrong when you are in a position that affords you a choice in the matter.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: 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.
:laugh:
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: 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.

Isn't Corbett in seminary or something? Might explain it. And I don't think he is wrong either. I don't really care what others do, but not being able to be faithful to your spouse is pretty low in my book.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,468
4,308
136
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where are the outraged Democrats shrilly screaming "hypocrite" with perverse joy?
HYPOCRITE!!!!1ONE11

K?

(And, for the record, "perverse joy" is my default emotional state.) ;)

 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,365
471
126
heh Dow and NASDAQ are up 2% - how much of that is from the Fed and how much is Spitzer related?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Its going to be impossible for Spitzer to hold on if the Feds go through with indictments.
Was it impossible for Clinton to hold on after the Congress initiated impeachment proceedings, a much rarer event than a mere felony indictment? Nothing is impossible, but Spitz is certainly in a crapload of trouble. Yeah he shifted money around and she crossed state lines but these are prosaic details to what at its heart is a sex scandal, and while people don't approve of sex scandals, they don't cause quite the outrage as other types of corruption.

I give him 1 in 20 odds of surviving.
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,158
1
81
Can anyone clarify what the apostrophe in "Ho" shortens in the thread title? Hosiery?
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,468
4,308
136
Originally posted by: abaez
Can anyone clarify what the apostrophe in "Ho" shortens in the thread title? Hosiery?
Hoe. Garden implements are serious business.

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: 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.
:laugh:
Haha.

You know, as long as a husband and wife see eye-to-eye on whatever arrangement they want to make, anything's kosher. I have happily married friends who've engaged in threesomes or the swinger lifestyle.

I can't be bothered to read over this completely off-topic argument to find out whether Dari is saying it's okay to literally cheat on your wife by not telling her what's going on (something one should notify your partner about for health reasons if nothing else), but if an agreement between the two partners exists that they can occasionally indulge with some other man or woman, who are we to judge? It's not as if every wedding absolutely must have the clause about forsaking all others.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: 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.
Calling you names would be wrong. I see your path as the path to disaster and human misery, to emotional suffering and disaster. Marital fidelity is a sacred trust you enter into with another of like mind. If you and your wife are both free to seek sex outside the marriage, who cares. It is when one has invented excuses as to why he can have sex and she is different and should be faithful, we can see the delusional state and one that can lead to misery and divorce. There may be children who lose a parent, income, and a future. The woman usually winds up economically much worse off. She may also wind up with AIDS or some other nice disease.

But the real problem, I think, is that because you are a male and you have male desires and are honest about them, that means you are also honest in your desire to fulfill them. That is exactly how a rapist thinks. I want sex so I will have it. As with everything, there are needs we have but ones intelligence overrides. You don't rape people because you violate their rights to chose whom to have sex with. You do the same with sex outside a marriage that's all about monogamy. You violate trust and that causes harm. You should live up to what are your vows or be clear before hand you have no such intention, or not get married. What you want to do is be selfish in a way that can harm. I speak up because I don't wish to see that happen. I don't want your kids to pay for your inability to handle your so called needs. Millions of men can handle them appropriately. You need to figure out why you have such needs. Sexual conquest for men is an addiction that has its root in self hate, a feeling of being sexually worthless and a compulsion to prove otherwise. Sex with an endless stream of partners isn't for release of sexual tension, but to flatter the ego. If you don't see the drive, you won't see that it's sick.

There is no morality here, to my mind, other than the effects you can have on your family. Your error is to assume that because you experience something you understand it and think it's natural. Monogamy has been the rule for humans for a million years.

I am glad you speak your mind and express your opinion. You get to bounce it off others and it gives me the same opportunity.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Actually I'm engaged. But I'm sure I'm not the only person that gets tired of f***ing the same person. Now I have to do it for another 50 years? F**k that.
1) Does your finacee know that you feel that way?

2) How would you feel about another man knocking the bottom out of your fiance? (If you're one of those guys who is into that sorta thing, I'll drop it... but I suspect you're not)

3) How do you feel about non-hypocrits who think you're an immoral scumbag?


Well?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: 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.
That's some pretty slippery slope you are clinging to there.

If the second mother is able to get to a store and purchase the food and realizes that it isn't there, she will more than likely have the means to get to another store.

Have you ever been homeless? What about have a criminal conviction? Spend anytime in a mental facility? Of course we all know that businesses are to follow the anti discrimination laws of the land. And of course they all do....right?

These are all things that will and have kept people from getting jobs. I have no problem stating that if I were in those circumstances and was unable to find work and I had a hungry child....you can bet everything that you own on my stealing to feed him/her. Somehow I think that you would too.

It's always easy to judge what is right and wrong when you are in a position that affords you a choice in the matter.
But we ALWAYS have a choice in the matter - it may not be a great choice, but it's a choice none the less. Think about the Jews during the Holocaust - some were able to escape it by denying being Jews, but others refused to deny their Jewishness, even if it meant being sent to the camps. People deny choice to deny responsibility.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Where are the outraged Democrats shrilly screaming "hypocrite" with perverse joy?
HYPOCRITE!!!!1ONE11

K?

(And, for the record, "perverse joy" is my default emotional state.) ;)
Lol. Do I hear two ???

Perverse joy...while preferred... is entirely optional.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: 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.
What you were doing is rationalizing your position by demonizing the other point of view. The faithful must practice some sort of hypocrisy because I would have to to be like them. No, you have what you call needs that aren't real needs.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,240
3,778
126
Does a man providing food and housing for his spouse count as prostitution?

Amazing what prudes we are when the definition of immoral and illegal begin with specific monetary exchange over something given away for ?free? or non monetary exchanges all the time.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
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.
Down boy! I'm not quick to do anything of the kind. He played an ace and I raised him. I am in a dialog and play my cards as the game develops. I don't lay down my hand. He say something, I say something, and deeper and deeper we go. You are the one snap judging me. And how dare you condemn me for condemning others. :) As he expresses his opinion about mine I see more and more where he's coming from and can more carefully focus on that. This is a subject Dari said he's given a lot of thought to. I've been thinking about it since I was ten.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Does a man providing food and housing for his spouse count as prostitution?

Amazing what prudes we are when the definition of immoral and illegal begin with specific monetary exchange over something given away for ?free? or non monetary exchanges all the time.
Amazing what analogies you can draw when you can't reason.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,240
3,778
126
Moonbeam you crack me up. So the great bleeding heart liberal condemns Eliot Spitzer for this?

If not, then whatever motivates you to take such venomous poison to my last post? You interested in nothing more than personal attacks?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
A 30 year old republican woman in my office has pretty much concluded marriage makes no sense. She thinks society needs to come to terms that keeping a man monogamous for 50+ years is an unrealistic goal and we are simply setting up marriages to fail. Some other countries have figured this out, as far as monogamy, where girlfriends on the side are an understood part of many long term marriges, and are not seen as infringing on the sanctity of the family the way it does here. Why do strip clubs for men and female prostitutes outnumber their counterparts 100 to 1? Men desire lots of sexual diversity, and while we of course can keep faithful, statistics would argue it goes against our nature. Why fight it? With divorce rates even higher in those parts of the country where family values are actually supposed to mean something (i.e. not CA/NY) maybe we need to redefine the institution. Well, we already are, but I don't think we've seen the end of the road just yet.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
A 30 year old republican woman in my office has pretty much concluded marriage makes no sense. She thinks society needs to come to terms that keeping a man monogamous for 50+ years is an unrealistic goal and we are simply setting up marriages to fail. Some other countries have figured this out, as far as monogamy, where girlfriends on the side are an understood part of many long term marriges, and are not seen as infringing on the sanctity of the family the way it does here. Why do strip clubs for men and female prostitutes outnumber their counterparts 100 to 1? Men desire lots of sexual diversity, and while we of course can keep faithful, statistics would argue it goes against our nature. Why fight it? With divorce rates even higher in those parts of the country where family values are actually supposed to mean something (i.e. not CA/NY) maybe we need to redefine the institution. Well, we already are, but I don't think we've seen the end of the road just yet.
You are right. We need to tax only men and support women to be single at home Moms. Sperm can be collected from say the top ten percent of performing intellectual and athletic men. Men can get sex where they can.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
Down boy! I'm not quick to do anything of the kind. He played an ace and I raised him. I am in a dialog and play my cards as the game develops. I don't lay down my hand. He say something, I say something, and deeper and deeper we go. You are the one snap judging me. And how dare you condemn me for condemning others. :) As he expresses his opinion about mine I see more and more where he's coming from and can more carefully focus on that. This is a subject Dari said he's given a lot of thought to. I've been thinking about it since I was ten.
Oh, I'm fairly familiar with the construct of dialog even if I don't always employ it. ;)

The topic is something that every man and woman has thought about even if they will not admit to it.....you are not alone in experiencing it either in concept or longevity.

Some will make the choice to move forward with their desires with the full knowledge and consent of their partner. Some will move forward with their desires all the while keeping there partner in the dark and in unknown danger. Still others will give thought to it and decide that the person that they are with and his/her happiness is more important than the desires and remain faithful (this is the path that I have chosen despite previously living in an unfair manner to my partner at the time). Is any one of those more right than the others? For me, yes there is one that is. For someone else you will probably get a different answer. That doesn't make them wrong or me any more right.

My claws came out in defense of Dari not because I agree with his position, but because I agree with his right to that position without being railroaded into being labeled as immoral by the same people who have done in the past what he has contemplated doing. Whether they have done it in practice or thought....they have done it.

I wish that there was a scale avatar so that I could better represent my thoughts/positions on subjects.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Moonbeam you crack me up. So the great bleeding heart liberal condemns Eliot Spitzer for this?

If not, then whatever motivates you to take such venomous poison to my last post? You interested in nothing more than personal attacks?
I'm into snakes today but venomous poison? Geez, maybe you're over sensitive. You could be having an anaphylactic reaction to truth.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,240
3,778
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm into snakes today but venomous poison? Geez, maybe you're over sensitive. You could be having an anaphylactic reaction to truth.
And you completely avoid the topic while derailing it with personal snider. I think you have it in you to do more than drivel on about me so I'll try it again:

Does a man providing food and housing for his spouse count as prostitution?

Amazing what prudes we are when the definition of immoral and illegal begin with specific monetary exchange over something given away for ?free? or non monetary exchanges all the time.

Keep in mind fewer people get married these days. So that continues to muddy any distinction other than specific monetary exchange even though all OTHER sorts of exchanges happen all the time and are considered legitimate.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,483
4,155
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I'm into snakes today but venomous poison? Geez, maybe you're over sensitive. You could be having an anaphylactic reaction to truth.
And you completely avoid the topic while derailing it with personal snider. I think you have it in you to do more than drivel on about me so I'll try it again:

Does a man providing food and housing for his spouse count as prostitution?

Amazing what prudes we are when the definition of immoral and illegal begin with specific monetary exchange over something given away for ?free? or non monetary exchanges all the time.

Keep in mind fewer people get married these days. So that continues to muddy any distinction other than specific monetary exchange even though all OTHER sorts of exchanges happen all the time and are considered legitimate.
Is a male bird sitting on a nest a slave when he could be out screwing other birds when his partner eats? Yup, the bird is a slave. We need to march for freedom for male birds.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,645
1,151
126
He's a scumbag, and the sooner he's gone, the better. Cheating on his wife AND breaking the law. Game over Spitz.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY