Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:No "morally acceptable" sites? (Score 1) 706

Marriage is a civil law agreement which generally has the assumption of sexual fidelity. Unless the two spouses agree to waive that part of the agreement, they are bound to it by remaining married.

No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.

As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.

Deliberately participating in a deceitful action that has a propensity to cause a great deal of harm to another is generally considered immoral.

Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.

No, and I view such perspectives as patriarchal BS. Spouses are not "property."

Women demand ownership of spouses as much as men. I fail to see the "patriarchy" in this.

I mean, do we really have to go into explaining why participating in deceitful behavior that could ruin people's lives is wrong?

Yes, you do. Please explain how your spouse having sex with someone else will "ruin" your life. If she cut your penis, sure. But if she just has sex one night with a coworker and then come home, can you explain what are the consequences you will have to suffer?

I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.

What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the contract?

Don't get me wrong, I will consider lying for personal gain as morally wrong, but saying banging someone else's spouse is morally wrong is only based on an idea of control, idea of control which in itself could be qualified as morally wrong.

Comment Re:Vague gawping sounds... (Score 1) 706

Statistics tend to show that marriages, open or not, do not work. Where I live, about 50% of marriages end in a divorce, and from my experience, a lot of others end up with two people barely tolerating each other. I wouldn't call that a good environment for children.

What percentage of marriages truly work and offer a good environment for children? I have no idea, but I strongly believe it's only a minority.

Also based on my personal experience, sexual desires are a major factor in a lot of separations. Either one spouse cheated on the other or wish to have sex with someone else. One common joke is that once a man is married, he can say goodbye to sex. Pretty much all my married friends feel sexual frustrations on some level. So I wonder if it's having sex with someone other than one's spouse which destroy marriage or if having an affair is just a result of a failed marriage because of sexual frustration.

So what if our culture thought us that free sex is OK, even within marriage? What if our culture thought us that the need for sexual exclusivity is not "sane"? What if our culture thought us that marriage is only about living together and raising children, not about sexual exclusivity? Could this form of environment be more stable for children?

BTW, If a woman cheated on me, would I be upset? Well, it happened to me, (twice that I know of), and I although I pretended to be upset for social norms reasons, the truth is I didn't care.

Comment Re:Lynch mob? (Score 1) 706

I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children. Sure the other parent might choose to indirectly hurt his or her children as a retaliation for not having sexual exclusivity, but in this case it's this other parent who's at fault. The kid argument is really an argument against divorce, not an argument against extramarital affaires.

Comment Re:No "morally acceptable" sites? (Score 1) 706

Each person has his own view of what is moral or not. Some people will say that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Some people will say homosexuality is immoral. It's less common now, but some people will say sex between people of different skin color is immoral. The Catholic church even said it was immoral to use contraceptives.

You can take anything anyone could desire, and there's a good probability at least some people will view this as "immoral".

So for the sake of arguments... can you explain why you view banging someone else's spouse as immoral? What is the basis for this moral judgement? For example, is it because you think the spouse is some form of property, so banging someone else spouse is like stealing?

As a related question, why do you think it's moral to forbid your spouse to have sex with whoever he or she wants?

Comment Re:False dichotomy (Score 5, Interesting) 442

A country accomplishing something exceptional returns pride for its citizens. This feeling of being proud is one of the things which contribute the most to happiness. Happy people create a better environment for everyone. Happy people will more easily build strong communities and consequently a strong country.

More importantly, accomplishing something exceptional brings respect from other populations.

I remember that morning of 86. I was going to a math class. I was late, but when I entered the class, I realized it hasn't started yet. People were gathered around the teacher and they were discussing. I then learned that Challenger exploded. Somehow, I was really affected. It was crazy, I was not American, but I certainly did have a lot of respect for the US. So anything bad happening to the US did affect me.

The US is now kind of despised by a lot of people around the world. The main reason is how the US mess with the world and how Americans are "arrogant". Yet, back in the 70 and 80, the US were messing the exact same way with the world and Americans were the same people as they are now. But here's the thing : the US also accomplished great things in the 60 and 70 in the name of humanity. So sure, the US were a bully, but they were a bully who was able to accomplish great things.

I remember that morning of 2001. I was home. I heard the news two planes crashed on the Twin Towers. I saw how reporters where depicting this event as one of the worst tragedy to ever occur, but to be honest I didn't really care. Sure, I thought it was sad 3000 people died, but people do die around the world every day because of politics or religion. How many innocent died because of the US messing with the world for their own benefits?

Respect has to be earned, but once you get this respect, the benefits you get are enormous. You gain support from everywhere in the world. Most people in the world will see you as a model to follow, not as an enemy who's trying to abuse them. They'll feel your pain almost as much as their own. They won't fight against you, they'll try to join you.

What does basic economics say about that?

Comment Re:Hypocrisy (Score 0) 62

I live in Canada (Quebec). We have the same queen as the Brits (even if we really, really don't give a fuck about her), but we say french fries, airplanes and trucks. I spent several years in France. People there were saying french fries, airplanes and trucks. English did come form England, but nowadays standard English is American English.

Comment Re:Correlation != Cause (Score 1) 144

So what you're saying is training is useless? Don't get me wrong, the person you replied to is denying reality, we all have different natural abilities, some people are naturally a lot better than others, but training pretty much do make everyone better.

Comment Re:"save environment for women" (Score 0) 223

The definition of the US federal government for harassment is plain stupidity which was the result of feminist lobbying. This definition is just wrong. Please think for a second.

And anyway your point is moot since there is no "pornography" in slides in conferences. I don't know if saying this is just another deliberate lie from feminists in order to play the victims or the result of severe psychosis, but to be honest I don't care. Feminism is now, at best, a farce.

Comment Re:"save environment for women" (Score 1, Informative) 223

You are the one who obviously don't have a clue.

Here's an example of what they say : "Pornography in slides was a regular feature at many conferences in these areas, as were physical and sexual assault."

First, even if there was "pornography" in slides, which is obviously not the case, it is not harassment. I will agree most women use their body to seduce and to get what they want. I will agree an image of a sexy woman shows they are not that sexy themselves by comparison. I will agree showing images of sexy women will diminish their ability to seduce. But that's not harassment! I guess they just have to do better work if they want a promotion instead of relying on seduction.

Second, about physical and sexual assault : B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

I'm tired of feminist lies. So how about feminism teach women to not be psychotic instead of asking for a "safe environment"? How about they teach women to stop feeling threatened by pretty much everything?

You know who's harassing the most with the constant demands and nagging? Feminists. So yeah, they have to be called out and dealt with.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.