I’ve veered off my “immoral, though not horribly so” into “no harm, no foul” on this issue.
drachillix, the question is, what do those “assumed traits” have to do with a quick roll in the hay? I mean, if being good with animals is a woman’s criteria for a one-night stand with a guy, there are bigger moral issues (and several bestiality laws) involved.
This is the social equivalent of Schrodinger’s Cat:
A guy claims to be a firefighter;
that is the occupation/personality type that turns on a particular woman;
The guy and the woman do the nasty; and
the woman never sees the guy again.
In this situation, the guy both is and is not a firefighter. If he actually is one, the woman will never be able to prove it; if he isn’t, the woman will never be able to prove it.
Of course, the quantum wave collapses if either person sees the other again; that’s why, IMO, the only truly immoral thing a guy can say to get a girl in the sack is to claim that he wants more than a one-night stand and promises to call when the guy has no intention of doing so.
Is it as bad as clubbing puppies? No. Is it sleazy and revolting? Yes. You’re deliberately deceiving someone for your own benefit. It’s also kind of pathetic. If the only way you can get someone to have sex with you is by lying, then you most likely have some deeper problems. It would be a lot more honest and less scummy to just hire a prostitute.
I’ve had some harsh words for you in the Pit before, Ace. So it’s clear that I’ll let people know when I have a complaint. Never it let it be said that I don’t give props when they’re due, as it is here. I really like this witticism. You’ve also been a positive prescence in Seven’s thread.
I have a big problem with this statement. The mentality that someone ‘deserves’ something in this way is not an acceptable conclusion (imho). I am not drawing the comparison between lying to a woman and physically raping a woman, but the mentality ‘She deserved it’ has been used many times to justify violence and rape against women. A human being never deserves to be physically raped, nor does she deserve to be manipulated and used.
Now, onto other topics…
I won’t be touching ‘Justthinks’ arguments in any way, because, as a young female, we all know he views me as a child. I guess I’ll sit over here playing with my Barbie doll or something. :rolleyes:
Drachillix,
I agree, Women can be attracted to a certain type of man without this making her superficial. It can be a hoping for a certain personality type and knowing that people in certain jobs are more likely to have that personality type.
I myself have ALWAYS been secretly attracted to computer geeks. I try to work ‘do you like computer games?’ into the conversion on dates to determine if we will be compatible in that way, because then visions of playing for hours side by side enter my head.
Does this make me superficial? I don’t think so.
Do I ‘deserve’ to be lied to because I like a certain type of man?
If a man on a date were to lie to me, telling me he loves Buffy, loves ‘Baldur’s Gate’. Well, I would feel close to him because of these common likes, I would feel a big connection, and I would feel completely violated if he were lying to me.
Not ‘rapes’, but violated and used.
And I would not have ‘deserved it’ even if my ‘superficial’ wants were all about money or cars…
Homebrew… Thanks, but just being myself AFAIK. I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see the Gay Mafia didn’t swing in to Seven’s great thread with the usual accusations; I take it my care package of Moosehead arrived?
You’re focusing myopically on the one-night stand as an event that purges all the taint of deception away. But what if the one-night stand is not necessarily the plan in both parties’ minds?
Some ne’er-do-well might date Lady of the Lake, profess his undying affection for Baldur’s Gate, sweep her off her feet and into the sack, and depart in the morning, wondering idly as he left what the hell Baldur’s Gate is. He never plans to call again.
In her* mind, though, this was the magical beginning of a magical relationship.
“”""“What makes you think that this is even something necessarily gender-specific?”""""
This has been raised a few times. I answered this question already in regards to my focus on one particular aspect: Hetero-sexual consent is the only field which possesses an absolute on the consent issue; and is therefor an excellent field from which to draw representative comparisons; as the other fields don’t have such an acute environment in which to analyze the issue.
The absolute in hetero-sexual consent is that males cannot be raped. Since one side can be raped, and the other side cannot - all assertive sexual action is defaulted as the resposibility of the sex which possesses the advantage of accusation. To compensate for this discrepancy; males can approach the situation with an offering of materials. In reality, this possesses a problem in that females take an additional luxury in denying sexual selection to those who approach them consistently; further murkying the process and for all intensive purposes demanding to be raped; in order to elicit consent.
This is clearly unacceptable. Females by default have the ability to approach sexuality with absolute consistency without modifying their request; per being the sex which absolutely possesses a violation condition where the other side does not.
To that degree, it is always the females burden to immediately set their selection process upon encounter, and not diverge.
It is the males burden to do the same, however; must offer additional resource in order to meet the same standard on the innitial ‘confrontation’. Behavior which falls short of this is exceedingly malevolent in regards to existential stability of all parties that can potentially become involved (6 billion+ people on this planet). It is childish behavior, in that a complete lack of regard, abstraction and/or understanding of the suffering process and how it perpetuates. It is contradictory behavior to the degree that someone actually complains about the very conditions which allow relational frustration; as they are causing the circumstance themselves.
I’d further add that the female refusal to aknowledge this relational law creates a situation where 70-80% of their opinions, personalities, conversations, gossips, relationships and communications are unnecissarily held, ineffecient and counter-productive to the expressions of desire they aparently believe they are demanding of life and others in general. They are false.
This reminds me of a recent “Ann Landers” replacement column. A guy was chatting up a woman at a party and she mentions how she has a prosthetic leg and that it’s made her self-conscious, etc. [outstanding logic]He decides in order to make a connection with her, he will tell her he too has a prosthetic limb[/outstanding logic] Talk about easily disprovable when they get in the sack! Unfortunately he was not laughed out of the column, but told to let her know, and hope that she will understand. :rolleyes:
The whole problem here is that everyone seems to be seeing sex as a commodity that belongs to the woman, and is given to the man in exchange for some perceived benefit (other than the enjoyment itself) to the woman. That’s just wrong; it should be a shared expression of intimacy between 2 people. OF COURSE it’s wrong for a man to deceive a woman. But does anyone seriously think that WOMEN never deceive MEN? Oh, but that’s different, right?:rolleyes:
In my opinion, if two people are so shallow that he lies to her and says he is rich just to get her in the sack, and she sleeps with him just because he told her he’s rich, then those 2 losers deserve each other. That’s not my idea of a meaningful relationship.
It seems to me that as long as no communication happened one way or the other in regards to future expectations, then no injury was done. Just because one party assumes the other party has certain intentions doesn’t mean party #1 has been wronged when his/her assumptions turn out to be wrong.
beagledave,
Very good question. I think that that is really the heart of the matter. Every choice we make regarding our image is, at least from one angle, a falsification. Clothing, attitude, choice of conversation topic; all of these things both reflect and distort the “truth” of a person.
Which of those image projections count as “bad” or lies, and which are completely acceptable?
It seems to me that as long as no communication happened one way or the other in regards to future expectations, then no injury was done. Just because one party assumes the other party has certain intentions doesn’t mean party #1 has been wronged when his/her assumptions turn out to be wrong.
beagledave,
Very good question. I think that that is really the heart of the matter. Every choice we make regarding our image is, at least from one angle, a falsification. Clothing, attitude, choice of conversation topic; all of these things both reflect and distort the “truth” of a person.
Which of those image projections count as “bad” or lies, and which are completely acceptable?
You call it myopic, I call it focusing with a laser-like intensity.
From the facts given, no. Our poor down-trodden Lady would have been just as injured had Mr. Do-Well had in fact been a Baldur’s Gate fanatic, and not called her the next day.
Being the Man of Her Dreams (real or fake) does not affect whether Mr. Do-Well will call her again. And, in your hypothetical, Mr. Do-Well did not promise to call, so Lady’s belief that this was a magical beginning was solely her own creation, not one induced by Mr. Do-Well.
beagledave, interesting question. Actually, in the context of the one-night stand, I would argue that the WonderBra may indeed be a material misrepresentation. As I stated earlier, the two material factors for a one-night stand are attraction and performance. And the WonderBra may artificially create an attraction.
It goes both ways. I occassionally dye my hair red. Is this misreprentation? Would I be raping the man I slept with? What if I had braces as a teenager or plastic surgery? Most people try to make themselves more attractive to the people they’re trying to attract.
I’m reminded of the scene in *Bridget Jones’ Diary, where Bridget is trying out lines to use at a company party. “How about the situation in Chechnya?” I don’t think she even knew where Chechnya is, let alone the political and military situation. She wanted to appear intelligent and politically savvy. Did she rape Hugh Grant?
Basically, is the discussion about the morally right way to go about sleeping around? I just want to be clear about these things…
So the supposed complaint is, “He told me things about himself that made me want to sleep with him immediately. Later I found out the things he told me were a lie”?
If so, well, so what? If the complainant is willing to have sex with someone based on a few minutes/hours of conversation, isn’t the sex that results meaningless enough to not being worth complaining about? In other words, if you can give it up that quickly, aren’t your standards low enough that they have no meaning and someone lying about fitting them doesn’t really matter?
“”"""""""""“The whole problem here is that everyone seems to be seeing sex as a commodity that belongs to the woman, and is given to the man in exchange for some perceived benefit (other than the enjoyment itself) to the woman.”""""""""""
This is evidenced out in the ‘real playing field’ so to speak. Men are astonishingly consistent in veiwing sex for its own enjoyment.
The female selection process discourages this outlook. Take any female in the top 30th percentile to any male from age 12 on up to ‘130’ in a pantheon of situations and environments who walks up and says “Wanna fuck?” and the guys will say yes with quite staggering rates of consistency. It’s not complicated on the female end to recieve sex for the sake of its own enjoyment. Reverse the situation with the top 1% of attractive males not even selecting based on the females attractiveness (they could ask the ‘ugliest’ damn female in the world) “wanna fuck?” and the answer will resoundingly be “no”.
This is the real world. There are reasons for this phenomenon; primarily that females do not appreciate sex for its own sake; but appreciate a variety of additional commodities for consecration. Just adding one commodity or two tips the scales towards commodifying the actual act of sex… females tend to add many more conditions than males by leaps and bounds - requiring that males cannibalize their own rationality, to place their own purpose of existence on the line; a form of absolute slavery of the mind in order to recieve sex. That is not acceptable IMO. Females ‘should’ (to use your phrasing) grow up in this regard - as it degrades the entire social structure for all individuals.
“That’s just wrong; it should be a shared expression of intimacy between 2 people.”"
I don’t disagree here. To the degree that you’re connecting the wrongness with the commodification… I addressed my disagreement above.
“”“OF COURSE it’s wrong for a man to deceive a woman. But does anyone seriously think that WOMEN never deceive MEN? Oh, but that’s different, right?”""
This is typically considered luck on the male end. If a female believes that she needs to decieve a male in order to have sex; the entire system is irrelevant to the sheer imbalance of power from the two sides. This is the equivilent of a female walking up and asking for sex from the male veiwpoint. Everyone’s like; “Wow, what a lucky guy, a female actually acted consistently, even though she had to confuse the living hell out of herself to do it.” Males are tired of being required to be deceptive in order to find themselves selected for sex, or pay significantly more than the female. The vast majority of these sacrifices are in regards to the point of existing at all, as discarding logic is a required ‘proof of purchase’ to this degree.
“”"""""“In my opinion, if two people are so shallow that he lies to her and says he is rich just to get her in the sack, and she sleeps with him just because he told her he’s rich, then those 2 losers deserve each other. That’s not my idea of a meaningful relationship.”""""""""
Agreed. I just want to point out that I don’t percieve relationships as something to force on any level. I relegate the entire concept of friendship and mutually enjoyed partnerships (transparent); to fly with the wind; in that one can only work on themselves. Much of this seems bound by circumstance, primarily because of the pressure allotted to males to practice deception in order to not become a suicidal martyr of sexual validation. This process seems to hamper an accumulation of these friendships, as severe life-negating force is required to even open up the condition for clear communication of intent. Females seem to open up to this degree after sexual encounters, not beforehand - at which point one can recieve a clear picture of experiential connection and potential for an actual relationship. As much as females believe that they seek to set a relationship standard before sex; I argue that the very process of doing so seeks to muddle the issue and leaves any tangible sense of transparency on their part out of the picture until they have actually given into this act with which so much emotional weight and (misdirected IMO) ideology is bound.
“”"""""""""""So the supposed complaint is, “He told me things about himself that made me want to sleep with him immediately. Later I found out the things he told me were a lie”?
If so, well, so what? If the complainant is willing to have sex with someone based on a few minutes/hours of conversation, isn’t the sex that results meaningless enough to not being worth complaining about? In other words, if you can give it up that quickly, aren’t your standards low enough that they have no meaning and someone lying about fitting them doesn’t really matter?""""""""""""
The point is that males will be “umm… yeah. let’s go”
Females is asked the direct question, if even remotely interested (rather then absorbing perspectives for gossip collateral on the lack of value for a person who is braver than most males by leaps and bounds in regards to principle and consistency); will likely establish a means to sit down, or to continue the conversation extensively - to evaluate whether she actually feels the way she does; based on personality evidence. Personality the becomes the sexual commidity, and being easy to virtualize - renders the free-will of the female as negated in regards to sexual selection. Vitrualized personality also cannibalizes the value of the male who is making a very simple request. Non-virtualized personality is not ‘flashy’ enough to be detected by female radar; they reward contradiction by frequency. The higher the frequency of contradictions uttered in a shorter span of time, the more attracted to the idea of their desire to feel the way they do becomes. It’s really quite silly, and also very much the case.
Integrity would dictate that further communication with the female should cease, so as not to violate cognitive age issues in regards to consent.
Intent and action are VERY much intertwined inspite of an earlier reply (which I now plan to address in another reply) stated.
Ah, but we are not dealing with my getting jilted by a Baldur’s Gate fan, and how injured I MIGHT have been. (And, fyi, men who like Baldur’s Gate are a noble breed, they would never ‘not call’).
The topic is deception, purposeful deception.
Therefore, he DID lie to me about loving Baldur’s Gate, he DID state that he was falling for me, he DID promise to call. Shall we make his lies more heinous? During our first few dates, he states he is a single 26-year-old, my age. We later discover he is 38, living with his mother, and still married (but not living) with his wife. *
All with the purpose of manipulating the situation to create a feeling of intimacy, all for the purpose of sex…
I’m going to be honest; I’ve always dealt honestly with men, and have always had long term, open relationships. There really is no ‘poor down trodden Lady’, however I do feel that we are treating purposeful, and manipulative lies too flippantly.
What of the twin brother who lies to sleep with his brother’s girlfriend? Is that okay, the end justifying the means?
Yes, sometimes one does not share all of one’s dirty secrets during the first few dates. We ALL put on a good face. But, there is a difference between putting on a good face and purposeful manipulation, such as lying about being married, or lying about who you are as a person. That is not honorable. It is not justified, regardless if he feels a woman ‘deserves it’.
Blowero,
I agree. If a woman manipulates the situation in this way, she is also not treating him with the respect he deserves as a fellow human being.
I hardly think that morality comes into play when discussing how to hook up for a one night stand. I could see your point if the man courted her for months on the deception that he was some European prince, but in reality was just a janitor. At the same time though, do you think that she was telling him that she would love him even if he was a janitor, and all his money and wealth really didn’t mean anything to her?
