No, you don’t.
KellyM, thank you for your thoughtful analysis on the situation.
AZCowboy, I want to apologize for the switching from gender neutral to gender specific. I’d like to think that I did GN when I was discussing hypotheticals involving anyone and GS when I was discussing what actions I would take given a situation. I can’t be sure of this and I’m not going to go back through this thread and determine if this is the case, but it was my intent.
Two more clarifications. I’ve seen SO used on these boards to include a wife or husband so I didn’t think I was mistaken by using it in the same way. Also, when I discussed unwanted encounters, I meant unwanted for both people.
If my SO is being hit upon and she wants it, I’d need to determine a few things before I reacted. 1) Is she just playing? If so, I’m cool because I know nothing will come of it. What reason do I have to be jealous? But we’re now BOTH leading this guy on and he (potentially) is the one who is being harmed in this situation.
2) Is she somewhat serious and weighing her options? Now there’s a problem. You want to take the evolutionary standpoint and say “grunt grunt my sperm no go in her!” well, that’s one way of looking at things. I’d just go with the idea that she’s being rude as hell.
See, the problem here is that some people in this debate can’t see the shades of gray. Grabbing a wrist is the same and throwing that person across the bar is the same as yanking your SO up to you and having your way right there on the Golden Tee 2003 machine. There are shades of gray people and my jaywalking doesn’t mean I’m more likely to go on a killing spree.
Finally, on the restraining of the wife section, I was really thinking of chaining her to a radiator, but I suppose a chastity belt would work.
No, that’s not the restraint I meant. That’s prior restraint and not only would it show you to be irrationally jealous, it would plain show you to be irrational. Relationships are about communication and if you can’t can’t communicate with your SO, well, there’s your problem right there.
But when you have made a committment to someone else, then that’s the committment that takes precedence. Always. You don’t like that committment? Renegotiate. Don’t screw around and then hide behind the “my life, my choice,” because when you’ve made a committment it’s no longer your choice, it’s OUR choice.
Enderw24, we are mostly in agreement.
The “shades of gray” issue is pertinent, particularly due to the fact that the OP of this thread was not well bracketed. I read the OP to this thread when it was first posted, and it was unclear to me what the hell lee was trying to ask. It wasn’t until Grim_Beaker pointed out to AHunter3 that this was spawned from a pit thread was I able to even figure out the context.
Part of the problem here is that, particularly since the OP did not reference the pit thread, and since the OP didn’t describe a specific situation, but a more general one, that the discussion here shouldn’t focus on the specifics of the pit thread.
In other words, whether or not the wrist lock described in the pit thread was violent or not, should not be at issue in this thread. The OP here made it clear that we were talking about using force.
With regard to the SO issue, I agree that SO includes spouses. But SO also includes GF/BF. Hence, SO is a more general term, spouse is more specific.
The only area of disagreement left concerns your description of commitment. That commitment is an agreement between two individuals entered, and terminated, at will, by either party. Granted, if one wishes to break that commitment, they should communicate that to the other. Two points: 1) failure to do so does not create a situation where the agreement can be enforced by violence; and 2) it is not “our” choice, but each individual makes a choice, as you have no right to impose your will on the other.
[hijack]
And just to stir the pot on the rape issue, I wanted to point out that if you were raping your wife, her lover would have the right to use violence to protect her from you. Marriage is not a right to physical abuse.
[/hijack]
Marriage vows do not make another person your property, and each person has exactly the same rights after marriage as before it. You can whine about it all you want but your spouse has every legal right to cheat on you (so called “adultery” laws are anachronistic and are not enforced in any state
[/quote]
Legally, maybe.
Then again, if law is all you like, you can shoot your spouse if you find him or her cheating on you in Texas.
In any event, since this thread was started by the non-violents side, why exactly is violence “wrong”? Heck, if it all comes down to genes, why shouldn’t I shoot the bastard and protect my gene pool?
Sgt. J Are you effing serious dude? I’m sorry, but you’re REALLY reaching to try to portray some vague, unlikely threat of disease as an immediate, urgent threat to your life, to resort to this as a justification for violence is truly pathetic and desperate. Furthermore, the infidelities of yor daughter’s or sister’s so’s are none of your business and give you absolutely zero excuse for violence. I doubt you would sleep like a baby because you would be sleeping in a jail cell, where, hopefully, you would be exposed many times to potentially life-threatening diseases from your amorous cell mates
Am I sexist? Yes, to the extent that I believe men and women are different, no to the extent that I do not subscribe to “Barefoot and Pregnant Quarterly.” I do not believe our differences make us unequal. The scenario you gave is a perfect example, which is why I used me daughter as an example, because I don’t believe (as a man) in assaulting women (except for obvious situations like the woman was herself assaulting someone).
Just because it appears I have a different set of sensibilities and morals doesn’t mean you should expect that I will be disingenuous.
Is MY issue heath? I think THE issue is heath. My issues would be health and respect.
(The following assumes that “affair” constitutes deception.)
If the spouse was carrying on an affair that would show an enormous lack of respect. Disrespect is in no way a justification for violence. If by “safe sex” you mean something like phone/cyber/masturbating in front of each other, etc.
No, that isn’t justification for violence, just the end of the relationship (and even that is up to the parties involved).
If by “safe sex” you mean, “yea, we usually used rubbers”, that shows a blatant disregard for the life, safety and heath of the other party. I would have no problem administering a good old fashion ass whopping on (for instance) my daughter’s husband if he blatantly put her life at risk. You have a RESPONSIBILITY to give ANYONE you’re swapping body fluids with the information they need to make an informed decision about their own health, especially if the other party reasonably believes (because you told them) it’s safe to have unprotected sex with you because the relationship is monogamous. If you don’t have the backbone and common decency to be honest with that person so they can protect themselves… you deserve to have your ass kicked.
“commitments” are valid precisely as long as each individual wants it to be and no longer. There is no “our.” Nobody has any obligation to be faithful unless they want to. A broken promise is not illegal. “Shades of gray” are not relevant. You have no right to put your paws on another person PERIOD. Your wife’s wrist belongs to her, not to you.
Hang on while I get statistics on the number of adults in the US with STD’s… While you’re waiting maybe you could swing by your local public health institutions and tell them unprotected sex with a sexualy (what’s the word for “Non-monogomous”?) partner is a “VAGUE and UNLIKELY” threat. The Aids community will be thrilled to hear that newsflash!
The behaviour of your daughter’s husband is none of yor goddamned business. It is sure as hell not a justification for violence, and I hope you realize that if you WERE to attack the guy, then HE would have absolutely every right to defend himself, hopefully with a shotgun.
The behaviour of your daughter’s husband is none of your goddamned business. It is sure as hell not a justification for violence, and I hope you realize that if you WERE to attack the guy, then HE would have absolutely every right to defend himself, hopefully with a shotgun.
Huh? Cite, please. I remember the recent case of the woman finding her husband cheating on her, and then running him over repeatedly, killing him, in the hotel parking lot. She’s facing murder charges. A description of the case can be found here.
Because violence denies the other individual life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Even libertarians recognize this as one legitmate function of government. Are you really confused on this issue?
And what does this have to do with protecting your gene pools? If your spouse is impregnated by her lover, do you think you have the right to force her to have an abortion, or murder the child when born? What are you talking about?
From this site
http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/HTML/Volume2/25STDs.htm
STDs are common, costly, and preventable. Worldwide, an estimated 333 million cases of curable STDs occur annually.[26] In 1995, STDs were the most common reportable diseases in the United States.[27] They accounted for 87 percent of the top 10 infections most frequently reported to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) from State health departments. Of the top 10 infections, 5 were STDs (chlamydia, gonorrhea, AIDS, syphilis, and hepatitis B). Each year an estimated 15 million new STD infections occur in the United States, and nearly 4 million teenagers are infected with an STD.[28] The direct and indirect costs of the major STDs and their complications, including sexually transmitted HIV infection, are conservatively estimated at $17 billion annually.3
This is hardly “vague and unlikely” and EXACTLY an “urgent threat”.
SGT J, according to the latest US statistics, 793,000 people currently have AIDS. Of these, 11% contracted it through heterosexual sex. The US population is over 250 million. Therefore, the number of people with AIDS is less than half of one percent of the total population. the number of HETEROSEXUALS with AIDS is roughly one twentieth of one percent of the total population. This means that your odds of getting AIDS from a cheating spouse are less than one in 200 million (249,875,000-1, to be exact) as I said, extremely unlikely. No matter what, though, it still would not meet a legal justification for violence as the threat must be clear and immediate.
SGT J, None of the STD’s you mentioned are life threatening with the exception of AIDS which I addressed in my last post. Pointing at Chlamydia, or gonnorhea is a red herring and you know it. There’s this little thing called pennecillin these days.
From the same cite:
Often, a long interval—sometimes years—occurs between acquiring a sexually transmitted infection and recognizing a clinically significant health problem. Examples are cervical cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), liver cancer caused by hepatitis B virus infection,[8] and infertility and ectopic pregnancy resulting from unrecognized or undiagnosed chlamydia or gonorrhea.[9] The original infection often is asymptomatic, and, as a result, people frequently do not perceive a connection between the original sexually acquired infection and the resulting health problem.
That is most certianly NOT a red herring, and fucking penicilin does not cure cervical cancer, liver cancer,or infertility.
It’s hardly a red herring. Whether the disease is curable or not is hardly the point. It incurs a health cost on the recipient of the disease that he/she recieved nothing in return for.
Furthermore, these diseases can cause sterility or worse if left treated in the long term. If you were happily married, would you assume that flu-like symptoms might be the clap?
Whether the risk is high or not is irrelevant. But the fact that it actually is high makes the transgression even worse.
here’s more
.A nationally representative study showed that genital herpes infection is very common in the United States.37 Nationwide, 45 million persons aged 12 years and older, or **1 out of 5 of the total adolescent and adult population, are infected with herpes simplex virus **type 2. As many as 20 million persons in the United States already are infected with strains of the human papillomavirus, and an estimated 5.5 million new infections occur annually.28
----------------------- (bold mine)
Penicilin gonna cure that?
And for the record I’m not arguing that it’s legal, just that smacking someone in the head is IMHO more appropriate than “apologizing for interrupting” and leaving. ymmv
Folks, how did we get so far off topic so quickly.
Yes, STDs are a risk of sexual activity. Safe sex is a method to mitigate the risk. But that’s all beside the point. It is a red herring for the issue at hand. This health issue is only used to support the argument that non-monogamous sex is a bad thing.
We may not agree that non-monogamous sex is a bad thing, but that would be another thread. One fact that I suspect we could agree on, regardless of your position on the above issue, is that non-monogamous sex is common in humans. That, too, is beside the point.
The question is whether adultery (or cheating on an SO) ever warrants violence.
Any chance we could get back to that discussion? Or are one of you arguing that the health risks of (safe sex) adultery warrants a violent reaction?
genital herpes is completely benign. It’s only symptoms are occasional warts and even those tend to disappear over time. The possibility of a wart does not give you an excuse to beat up your wife. This whole disease angle is really just a hijack because you know you’re losing the argument. I’d love to see somebody actually try to use this specious interpretation of a threat as a legal defense in a courtroom. Think about it even if your wife DOES contract a deadly disease, you cannot cure yourself by beating anyone up. This would not be self-defense, but simply REVENGE. How would violence DEFEND you against a disease?