On tuesday I asked a question. A simple question I thought, one which would result in say a half dozen posts. I was shocked and surprised by the response (56 posts so far).

So I thought I would post what I have found out.

1. Apparently tie brides come with guarantees
2. Its wrong to keep people in box’s/jars/etc like (bonsai kittens)
3. Some people have way too much time on their hands
4. Some people like to argue for the sake of arguing
5. Its wrong to copy a small bit of information from an internet posting that several dozen people have access to. But its ok to post a private conversation between two people on the internet for anyone to read..

Next Weeks Moral Question: (??)
Babies on sticks.. The American Dream, or sick and wrong…

Ok a simple question prompted by an IM conversation being held that that window over there <=——-

Which person if any is correct..

Person 1.
It is wrong to mess around with somebody’s partner.

Person 2.
men cannot own women, so its ok to mess around with someone in a marriage/relationship.

I am keeping Person 2’s identity a secret because I am a nice person. :0)

Both people to a certain extent have valid points. if you ask 100 people on the street these days im sure that atleast 70 of them would think that manogomy is a kind of wood.

Here are my thoughts on both situations.

1> It Isnt wrong to mess around with somebodys partner, unless they are happy, in which case the person in the partnership would not be messing around with you… unless they are dirty!

2> Men can actually own women, i nearly bought a thai bride only the other day, which i was told was wrong and immoral.. and it is ok to fool around with somebody in a marrige as im sure they dont have sex anymore. there are however rules to follow when messing with married people. 1) they cannot be receiving a pension, this is wrong.. i found out the hardway by getting chinned by their grandchildren. and 2 you cant mes around with anyone you are married too, dont ask me why you just cant as technicaly you are not messing around as you are married, and therefor will never have sex with them again untill they die! or something fked up liek that, i dont write the rules i only follow them, dont shoot the messenger! or the postman if you find him messing with your wife as she aint getting the good stuff from you cos your married and will NEVER have sex again!!! unless your name is rob… its a hidden rule so im told!

Person 1 is correct. True, people can not “own” each other, but that is irrelevant in the context that the second statement is being made. The second statement just seems like a pathetically transparent attempt at justifying selfish and insensitive behaviour. If you are going to behave in that manner, with no consideration for the other person in the relationship, don’t try and provide some “moral code” that “radically re-interprets” human relationships, just admit you’re a shit and get on with it.

However, if you believe that human relationships are based on either party “owning” the other as one would a common household object then you’re probably a shit anyway. So just get on with being a shit and don’t try and philosophise your way out of it.

I’m one of the old fashioned people. I believe in monogamy. I also believe that marriage is for life. Who am I to talk as in the end stages of a divorce an marrying again. (To a wonderful caring guy).
For some people they are happy to have.allow extra marital/relationship relations to go on. For other people its the wrong thing and would break up that couple if the other party found out.
As to ownership……… Well I don’t think its right for any person to own another but its happened lots in history and still really is the way of some traditional marriages. Eg arranged marriage. So at the end of the day it can be suck it and see. If you try something and it doesn’t work then change it till everyones happy.

yes, but you can still buy and own your very own thai bride….

Person 1 is correct.

Person 2 is just talking bollocks. But has a valid point, if you can find a woman who has so little respect for her relationship then she is obviously a slag and if he’s prepared to fool around with someone who is meant to be devoted to someone else, then he’s a slag. So in a way. They do kind of deserve each other.

The real moral issue comes into play when the cheated party refers to you as his ‘bro’, isn’t that right Wayne dearest? ;op

if you buy a thai bride, she will be your wife and you will own her, and thai brides are well dirty so you will never have to cheat on her!!!! monogomy wins, but whats to stop her messing with someone, that would then make you the person whos partner is messing with someone thus making you our topic of conversation !!!

It takes two to tango. If you find someone attractive, and they find you attractive, but they are in a relationship, then surely it is up to them to decide whether or not they want to be ‘messed around with’.

You’re joking, right?

Don’t get me wrong.

I’m all for polyamoury (However that is spelt) As long as both partners are aware of the situation, it’s the lying and deceit that I can’t condone.

Three or more consenting adults. Then they can do whatever they so please.

three, thats the magic number… what if 2 of them are in a relationship?

Possibly the only answer to this question is to remove temptation from Person 2 by keeping your partner in a small box, taking them out only when you know that Person 2 is not around or when their other friends realise that they haven’t seen them for a while.

Then again, perhaps a better solution would be to keep person 2 in a small box, and never take them out regardless of who notices…

that was in a documentary i was watching recently , it was called some thing like boxing helga or summit

Its spelt polyamory.

I am not sure on the moral ground of keeping people in boxes?

I think there could be some laws on that matter.

Its up to everyone involved to decide.

And my point was that the decision should be “no” due to the relationship status of the people involved.

Hence my morals would prevent me playing with someone who was in a relationship.

If not boxes, perhaps a container of another kind, like a flask or a jar?

do you get any guarantee with the thai bride?

So if you break her in the first year, do you get a replacement one?

Surely that should be “It’s” 🙂

Apostrophe Police on duty.

I dont think the problem is with the type of container, more in the fact you are keeping some person contained possibly against their will.

Yeah, for ten dolla

Oh…I missed that point. I was thinking perhaps a box wasn’t suitable due to it’s shape…hmmm.

How about a bag? Quite a big one? In pretty colours?

Soldier boy

I was never confused!

Wayne,

These days I tend to save chatlogs whenever I chat with either you or Pete, so as to avoid exactly this kind of misrepresentation… I’m assuming that I’m “Person 2”, even though your version of what I said has been through the Wayne filter.

Here’s the relevant part of the conversation anyway:

i_sturrock: No worries, my email to-do list includes messages I’ve owed people since Spring.
penddraig: ah
penddraig: i delete them after a while.. and decide to forget about it
penddraig: 🙂 unless they cute. then they always get a reply
i_sturrock: That’s often easiest.
i_sturrock: I can’t even be arsed with the cute ones any more, unless they’re definitely unattached and interested.
penddraig: ah.
i_sturrock: It’s too much work these days as an oldster to try to tempt women away from their husbands and boyfriends.
penddraig: well the unattached bit goes without saying..
i_sturrock: That’s a young man’s game.
penddraig: i dont play with attached people..
i_sturrock: Goes without saying? Not at all….
i_sturrock: Ah right, but you’re weird. :p
i_sturrock: No offence intended of course. 😉
penddraig: not really.. caused problems in past by doing that.. and once bitten..
i_sturrock: … bite back? 🙂
penddraig: besides i have them weird things.. what they called… err thats it morals 🙂
i_sturrock: Ah yes.
i_sturrock: I’ve never really figured out what they were for I’m afraid.
penddraig: ah
penddraig: they this annoying voice… that tells you off all the time
i_sturrock: I thought that was the wife?
penddraig: yes.. its like a wife
i_sturrock: What’s the point of that then? Like a wife but with none of the good parts?
i_sturrock: Anyway, when wives tell you off all the time you can just ignore them — why don’t you do the same with your “morals”?
penddraig: you cant..
penddraig: cos you listen to morals
penddraig: cos its what makes you a good person
i_sturrock: No I don’t!?!
i_sturrock: They’ve never said anything to me….
penddraig: thats why i am a better person than you
i_sturrock: Anyway, how can anything so annoying be good?
penddraig: because its wrong to stroke anothermans rubarb
penddraig: or play with his misses
i_sturrock: I’m not sure you can measure quality of personhood on such superficial grounds as these morals things.
penddraig: its just not done
i_sturrock: That’s just not true.
i_sturrock: It’s not supposed to be done…
i_sturrock: …but people do it all the time
penddraig: yes. they are called bad people
i_sturrock: Like drink driving, or taking drugs, or tax fiddling.
i_sturrock: I don’t call them bad people unless they’ve been unethical.
penddraig: ah
penddraig: well bad morals is unethical
penddraig: cos is unethical to mess with another mans woman.. :oP
i_sturrock: Morals and ethics have no connection whatsoever.
i_sturrock: Men can’t own women.

So, as can be seen, although I believe that men can’t own women (whereas you seem to disagree, given that you use the phrase “another man’s woman” and seem to regard her as owned by him much like his rhubarb would be…) and I believe that in certain circumstances — so long as ethical behaviour is followed — it’s OK to have a relationship with someone who is already in a marriage or relationship, the two are not directly connected; both seem self-evident to me.

That should be “its shape” surely?

Apostrophe Police.

Socially inept? A pariah at parties? Physically repulsive to the point that your own parents shield their eyes when they catch sight of you? Find yourself staring into space searching for a purpose or something to kill time before you have to go to work the next day? Then The Apostrophe Police need you! Join our network of worthless pedants and find a reason to live, albeit a pretty pointless one.

Person 2 would indeed be talking bollocks, if that was what I’d said, but it wasn’t — see my reply to Wayne, below. 🙂

Shuuuush :0)

Person 2’s identity is being kept secret, for scientific purposes

i thought you where against cuting and pasting conversations that are private , this is the second time you have done it.

and you also have appeared to read to much into the pharse “another man’s woman”

as ownship is not implied just used in the concept of the lady being the other persons girlfriend , spouse or life partner!!!!

Take Care

Pete

Nope. I never claim that a bloke owns a woman.

But use the term “another man’s woman” is used as in names’s wife.. or name’s girlfriend.. Not showing that the woman is owned by the man. but as a descriptive term saying they are together..

and its easier to type than.. messing with a woman who is in a relationship with a man of her choice..

Hummm… I believe I got told off for posting a private conversation to someone not on the original viewing list..

And I never actually mentioned names :0) was supposed to be a simple question.

If a private conversation is being misrepresented, I will cut and paste the whole thing so that the misrepresentation is no longer possible.

The use of the phrase “another man’s woman” includes the possessive “‘s” which does indeed imply ownership. There’s no indication that Wayne is concerned to avoid breaking up a relationship; just that his morals say it’s bad form to touch another man’s property. That’s up to him of course.

He owned her in the same way he owned his rhubarb, didn’t he?

It may have been a simple question, but it was based on a false premise, since I didn’t actually say what you attributed to Person 2.

err you also cut off my reply to

i_sturrock: Men can’t own women.

where i state “not in a property kinda way.. but a persons misses is like his.. and should not be played with

I dunno, I think she was saying that you and I are made for each other. 😉

Oops! Sorry — that was written after I’d said I had to go, and I didn’t scroll down past that. My bad.

I still think that “a person’s missus is like his” demonstrates that you *do* think of this in an ownership kind of way, despite your claims. If she’s “his”, how can she be her own?

i_sturrock: Morals and ethics have no connection whatsoever.

Surely “ethics” can be defined as “The science of morals in human conduct”? That suggests that there is at least some slight connection between ethics and morals? Even a simple Google search on “ethics definition” provides examples like “a set of moral principles. The study of morality” and “system or code of morals of a particular religion, group, or profession”.

So morals and ethics seem to be connected. Please explain what you mean by your statement?

Err you are crediting me with the english knowledge of apostrophe and possessive stuff..

I never actually did that stuff in english due to going to a crap school. so you cannot use fancy english terms and applying hidden meaning in them

There’s no hidden meaning at all. “A man’s woman” is possessive just in the same way that “a man’s automobile” or “a man’s trousers” are possessive; that’s ordinary usage both in conversation and when written down….

Oh, the rhubarb comment was actually a film quote.. (10 points for the name of the film?)

Err.. you are taking the ‘ in it to mean possessive :0)

I never understood the ‘s s’ ‘ s stuff, as its never been explained to me. so i just type and stuff appears.. I say stuff like a mans wife.. as in its his wife.. I never use the possessive ness of stuff..

like apparantly “my wife” or “my girlfriend” is possesive as i am getting a lesson on grammer now. yet if i was married i would possibly say “my wife” not meaning the possesiveness of her, but as a statement that she was married to me.

when it boils two timing someone you love is unfair,even if you have permission from your partner.

Hey I got shouted at for being two timing scum in my girlfriend’s dream (“that is my girlfriend as in the one i am dating.”).

ok that is a my poetic license there as ishe told be that she woke up narked about having the dream and was not best pleased.

So there you have it.
I may have wondered of the point but who cares i do it anyway.

next week i do an English Course …. thanks Fozzy

The real moral issue comes into play when the cheated party refers to you as his ‘bro’, isn’t that right Wayne dearest? ;op

I believe everyone should be forgiven one medium sized soul staining experience in their lives.. And thats mine.!!

Yes, I should have ended the relationship when i discovered that two people I trusted had been lying to me for the past several months, and she was not in fact single. Yes had I been a stronger or better person I would have walked away then, I would have ignored her friends telling me she was saying that she was just waiting for the right time to tell him it was over so she could be with me.. I should have ignored it all and had a cleaner soul..

But its my one mistake, and the one thing in my life i truly regret.. But hey, even I am not 100% perfect..

but it proves my point.. Playing with another mans woman is wrong.. (and thats not in a possessive/ownership kinda meaning of mans.)

with reference to boxing or indeed keeping people in a jar, id like to take this opportunity to remind you all of the cat in a jar which im sure at somepoint we have all laughed at (http://www.bonsaikitten.com/) at this time i havent been able to find a jar big enuff for the adult female, i have however tried it with celothene but unfortunatly the test subject expired due to suffocation, future experiments have been halted pending the susequent investigation into this unfortunate accident, im sure when the police release my documentation pertaining to the trials we will be back on track and soon have the soloution to all your problems.

plese not we can not be held responsibal for any damage or expiration caused to subjects by using these methods of containment, for further details call 0800 killthemrs and ask for freaky jason.

also please excuse my spelling on the above post, i put this down to rushing for a pee break, i appologise if i caused any confusion with said grammar and in future will be sure to chek mmy speleengs wif i diktonery.

mont thencs
stylee

thats the second time you did that!!

You keep insisting i am saying something i am not because of the possessive apostrophes.. yet you are adding them yourself! cos they not there in the original post!!!

I say “penddraig: cos is unethical to mess with another mans woman.. :oP”

you type “A man’s woman”

I say “penddraig: where i state “no tin a property kinda way.. but a persons misses is like his.. and should not be played with”

You post “a person’s missus is like his” notice the extra ‘

At the end of the day if you love someone why would you want to share an intimate moment with anyone else.

HJW

I’m correcting your grammar — there’s no word “mans” in English, it would be “man’s”. More than one man is “men” not “mans”. Likewise “persons” refers to more than one person; if you’re using it in the context of “a person’s missus” it needs an apostrophe.

I figured it was politer to just correct your grammar and spelling as I went, rather than saying:

penddraig: cos (sic) is (sic) unethical to mess with another mans (sic) woman.. :oP
penddraig: no tin (sic) a property kinda way.. but a persons (sic) misses (sic) is like his.. (sic) and should not be played with

If you love someone, why would you want to restrict them, and not allow them to share an intimate moment with anyone else? If you love someone, why should you not be capable of loving more than one person at once? If you love someone, shouldn’t you be capable of trusting them to shag other people without worrying that they’re going to end their relationship with you? If you love someone, wouldn’t it be better to come to some arrangement whereby you both get your extra-relationship sexual needs satisfied in a mutually agreeable way, rather than the more traditional British way of pretending to be eternally faithful then shagging other people behind their back?

I’m not at this point saying that everyone should practice consensual non-monogamous relationships — it’s all horses for courses after all. But I absolutely refute the ill-thought-out notion that love should imply monogamy.

Dear Anonymous,

I was simplifying somewhat, using a kind of shorthand I’ve found helpful.

When I refer to ethics, I refer to Utilitarian ethics and Egoist ethics, and the intersection between the two that would form the basis for the interpersonal interactions of a society structured from the bottom up, i.e. predicated on the notion that an individual is a sovereign entity in him- or herself, beholden to none and ruled by none until such time as s/he chooses to enter an ethical contract with another individual or group.

I don’t refer to Intuitive ethics which are probably the closest to morals; to my mind, the term “morals” is best reserved for moral dictates handed down from a (usually) religious group or (sometimes) from other traditions, dictates that are not explainable or logical but “this is what we do because God tells us to” or “this is what we do because this is what we’ve always done.” I would think that Wayne’s “morals” fit this definition, given the way he refers to non-monogamy: “its (sic) just not done”.

but your point was I was saying the woman was the property of the bloke because of the ‘s :0)

so should be correcting my bad grammer not actually trying to find other meanings to what i typed, which i didnt do :0)

p.p.s. still no appology

There’s only one meaning to what you typed; the possessive one. The lack of an apostrophe doesn’t take anything away from that meaning, as I’ve said repeatedly but am not going to say again.

I’ve also said that I don’t believe an apology is necessary, but if you insist, I will accept your apology gracefully.

No there are two meanings..

1)My meaning as in what i believe and what I was saying

2)Your meaning, as is what you decided I meant by using grammar different to that which I use. (and you moan about people misrepresenting you??)

As for the apology I was referring to the one you owe me. Since If you can tell me off for informing someone of stuff that was posted onto a sit where several dozen people had access to (ie. its wrong to do)..
Then actually posting a private conversation on the internet for all to read is obviously much more wrong.. Hence apology due :oP

Meanings, I’m not going to repeat myself.

Apologies, as I said upthread in a reply to Pete but will not say again, if anyone posts a supposedly summarised extract from a chat which is misleading, I will feel entirely within my rights to post the actual chatlog so as to ensure that anyone reading has the full story rather than a doctored extract.

I have just read through the posts in the thread.

And at no point do you offer any apologies.. Or if you do, you’ve written it in a way that I cant find it.. Which post of yours has this apology in it?

I’m not going to apologise, because as I pointed out to Pete above, I am entirely justified.

ok.

I understand.

Its wrong to copy a small bit of information from an internet posting that several dozen people have access to.

But its ok to post a private conversation between two people on the internet for anyone to read..

As long as you use the excuse that its to stop yourself being misrepresented, when you are not mentioned or being represented at all, and then just argue for the sake of arguing by misrepresenting the other person by interpreting the meaning to suit your own point of view, and to allow for a pointless argument that you seem to like ( ie.. is it a stoat or a weasel.. )

I understand it all now. I was dealing with it like a normal person. I forgot to deal with life as if I was an egotistical, self-centered person. I should have realized that the rules are.. 1) if its done against you it is wrong. 2) if you do it its ok..

so you dont owe me an apology, but you was in the wrong for telling me off when I did it, because I did it so it was ok.. :0)

Confusing rules. But i’m getting the hang of it

I was being misrepresented — just not by name. Given your circle of friends, though, it would not have been too hard to figure out that it was me you were misrepresenting.

Anyway, whether it’s a stoat or a weasel is clearly not pointless to either the stoat or the weasel in question.