Write Review
2,074,032 Total Reviews 3,950 New Reviews
8,772 Users Online

TER General Board

C. Because there is more to it within the first two choices. e.
JoelGoodsen 1778 reads
posted
1 / 21
Let's try this: Who do you find more morally reprehensible

I know -- two wrongs don't make a right, but based on the post a little bit below, play along if you will:

You can choose only one of three answers:
a. A spouse who withholds sex in a marriage and expects their spouse to remain faithful?
b. A spouse who has sex outside of marriage because their spouse refuses to have sex with them?
c. I can't answer unless I know more about the couple's situation, so I really shouldn't judge what other people do until I know more.

 
I like to think of this as a rhetorical quiz

1705218 10 Reviews 570 reads
posted
2 / 21
my answer is C

Even then I wouldn't hold either of them "morally reprehensible"

nom_de_plume 694 reads
posted
3 / 21
I can't "play" because...

... your survey forces participants to eventually label one of the spouses morally reprehensible.  

Another reason I don't choose to provide an answer is that you don't want an answer, as this is a rhetorical quiz.  Why someone would start a thread with a question to which he doesn't expect answers seems odd to me, but it could just be me and my warped view of what a discussion board is all about.

hbyist+truth=;( 475 reads
posted
4 / 21
C. Because there is more to it within the first two choices. e.


END OF MESSAGE

JoelGoodsen 503 reads
posted
5 / 21
Well, we throw the term 'cheating around like it's a baseball

and that's a pretty loaded term that suggests, at least to me, moral reprehensibility when people take the moral high ground to condemn others as cheaters without knowing more.  So, the question may be rhetorical to me, but perhaps not to others who may have preconceived notions etched in black and white.   I've just been seeing a lot of holier than thou being tossed around by people on a fuck board of late, but why not I suppose - speech is free.    



-- Modified on 8/1/2015 12:15:41 PM

mrfisher 115 Reviews 549 reads
posted
6 / 21
I don't find any of those reprehensible, per se....

It's just the way people are.

If you want reprehensible however, checkout the pop-psych blurb below.

Guys:  Which of these types describes you the best?

For my part, I guess the cheater, but I'm motivated by a need for being loved, not for betraying
Related Link: Ain't we stinkers?

GaGambler 602 reads
posted
7 / 21
I have NEVER called it " morally reprehensible"

But trying to claim its not "cheating" is rather ridiculous to me. Maybe it's justifiable cheating in some cases. Or at least it can be rationalized that way, but lets be honest here, it's still cheating if you are doing it behind your spouses back

JackDunphy 518 reads
posted
8 / 21
You nailed this on the head yesterday.

If your SO would be ok with what you are doing, it's not cheating. If you are doing shit out of sight because you are afraid of his/her response, you are cheating.

All this handwringing johns do here on this topic is quite comical and illogical to me. They want to cheat and they want a reason that allows them to sleep at night to boot.  

If you are a cheater, no need to rationalize, just own it.  

I, like you, come and go on these boards at times based on whether or not I am in a committed relationship. If I see a gal for a few dates, I will still whore monger until it is clear we are seeing each other exclusively. At that point, I stop seeing hookers.

That's just the way I roll. Others are free to handle their situations any which way they please, but I wanna puke when I see some guys say there marriage is "better" because they are paying hookers to fk. My, how convenient of an attitude.

If you can't tell your SO what you are up to, that's a major red flag as it isn't better for him/her, in that scenario. It may be better for YOU (pl), sure, as you get your cake and eat it too, but it's not better for the marriage, imo.

Like I said yesterday, if your SO came to you and admitted an affair, would you buy her busllshit how it made the marriage better? Would anyone who believes in monogamy? That line of thinking is fkin laughable.

rrasha88 See my TER Reviews 504 reads
posted
9 / 21
The Vatican is quite clear on this issue.

Consorting with a prostitute is only morally reprehensible if you negotiate a lower rate.

nom_de_plume 432 reads
posted
10 / 21
When you tell the women you're dating...

... but not yet in a committed relationship with that you p4p, what's their response?

Or do you wait until you're in the committed relationship to tell them about how you saw "hookers" while you were dating?

Also, do you think "paying hookers to fk" makes your relationships with your girlfriends better, or worse?

Just curious.

JackDunphy 419 reads
posted
11 / 21
Seems I have struck a raw nerve with you on this one.

I wonder why? LOL

You are clearly confused, and no shock why as your spiritual leader on these matters resides in the Vatican. LOL

It's none of the civies girls business who I see before them, or after them, so your point, if there was one, is moot.

I can tell you this. If I was seeing a hooker at the same time I was dating a civie girl exclusively, I wouldn't wussy up about it and try to convince myself it was "better" for all parties.

Check with your beloved Catholic Church on this matter and get back to me.  

I am sure they will give you special "dick-spensation" to fk hookers and not have to tell your wife. But only on Fridays during Lent. LOL

JackDunphy 466 reads
posted
12 / 21
You'll have to take this up with NDP. He follows all the dictates of the man with the pointy hat. L

And by "all", of course I mean "some." LOL

nom_de_plume 654 reads
posted
13 / 21
I see those were difficult questions for you to answer.

So I'll give you another chance. Here's what you said above:  "If you are doing shit out of sight because you are afraid of his/her response, you are cheating."

You say you don't tell your girlfriends--ever--that you are/were doing p4p while dating them.  That seems to be "shit out of sight".  So please enlighten us... if you don't think there's anything wrong with "fking hookers" while you're dating civvy women, why not fess up about it?  Is it because you're afraid of what their response will be?  Maybe it won't be something like, "Oh, Jack, you're such a stud muffin!"

No... I don't think I'm the one confused here. But I'm a bit confused as to your new-found interest in the Catholic Church.  I know how you can get into an RCIA program if you're interested.--let me know.

JackDunphy 492 reads
posted
14 / 21
What part of "IF you are in a committed relationship" don't you understand?

When I am, I don't fk hookers. When am I not in a committed relationship I fk who I want when I want and I don't have to concern myself with this twisted up, mangled up logic you want to lay out.

I'll tell you what. Run your problem by your priest. I hear they are experts in illegal relationships. LOL

And contrary to popular belief, they are not ALL in jail. Many got paroled early and the statute of limitations saved others from ever going in the first place.

Report back to us and tell us if he agrees with you or me. :D

nom_de_plume 525 reads
posted
15 / 21
It's YOUR logic. I was only trying to learn if it applies to you also.

I got my answer. Thanks!

-- Modified on 8/1/2015 3:41:19 PM

JackDunphy 461 reads
posted
16 / 21
The priest got back to you THAT fast?

Is it because a lot of the flock are on vacation and he has nothing else to do or is it because so many had the common sense to leave the church after all the evil it perpetuated and he is never busy any more?  

Can I get an amen???

lordchesterfield 2 Reviews 477 reads
posted
17 / 21
My rhetorical answer...all of the above....eom


END OF MESSAGE

EmmaBlairDC See my TER Reviews 422 reads
posted
18 / 21
(a) might be about control

I have a theory that the withholding spouse in situation (a) is controlling.  She is always in charge of the sex.  He initiates and she's the one who says yes or no.  

On the other hand, hardly anyone would openly agree to letting their spouse have sex with someone else.  I think they would be afraid it would ultimately lead to divorce, or some upsetting of their comfortable lifestyle.  

In the end, the withholding spouse doesn't know (or doesn't care) how painful it is for the high-libido spouse to go without sex.  Usually honesty is always best, but I think in some situations the withholding spouse would rather the husband get his needs met without making her either acknowledge that she is failing him, or have to change her behavior to please him.

ANaturalBeauty See my TER Reviews 582 reads
posted
19 / 21
Most definitely C...

...but I don't think it's really our right to pass judgement even if we do know more about the couple's situation. I can't say I wouldn't be hurt, but I most definitely wouldn't be surprised if my hypothetical spouse was seeking some intimacy outside our marriage because I REFUSED to have sex with him. I mean...think of what that could do to someone's sense of worth, and not just sexually, if his or her spouse refused to have sex with them. I would imagine it would be devastating. Also, I know people stay in sexless marriages for any number of reasons; stability, normalcy, and if I'm being a little less sensitive, not wanting to give up half of their possessions.  

Honestly, I get it.

And withholding sex from one's spouse seems to me like a really awful thing to do in the first place, depending on the situation of course. In a relatively "normal" marriage, where neither party really has an emotional or physical reason for withholding sex, that's almost...malicious.

scb19 10 Reviews 402 reads
posted
20 / 21
c...eom

nm

IndirahDarkRaven 319 reads
posted
21 / 21
My Answer is C

I know of couples that this has happened to and they are now divorced.

Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!