Nymphae
Banned
The example doesn't work for what? I'm just curious how the more sexually progressive people feel about this case as it pertains to not caring what consensual adults do with each other.
Vice: I Asked Cucks Why They’re Obsessed With Watching Their Partners Cheat
- Thread starter DeepEnigma
- Start date
The example doesn't work for what? I'm just curious how the more sexually progressive people feel about this case as it pertains to not caring what consensual adults do with each other.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
I think cannibalism is outlawed germany.
Also an aside, I wanted to reread the case and:
cryptoadam
Banned
Because your example was extreme and involved someone killing and eating someone. There is a world of difference between someone sleeping with your SO and murdering and eating someone. Your taking a huge leap from sex to cannibalism, just way to much of a leap for your analogy to work. I mean seriously who is going to support cannibalism?
Marshmallow
Banned
What he should have asked is why right wings are so obsessed with the word "cuck".
Cybrwzrd
Banned
That is easy, it is used as a put down of weak men who give up their position to allow someone who the weak man thinks is better than them to take what is theirs.
Nymphae
Banned
But the logic is the same, no? They are consenting adults, no one else is being harmed. This should be acceptable if both parties desired it and no one (aside from the consenting adults) was harmed, right?
Last edited:
Cybrwzrd
Banned
What's wrong with the outcome? Weirdo got eaten and sicko went to jail? Net gain for humanity.
edit - I am all for consenting adults to do whatever they want with one another. Provided that they also accept whatever consequences that come with it. So cucks get emasculated by society and cannibals go to prison.
Last edited:
Kamina
Golden Boy
Someone was killed and eaten. That means someone was harmed. Killing someone is against the law in most countries, so this is also aga nst the law, no matter the way it came to be.
DS_Joost
Member
Know what, I've cooled down and am ready for another round. To begin with, this is what I was talking about the whole time. You sir, are a gentleman of the highest order. This is a well thought out and rational response. I'm not here trying to get people to change their minds regardings kinks, fetishes and the like. I'm not trying to get people to prescribe to my lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with getting a very specific resonance as to what I am doing. I completely understand that and can empathize with that. I might be different from the norm, and I know that. But different from the norm says nothing of my sanity, or my wife's, or the other one. We are completely consensual in what we do, have considered all the possible outcomes and decided to go for it. It's not about lust, either. It's not because I get to stick my dingus in another woman. Been there done that. In fact, the open relationship we had is closed now. We are happy, have done what we wanted, and decided to move on. I know about the emotional fallout that can occur. As with any relationship, it is always a risk. Considering the percentage of people divorcing, I wouldn't rate our chance any higher. Like others have said, a relationship and a marriage is a pact. The contents of that pact can very between people. None are right, none are wrong. For me, when discussing true love, there is no baseline. Some strictly like just one other person, some people happen to come across the fact that another person has entered their lives and is as much a part of us as the other.
What you say about the resonance I find very honestly worded. I had hoped more people would be honest in saying they just don't know instead of saying they're right just because. There's no wrong in admitting you don't know why you feel a certain thing. Certainly doesn't make the feeling any less, or any less valid. You say you can't explain. You don't have to. You feel what you feel, and accept that I feel what I feel. Also, about your religious comment. I get you. I have made the decision to be strictly of a scientific mind, therefore I must forever be sceptical of the existence of a god. Yet I have many religious friends with whom I have many wonderful discussions and conversations. We feed off each other because we are different. It is always good to try and see the other side and not just brush it off as being false or stupid. In my mind, knowledge comes from various places, as does experience and growth. Only sticking to your side of the conversation stifles growth, both for the individual and for society as a whole. What is worrying to me is that, even though I know Neogaf isn't exactly a representation of society, too many members are really one sided in their beliefs, opinions and knowledge, and outright refuse to listen to people who might think differently than them
You do, however, and for that, I congratulate you.
Last edited:
Marshmallow
Banned
Yeah, by alpha males who spend their day on incel or /pol/. Truly the peak male form.
infinitys_7th
Member
TBH, incels are probably more manly than a guy filming taint-side of the bull plowing his wife, like in the OP pic.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Well it seems to be an effective slur, cause it gets under people's skin. I mean you are literally posting in a thread about real cucks about your own personal butthurt over the right calling people cucks.
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
I'm just curious where the line is drawn for people who say "it's none of my business, the consenting parties wanted this."
I understand what you're saying obviously (and think those are great laws lol!), but I'm not satisfied that response defeats the the logic. Yes our current laws make this sort of thing illegal, but again, who are we, or the law, to tell two consenting people, who are not involving other people at all, what they can do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes?
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
In my opinion, let them do it. I don't care. As long as the other is taken into custody later for being batshit insane and being a danger to the people around him. I mean, the other has been taken care of. If killers want to kill each other, and no one else gets hurt, let them have at it. There is however, a line to draw between weird or different (what we are talking about here) or batshit insane. The two are in no way comparable.
Last edited:
Cybrwzrd
Banned
If you want to get meta, no one can tell anyone what they can or cannot do. Just that if you do something, there are consequences for it cause society has decided that it is wrong. You literally can't prevent people from doing all kinds of sick and depraved shit. Most people are not willing to pay the consequences society has laid out for them though, and the ones who do shit are are narcissistic enough to think they are able to get away with it, or don't care.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
Well clearly the line is EATING ANOTHER PERSON. Sorry your analogy is completely disingenuous. You are comparing sexual activity with KILLING SOMEONE and then EATING THEM.
Again your leap from consensual sex to murder and cannibalism is just to much of a leap to work with the point you are trying to prove.
DS_Joost
Member
Apparently, people who are engaging in cuckholding are so insane that they are comparable to cannibalists. If this continues to be the state of discussion in this thread, I think we might better close it off because in no way are we going to get anywhere decent.
Nymphae
Banned
I'm not comparing them at all. Clearly canabalism is far worse. I'm using the logic that people are using here (things other consenting adults do is no one else's business, provided no one else is harmed) to justify it in the same way. The only thing I've heard so far is "well canabalism is EXTREME AND SUPER BAD, and it's illegal!", none of which disputes the facts that no one was being harmed outside of the two individuals who wanted this to take place, and thus, this should be acceptable to people who claim to not care what other consenting adults do with eachother.
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
You present a logical fallacy here: Two people consenting in privacy isn't hurting anyone so it is acceptable. The cannibalism was done under consent in privacy. Therefore cannibalism is acceptable...
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
Right. I'm saying that people who say "things consenting adults do with eachother that do not harm anyone else are none of my business", must also logically accept this activity between two consenting adults. No?
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
Again the same logical fallacy. You equate people not caring about what people do in their private homes to people not caring about anything at all. Of course we do. There is a line to be drawn here. This thread is about cuckholding, which is on a totally different level than cannibalism. Stop trying to force your illogical fallacy into this discussion. It is derailing it and not adding anything, and my feeling is that you know exactly why but refuse to accept the answer given to you by many people many times, because you don't want to admit. Your logic is disingenious and you know it.
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
Agreed, yet I've just justified them both the same way.
DS_Joost
Member
Keep dreaming buddy.
Justifying by a false logic isn't justifying at all. What you do is a beautiful example of Hitchen's razor, and you're on the wrong end of it.
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
Where is the flaw in the logic though, I'm genuinely trying to understand. When does "they are consenting adults that didn't harm anyone else" not apply?
DS_Joost
Member
Because not all examples are treated equal. Plus you go too deep into semantics. Does ''I love everyone'' literally equate that I should literally love everyone? People better watch they're tongues then...
I don't care what people do in their homes does not mean I approve of cannibalism, even within their own home.
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
I would like to offer a counterargument to the idea that "it isn't harmful, therefore why should we interfere?"
Part of our responsibility to the human species is to pass down tools and frameworks to the next generation to help them survive and thrive. We want our children to have good lives and for the social structure to support that effort. Obviously, nothing is perfect and we cannot always hold back just because it might negatively effect another group. In this case, society is normalizing and turning a blind eye to the breakdown of the monogamous relationship, something we've successfully used to build societies since pre-history. Monogamy has helped both men and women, though it has also been used as leverage to oppress.
Sexual freedom has allowed many people to better express themselves and find deeper satisfaction in their relationships, that much is obvious. But it doesn't mean that all sexual freedom is therefore an inherent good. You can take things too far. Things can go from "fetish" to "deviancy" with long-term consequences that do not immediately show up. I'd argue that cuckoldry is one such case.
Now, if you're rolling your eyes and thinking "not another outcry asking me to 'think of the children'", I can respect that. I just think it's worth exploring whether or not "does not immediately harm or seem to cause short-term harm" as our sole criterion is going to result in the best future for our species.
For context, this "do no harm" line of thinking has prevented us from breaking away from fossil fuels. "It's not literally killing the planet today, so why worry?"
Part of our responsibility to the human species is to pass down tools and frameworks to the next generation to help them survive and thrive. We want our children to have good lives and for the social structure to support that effort. Obviously, nothing is perfect and we cannot always hold back just because it might negatively effect another group. In this case, society is normalizing and turning a blind eye to the breakdown of the monogamous relationship, something we've successfully used to build societies since pre-history. Monogamy has helped both men and women, though it has also been used as leverage to oppress.
Sexual freedom has allowed many people to better express themselves and find deeper satisfaction in their relationships, that much is obvious. But it doesn't mean that all sexual freedom is therefore an inherent good. You can take things too far. Things can go from "fetish" to "deviancy" with long-term consequences that do not immediately show up. I'd argue that cuckoldry is one such case.
Now, if you're rolling your eyes and thinking "not another outcry asking me to 'think of the children'", I can respect that. I just think it's worth exploring whether or not "does not immediately harm or seem to cause short-term harm" as our sole criterion is going to result in the best future for our species.
For context, this "do no harm" line of thinking has prevented us from breaking away from fossil fuels. "It's not literally killing the planet today, so why worry?"
DS_Joost
Member
Your post is good, except for one historical mistake... strict monogamy hasn't been part of it for most of it. It is a relatively recent thing. Being married to one person is a better wording. Because Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and monogamy isn't exactly what I would say in one sentence... Let alone prehistoric times...
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
I'm just saying dude, I've literally heard people try to justify incest, pedophilia, and canabalism with this exact logic, and if you agree with the premise that you have no business interfering with things that "don't harm other people", I don't see how you tell them they're wrong.
You can literally see people come to these conclusions. One of the first posters who replied to me said:
This is strange to me, and I think this is what happens when people place too much emphasis on not wanting to rock the boat, not wanting to judge. This poster literally thinks this logic is sound.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
The planet will be fine 6 billion years after humanity dies off. Well until the sun explodes.
DS_Joost
Member
Then those people need to get their heads checked, in my opinion. My point still stands. If I say that I don't care what people do in their homes, I do not literally mean they can do anything. It's a figure of speech, man. Don't be so dense. Or are you being dense for the sake of it? I have no idea...
Last edited:
5secondrulesucks
Banned
"dad im a cuck"
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Damn son I had no idea! Dude how did your family take it that your gf takes it from another dude?
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
I think this is a misconception of the history of those cultures. Orgies and plurality of partners was perhaps something enjoyed by the wealthy and well-off, but it wasn't done by common folk. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that these cultures were "open" to polyamorous relationships (save for their elite, which I mentioned above) when passing on a direct descendent was a major part of Chinese, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, N. African, and virtually every indigenous and tribal culture that we know of. Monogamy helps guarantee a "true" descendent. So do harems of women. Monogamy plus concubines was the initial compromise, and then it moved to just monogamy.
I certainly don't believe that just because something was done in the past means that it is right or wrong today, either. Maybe they were wrong about monogamy? I dunno, I think history proves the value of monogamy as well as its shortfalls. We've reached the point where we can deal with pretty much all of its shortfalls, so why chisel away at monogamy itself when it has offered so many benefits?
DS_Joost
Member
Also that poster didn't say that. Stop trying to put words in people's mouths. He's not saying he's okay with it. He is okay with the principle, not with the act.
DS_Joost
Member
I think the history books are quite hypocritical about monogamy, for the most part. Heck, the religions of the Greeks and Romans is even designed to support polygamy, as it was a flaw of humanism. A flaw that even the Gods had. You quite literally had a divine excuse to do stick your dingus elsewhere.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
Gods were portrayed as huge dicks that did horrible things though...
Cybrwzrd
Banned
I'm sure they brought him over to Thanksgiving with them. His parents had a surprise for him as well, Javier, his mother's bull for the past 25 years, and his biological father. Javier and his bull took turns tag teaming his mother and girlfriend, while "father" and son had a beer in the garage.
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
Which basically meant that you yourself had an excuse to be a huge dick. A divine excuse.
Nymphae
Banned
I quoted him, he said in theory he agreed with the statement. I didn't say he was ok with it, did I?
DS_Joost
Member
Do you know the words ''in theory''? Shit man... just... stop it... it's getting cringy.
Last edited:
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
This prob already happened somewhere.
Gods were known to be random monsters then not something to emulate (I'm prob wrong here) not that the greeks and romans weren't into doing other...things with animals and the like. Ugh that whole civilization :/
Nymphae
Banned
What words came before that though?
My whole point was that he is saying he is ok with the logic of it. I wasn't saying he was ok with the canabalism thing. He didn't refute the logic, indeed, he said in theory he agrees with it.
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
That whole civilization sure wasn't build on very wonderful moral grounds, so I doubt monogamy would be upheld religiously...
DS_Joost
Member
Right to the extreme... and?
Again, principle and act. In theory and practically. Mighty difference there. Are you a troll?
Last edited:
Nymphae
Banned
How can you not read his post and see that he said "in theory I'm ok with it". He wasn't refuting the logic. I didn't claim he is ok with the acts. Merely that he finds the logic "ok in theory".
Last edited:
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Greco-Roman beliefs were quite humanistic, and the god's follies were meant to be tales of morality.
It isn't like Yahweh was all that good of a god either. Yahweh made Joseph into a total cuck.
DS_Joost
Member
He was literally saying that in theory the logic COULD apply but in practical terms it really wouldn't fly.
So yes if you want to believe there is a sliver of an agreement with the logic you applied. A mighty tiny sliver.
Are you the type that, when somebody says there is only a 0.000001 percent change of winning, you would say ''So there is a chance!''
Mother of god you are denser than a black hole...
Last edited:
DS_Joost
Member
This made me spill my drink. Thank you!
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Yes, and over the past 2000 years we have moved away from that, specifically in the West.
I am not disagreeing that polygamy and polyamory and extra-marital relationships were unheard of or unacceptable in all cultures throughout history. I just think there's an obvious progression from societies where women were viewed as breeders to where they were viewed as equal partners in the raising of society, and monogamy played a central role in that phenomenon.
Nymphae
Banned
No lol, let's quote him again so we can understand better.
So, we have
1) I'm ok with the logic that two consenting adults activities are none of my business if they aren't harming anyone, BUT
2) I'm not sure how it could be proven the eaten was sane.
3) 2 examples of proofs of soundness of mind that the poster wouldn't accept
I'm still seeing him agree in point 1 that the logic is sound provided the people are sane. Which was really my only point regarding this poster. That he didn't refute the premise.
Edit: Also, tone it down on the personal attacks, I'm not insulting you and I'd appreciate the same in return.
Last edited: