(January 8, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then I guess it's a good thing the wife and I had that conversation...

So where did you draw the line?

Quote:Admit to? It's a lap dance, what is there to admit?

As it would be rape if you weren't paying for it, you must be buying more than a lap dance.

Quote:Meh, half clever - so gratz...but you're still the man who doubts his own fidelity, and when we're done trading barbs that won't have changed.

Neither will the fact that I doubt because I maintain a higher bar than you.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: Yep.

Nope.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: And most people.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your point remains invalid.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: It sounds like there's a unanimous consensus that marriage is to be a union, and the strippers weren't there at the ceremony, so they're not part of the union.

Unless those who enact the union later desire to bring them into it in some way.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: Yes, out of billions of people, I'm sure there are a few, but I gave it a pass, so you don't need to harp on it.

Given the repetition of your verbiage? Yes, apparently, I do.
Also, out of billions of people, marriage is defined differently. I'm only referring to marriage within the US, as it's the one I am most familiar with. In which case we refer to about three hundred million but honestly, at that point I'm just splitting hairs...

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 8:39 pm)whateverist Wrote: Personally I've always found the greatest fault lies with the people who fret over what is wrong with other people. That makes you different than me but I would never claim that what annoys me is the gold standard for assigning fault in others.

The revisionist history going on here is amusing.

I made a post about myself:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30581-po...#pid833542

All that I said regarding other people is "no one's perfect," which surely isn't controversial.

Aaactually, that's not-so-subtly suggesting that there is something wrong with others' definitions of marriage and the directions that they take with them. Sure, that's not what you said verbatim, but the sting of the wasp doesn't need to be lethal for it to hurt.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: Then Losty came on and told what's wrong with me and/or my wife:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30581-po...#pid833657
If your wife doesn't trust you it's something you need to work on. Either you've given her a reason not to trust you, or she has an unhealthy level of jealousy...

Key word: "If." Didn't notice that? Twice? Once upon reading it, once more upon quoting it? o_O She didn't tell you anything other than a hypothetical in the event that it happened to be true.

Awfully defensive about that, though. A certain Shakespearean quote about protesting comes to mind. I'm just saying, you seem have a tendency to hide meanings behind things left unspoken but nevertheless suggested in their own little ways. Not an uncommon thing, though. Sometimes people say things without even intending to.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: Funny that no one told her that my marriage is none of her business.

I imagine that if she had said "SINCE your wife doesn't trust you..." then, yes, that would actually probably be the case, and if it had not been, then you would have been vindicated in your claim of "revisionist history." As it stands though...that protest thing...mmm...

---

(January 8, 2015 at 6:04 pm)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Admit to? It's a lap dance, what is there to admit? As it would be rape if you weren't paying for it, you must be buying more than a lap dance.

Unless the girl just felt like giving him a lap dance. I don't see how either of these are connected. From a lap dance to rape. Amazing. You've achieved a new level of illogical connection, here.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Meh, half clever - so gratz...but you're still the man who doubts his own fidelity, and when we're done trading barbs that won't have changed.

Neither will the fact that I doubt because I maintain a higher bar than you.

Subjective claim. Invalid.

---

(January 8, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote: [quote='Rhythm' pid='838273' dateline='1420654515']
It doesn't matter, so long as my wife and I have the same ideas about that line, huh?

You can't agree to a line if you can't say what the line is.

Seems to me, so far, to be "having intercourse with another."

Are you truly so dense as to not grasp that implication?? Again, some things don't need to be explicitly stated for a meaning to be divined...unless you just simply lack the perception to divine those meanings...which seems to be the case with you, I'm noticing.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Do strippers offer their services for free where you come from?

I mean you can get the same from your wife. Why isn't she good enough for you?

Never heard of "look, don't touch," eh? Some people take it further; "look, but don't fuck."

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if I tried to extract services from a stripper without paying for them - it would be some manner of assault or rape. Just not my bag....and that's reason enough to me to pay the girl what she asks for.

If it would be rape, you must be doing more with them than you admit to. So where's that line?

"Some manner." Key words. Please read, stop being so literal, and stop blowing things out of proportion. If she's not being paid, and she's being forced to display herself and perform provocative actions, that is a form of sexual assault.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:No...it's an easy no. Again, I have no doubt, you do. If the only way you can explain this difference is to insert your own narrative into my life - you're a lost cause. I'm sorry, I just don't value the marriage advice of a man who doesn't know whether or not he would cheat on his wife when presented with some skin.

Says the man whose actions would be rape if not paid for.

*pinches the bridge of his nose* For fuck's sake. If she's being paid for it, and she accepts the money, she is doing it willingly. This is not some philosophical matter of freedom of choice; if she accepts the money, and it's the career path she opted to take, and has no qualms about doing it, it's not rape. The fact that she is paid for it, and accepts payment, and does it all willingly means it cannot by any means be considered rape.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Whatever strategy you're using, it clearly isn't working as well as mine.

As I only have sex - lots of it - with my wife, my strategy is clearly much better than yours.

And as he only has sex with his wife, and they both don't bother adhering to the unimaginative conservative puritan bullshit point of view that looking at another individual who is negative because they are confident in their sexuality with one another, it seems your strategy is actually not any better (but no worse, either) than his own. You're looking down at him...but you're looking at his shoes, because you're on equal footing here. He who bows his head concedes defeat. In this case, the defeat of your arrogant stance that you are superior in some way, when thus far, you've demonstrated nothing other an argumentum ad populum fallacy to back up your claim of that superiority; not exactly a castle built on pillars of steel, that.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 7, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Losty Wrote: Getting a lap dance is not having someone touch your dick. Not at all.

Wow, how do you figure that?

Perception. Do you have it? No, it seems, you do not. Anyone who has seen a lap dance knows that there is some contact, but the thing is, the man is typically wearing pants, possibly undergarments, and the stripper may or may not be wearing a thong/bikini/whateverthehell; meaning there is a contact barrier. If someone kicks me in the nuts, and I'm wearing pants, does that mean they touched my dick? No, it means they kicked me in the nuts. If someone reaches over and pokes me in the pants where my dick is concealed, does that mean they touched my dick? Not really. It means they poked me where my dick is, but actually touching it? Flesh did not contact flesh. Now...if they poked my dick and it was standing tall and free? Yup. That's definitely contact, because flesh met flesh. Unless they poked me with a fingernail. Then it's nail met flesh, but that'd still be bare contact, as the fingernail is a part of the human body.

Honestly, you're grasping at straws, and at this point, it would best behoove you to just admit you're not morally superior, because so far, you haven't demonstrated anything to objectively prove you are. And you never will. Wanna know why? Because morals are subjective, and so is the definition of marriage, despite you and your kind (religious types) attempting to state otherwise. Don't kid yourself on the belief that you guys "invented" marriage; Japanese people were getting married back in the time of the European dark ages. They didn't specifically call it marriage, but the concept was the same. The Native Americans had such a concept, and they didn't specifically call it marriage, but again, the concept was the same...and, in fact, they did not frown on the union of a man and another man, or a woman and another woman; they called them Two-Spirited, or Two-Spirit, and they were actually considered sacred. None of these groups had any contact with any Abrahamic faiths that defined their own version of such unions. Such bonding is biologically driven. Love is actually an evolutionary trait amongst our kind; bonding between two individuals a practice that comes natural in our species. Why that is, exactly, is currently unknown to me, as my knowledge of the particular subject regarding the biological drive of one-to-one bonding ends there, but I imagine some evolutionary biologist or another determined it at some point.

So, your claim of superiority is bunk, and your castle is made of sand. Just give up. You're embarrassing yourself.

(December 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: My wife keeps sucking the life out of me.

And you're complaining... why? Do you know how many guys would love if their wife went down on them from time to time?

Be thankful and say a prayer, because I've read somewhere in that book of yours that is she swallows during the act of oral sex she is partaking in cannibalism. Thank god, and praise allah your wife isn't a flesh eater!

(January 9, 2015 at 1:06 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your point remains invalid.

No, with regards to definitions, what most people think is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people hear this fallacy and charge it incorrectly, not considering its limitations.

Quote:Unless those who enact the union later desire to bring them into it in some way.

So far, marriage is considered a union of two people and two people only.

Quote:Aaactually, that's not-so-subtly suggesting that there is something wrong with others' definitions of marriage and the directions that they take with them. Sure, that's not what you said verbatim, but the sting of the wasp doesn't need to be lethal for it to hurt.

Key word: "If." Didn't notice that? Twice? Once upon reading it, once more upon quoting it? o_O She didn't tell you anything other than a hypothetical in the event that it happened to be true.

LOL...my general statement to no one in particular has the sting of a wasp, but Losty's direct comment regarding me and my wife shuold be ignored because of the "if." I find it amazing that you made those arguments back-to-back.

Quote:Awfully defensive about that, though.

No, actually I let it go for many pages, and only brought it up to show the hypocrisy of people who were complaining that others' marriage is none of my business.

Quote:I imagine that if she had said "SINCE your wife doesn't trust you..." then, yes, that would actually probably be the case, and if it had not been, then you would have been vindicated in your claim of "revisionist history." As it stands though...that protest thing...mmm...

None of her business means just that...none of her business, as in refraining from making hypotheticals.

Also note that she was more honest than you, and when this was noted she agreed her comments were not in accord with her own stated standards and apologized.

Quote:Subjective claim. Invalid.

Refraining from going to strip clubs is a higher bar than allowing them.

Quote:Seems to me, so far, to be "having intercourse with another."

With the comment that things he does with them might be considered rape if not paid for, I'm not sure about that any more.

Quote:Are you truly so dense as to not grasp that implication??

What's the logical implication of the rape comment?

Quote:Never heard of "look, don't touch," eh? Some people take it further; "look, but don't fuck."

I think you mean "look and touch, but don't fuck," and even that's in question with the rape comment.

Quote:"Some manner." Key words. Please read, stop being so literal, and stop blowing things out of proportion. If she's not being paid, and she's being forced to display herself and perform provocative actions, that is a form of sexual assault.

Yep, but it's probably not a form of rape. And regarding being literal, consider you "if" argument above. Please stop being so hypocritical.

Quote:Says the man whose actions would be rape if not paid for.

*pinches the bridge of his nose* For fuck's sake. If she's being paid for it, and she accepts the money, she is doing it willingly. This is not some philosophical matter of freedom of choice; if she accepts the money, and it's the career path she opted to take, and has no qualms about doing it, it's not rape. The fact that she is paid for it, and accepts payment, and does it all willingly means it cannot by any means be considered rape.[/quote]
Point is that it indicates that he's paying for more than the lap dance that he's admitted to. A lap dance wouldn't be rape if it weren't paid for.

Quote:And as he only has sex with his wife, and they both don't bother adhering to the unimaginative conservative puritan bullshit point of view that looking at another individual who is negative because they are confident in their sexuality with one another, it seems your strategy is actually not any better (but no worse, either) than his own. You're looking down at him...but you're looking at his shoes, because you're on equal footing here.

So why didn't you take him to task for starting this by disparagingly referring to others as puritans? Why didn't you tell him that he's looking down at me, but looking at my shoes, because we're on equal footing?

Because we aren't. Your fidelity is in doubt, mine is not. That's the only metric upon which I'm approaching our relative strategies in a relationship, and this situation is one that you, yourself, saw fit to lay claim to. Obviously, I prefer a strategy or relationship in which the potential for "cheating" isn't a concern of either party.

Just to lay the entirety of my end of this conversation out in a single post, to see if you have anything to say regarding any of it - rather than something to say about me, personally, in absolute ignorance of who I am..here you go.

Both you and I seem to be interested in building the same sort of relationship - one which is grounded in fidelity, love, and mutual respect.

In order to achieve this, I used a very simple strategy and required the same of my partner. I am frank and open about who I am, what I do, and what I expect. I fully acknowledge that I am attracted to females - regardless of whether she is a checkout girl or a stripper.

I do not attempt to "avoid temptation" because I see no practical way to do so. Women are not confined to strip clubs any more than "temptation" is. Instead, I refer to my growing respect and admiration for the women I married - which is pretty much the reason I married her to begin with.

It's easy for me to manage my end of this relationship because it was not built atop a foundation that required me to be something other than who and what I am, or deny some part of myself that plainly exists in order to succeed.

In short, I don't keep my dick in my pants because I ignore my thoughts or keep myself out o a position where I might have those thoughts, but because I keep them in mind...and those thoughts are "I love my wife regardless of whether or not other girls are pretty, and I wouldn't trade any amount of pussy, let alone two lips...for all that I have with my wife".

I'm skeptical of your strategy for some of the reasons above (regarding where one might find temptation, how one could avoid it, and also what "temptation" might somehow, who knows how... compel me to do) -but more than this...I;m skeptical of your strategy because you have explicitly stated that it does not yield the sort of confidence that I have in my own fidelity or my relationship. If I had engaged in this with the foundation you lay claim to, and had attempted to maintain it by avoidance - then I would likely be in the position that you are...which is a position that I do not want to be in.

So, there's all of that....or, you can keep wondering what I do with my dick that I don't tell you about to your hearts content. Questions....comments?

Gee..it's almost as if healthy relationships are built on a mutual understanding of agreed upon expected behavior that's different for every couple, rather than some rigid universal rubric that has been arbitrarily determined by some old book or single person.

Who knew?

I did try it your way once, btw, Alpha (because I was young and dumb..what's your excuse?)......it ended in divorce and I don't think that surprised anyone involved. It didn't work for me then, and it clearly isn't working for you now.

I thought I'd pitch in my opinion for what little it's worth.

I've been married for nearly three years now, and I have been with my wife exclusively (barring a short separation of about two months where neither of us were with other people) for about twelve years now. I am an atheist, and she has alternative beliefs as well so we don't base our marriage or behaviors on the Bible or anything else. Personally, I would not go to a strip club; I have no desire to visit one. If a person's spouse doesn't have any issues with that then it is really a non-issue. However, it's also a non-issue if a person doesn't want to go to a place like that for whatever reason. For me, it isn't about avoiding temptation. I know what I have waiting for me at home, and that's enough to squash any sort of temptation. But, it's unfair to judge someone because his/her wife/husband is completely fine with strip clubs, sex clubs, or whatever. No, I can't understand it personally, but if two consenting adults are cool with it then what the hell does it matter if I understand or not?

Rhythm is right about something: marriages are defined by people differently. As such, the behaviors of one married couple might not work for another. Some married couples are perfectly fine with "swinging" and others have expectations of one another not to engage in anything of the sort. It's all about finding what is optimal for you and your partner. There is no right way to manage a marriage; there is only your and your wife's way.

(January 9, 2015 at 9:38 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 1:06 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your point remains invalid.

No, with regards to definitions, what most people think is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people hear this fallacy and charge it incorrectly, not considering its limitations.

And how do you figure that? If something is not objectively defined by a common source, then it is up to subjective interpretation. And the point of marriage is not so universally agreed-upon as you claim, at any rate, and in fact, the definition of marriage "according to most" apparently seems to be the wrong one:

http://firstthings.org/whats-the-point-of-marriage

Quote:“What people seem to have forgotten is one very important element or purpose of marriage,” said Dr. Popenoe. “Throughout history, marriage has been viewed as a child rearing institution. As a society, we, like other modern societies, are drifting ever further from that understanding. While Americans aspire to marriage, they are evermore inclined to see it as an intimate relationship between adults rather than as a necessary social arrangement for rearing children. There is a robust body of research that indicates that children raised with their two, married biological parents (mother and father), who are in a low-conflict relationship, on the whole do much better in life than children raised in other family forms. To the degree that we as a society want our children to do well in life we should be very concerned with what is happening to marriage.”

Well lookie there; it seems the modern mass-definition of marriage contradicts the original definitions of it being an institution of child-rearing! Gee, it's almost like it's subject or something and open to interpretation and reinterpretation! Almost like you appealing to the majority is not accurate because it seems peoples' ideas of what marriage is changes!

Don't argue language with someone who is obsessed with it. You're not gonna come out on top.

Quote:

Quote:Unless those who enact the union later desire to bring them into it in some way.

So far, marriage is considered a union of two people and two people only.

See above. For legal purposes, marriage is a union of two people for the sake of filing taxes, household census, and other stuff largely pertaining to populace information, but it does not define what those two people do otherwise. Now, if you refer to polygamy, that is in reference to having more than one spouse; it says nothing of taking a paramour. The definition of a paramour is "a lover, especially the illicit partner of a married person," but the key word is "especially," which does not mean "specifically." Meaning, again, that the dictionary does not set the objective standard and that therefore subjective exceptions can be made for the definition.

As for marriage itself, wikipedia has this to say on the matter:

Quote:Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

If you read the article itself, (Link, for your navigational pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage ), it seems to be that the definition of marriage itself seems to be culturally diverse. So...your appeal to the masses doesn't hold up either, because when you say "most people," I have to ask "according to whom?" Because, if you start asking different people from different areas across the world, the definitions seem to vary. The only concrete aspect of marriage is that it is a practice that everyone partakes in. But in what ways? How? Nothing concrete.

Quote:

Quote:Aaactually, that's not-so-subtly suggesting that there is something wrong with others' definitions of marriage and the directions that they take with them. Sure, that's not what you said verbatim, but the sting of the wasp doesn't need to be lethal for it to hurt.

Key word: "If." Didn't notice that? Twice? Once upon reading it, once more upon quoting it? o_O She didn't tell you anything other than a hypothetical in the event that it happened to be true.

LOL...my general statement to no one in particular has the sting of a wasp, but Losty's direct comment regarding me and my wife shuold be ignored because of the "if." I find it amazing that you made those arguments back-to-back.

A general statement is making your own case in a summarized fashion, the provision of context to your argument.
The utilization of "if" as an introduction to a point, however, renders it as a hypothetical; as in, not a confirmed stance. It is therefore a hypothetical suggestion if the terms for it are met. If she had simply stated something about your marriage as if it were true, it would be her nosing into your marital affairs, as it would be addressing the issue itself. See what I mean? It's always the little details that can make or break a meaning, and they're easy to overlook sometimes, I admit.

Quote:

Quote:Awfully defensive about that, though.

No, actually I let it go for many pages, and only brought it up to show the hypocrisy of people who were complaining that others' marriage is none of my business.

Well, see above, but I'll accept this part all the same.

Quote:

Quote:I imagine that if she had said "SINCE your wife doesn't trust you..." then, yes, that would actually probably be the case, and if it had not been, then you would have been vindicated in your claim of "revisionist history." As it stands though...that protest thing...mmm...

None of her business means just that...none of her business, as in refraining from making hypotheticals.

Well, to go back, it honestly sounded like you were bringing your own marital details into the conversation. And, frankly, participating in this kind of discussion more or less entails having your business addressed, as we are discussing a topic that is, as I explained above, specific only in its existence as a form of union, but not what that union entails or how one takes to defining their own.

Aside: I have the liberty of not really having to deal with my marital life discussed or inquired into; it doesn't exist! Ha! Hahaha! Haaahhhhh man I'm lonely-

But recently, that seems to have changed a little...

Quote:Also note that she was more honest than you, and when this was noted she agreed her comments were not in accord with her own stated standards and apologized.

How have I not been honest?

Honestly (heh) I didn't notice that. But, if she considered it nosing into your marital affairs, fair enough (man, I'm on a roll with the wordplay today). I just don't really see people making hypotheticals towards me to be them nosing into my business. But, I'm willing to concede that I can be quite literal-minded myself, depending on verbiage regarding inquiries directed my way. If someone is saying something in the sense of a possibility that may or may not be a thing, I guess I tend to look at it as something to possibly reference in the future or to not.

Quote:quote]
Subjective claim. Invalid.

Refraining from going to strip clubs is a higher bar than allowing them.[/quote]

Again, what bar? Your own? I would say your bar is actually lower. Why? Well, going to a strip club can be considered a test of willpower. A guy who is married goes to a strip club and has bare titties and poon wiggling around in front of his face, and yet he does not act on it. The naked body of another female is being blatantly displayed to him and yet he is not indulging sexual intercourse with her. Whereas you, who refrains, are not testing your willpower, and are not displaying your ability to restrain yourself and ergo continue to show devotion to your wife.

I would say the one who puts themselves to the challenge and rises above it is much stronger than the one who does not challenge himself. Or herself, whatever, but no woman here yet has mentioned getting a strip-tease from a male stripper dressed like a firefighter, so... Still, the sentiment would remain. The challenge requires more devotion to rise to it. After all, we do not look upon those who take the easy route as being superior to those who take the hard one to get to the same goal. Success through trial means more than success through less effort.

So...yeah, I guess I'm saying your bar is actually not really higher by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not even sure how you come to that conclusion, really. But then, there are many people who would rather kiss their boss's ass instead of get their promotions through extra effort and dedication to the job, so I guess that is just a thing. It seems alien to me, given I've always had to take the hard road whether I like it or not, but there ya go.

Quote:

Quote:Seems to me, so far, to be "having intercourse with another."

With the comment that things he does with them might be considered rape if not paid for, I'm not sure about that any more.

Yes. "Might be." That is a possibility. After all, making a girl get naked for you by forcing her to do so would be a form of rape. Besides, he didn't say he does do those things, he said if he did those things. There's those two little letters, sneaking on in there, the sneaky little shitlords... But, 'if' and 'might.' If you immediately assume that he actually would do those things, that they are genuine options he is considering or has considered without him stating as such, that kind of implies a very toxic point of view of him, and with a very poor reason for doing so...

Quote:

Quote:Are you truly so dense as to not grasp that implication??

What's the logical implication of the rape comment?

*sighs.* Seeeee aboooove... And below, I think.

Quote:

Quote:Never heard of "look, don't touch," eh? Some people take it further; "look, but don't fuck."

I think you mean "look and touch, but don't fuck," and even that's in question with the rape comment.

You never really have had a lap dance, have ya? Rule number one in the strip club; never touch the dancers, unless they ask you to. You can be, and will be ejected from the club if you do so without their consent. So it's not as in question as you assume.

Quote:

Quote:"Some manner." Key words. Please read, stop being so literal, and stop blowing things out of proportion. If she's not being paid, and she's being forced to display herself and perform provocative actions, that is a form of sexual assault.

Yep, but it's probably not a form of rape. And regarding being literal, consider you "if" argument above. Please stop being so hypocritical.

I never professed to not be literal-minded myself. I simply requested that in the context that things are being discussed in that you not be so literal. That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if I implied I am never literal-minded and that I am superior to you because you are being literal-minded. I am well aware of my tendency to be exactly that, often to a fault. If it's something that is causing me to make incorrect arguments and someone points it out, I do try to correct myself.

Anyway, to get back on track, sexual assault is a general term, under which rape falls under. Something I learned as an r.c.c. is that, confusingly, the "escalation" of the definition is basically sexual assault < rape = sexual assault. Makes no sense, right? Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me, either. Rape is specifically when penetration occurs, but generally-speaking, if rape occurs, everything else that was considered "only" sexual assault prior and after is also considered the act of rape. So, yes, it could actually be a form of rape, and honestly, in such an instance, were it to come to pass, it's pretty likely it would escalate to the defining act itself. It usually does, as I am all too aware...

Quote:

Quote:*pinches the bridge of his nose* For fuck's sake. If she's being paid for it, and she accepts the money, she is doing it willingly. This is not some philosophical matter of freedom of choice; if she accepts the money, and it's the career path she opted to take, and has no qualms about doing it, it's not rape. The fact that she is paid for it, and accepts payment, and does it all willingly means it cannot by any means be considered rape.

Point is that it indicates that he's paying for more than the lap dance that he's admitted to. A lap dance wouldn't be rape if it weren't paid for.

I combed through Rhythm's posts. He hasn't stated that he has done such a thing, only the hypothetical for the sake of argument, as you were indicating that a lap dance is a form of sexual intercourse, and that his stance is that a mere lap dance is not, and that it would only be a form of sexual intercourse if he was doing more than getting a lap dance.

I think.

This shit's getting convoluted as all fuck, and it's making my head hurt.

Rhythm, would you mind clarifying this particular part for me? I suddenly feel like I'm either missing something or there's an error in communication going on, here.

Quote:

Quote:And as he only has sex with his wife, and they both don't bother adhering to the unimaginative conservative puritan bullshit point of view that looking at another individual who is negative because they are confident in their sexuality with one another, it seems your strategy is actually not any better (but no worse, either) than his own. You're looking down at him...but you're looking at his shoes, because you're on equal footing here.

So why didn't you take him to task for starting this by disparagingly referring to others as puritans? Why didn't you tell him that he's looking down at me, but looking at my shoes, because we're on equal footing?

Because, as far as I've read, he isn't the one saying his bar and standards are higher. I went through the thread and looked, but I didn't see anything like that. If he did, though, please point it out for me, because I'm clearly missing it.

---

(January 9, 2015 at 10:45 am)Strider Wrote: Rhythm is right about something: marriages are defined by people differently. As such, the behaviors of one married couple might not work for another. Some married couples are perfectly fine with "swinging" and others have expectations of one another not to engage in anything of the sort. It's all about finding what is optimal for you and your partner. There is no right way to manage a marriage; there is only your and your wife's way.

Hey, that wasn't Rhythm, that was me!

...Right?

I'M MISSING SOMETHING AREN'T I.

Great, now I'm going to be going all OCD over this.