She Keeps Sucking The Life Out of Me

[Creed of Heresy]

Yep.

Nope.

And most people.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your point remains invalid.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

---

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.

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.

---

[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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.