Do you engage in unprotected oral and/or vaginal sex with any of these women, in particular SPs? If you don't then fine, I accept your premise that walking into a daycare centre has about the same medical risk as sex. Personally I still think you're twisting your case around to extremes to justify your stance on the negligible medical risks, but I can accept that transmission rates for most STIs, and in particular the incurable ones are very very low in cases of protected sex. However, I'm not presuming anything, but if you engage in unprotected oral sex, then you are absolutely dead wrong on the risks. There is a vast difference between a case of herpes, that you can catch from unprotected sex, versus a common cold that you could catch in your daycare example. Physically, mentally, emotionally. If you don't see that, then there's nothing more to say. Even gonorrhea, notwithstanding the scary incurable new strain that was posted about today, which is the most easily treatable STD (I think), has severe medical risks if untreated. Also, it has more health consequences for the woman than the man. Now if you get yourself tested regularly, then that's fine, or you engage in only protected activities with your wife, but if you don't, and you engage in unprotected sex with your 'ladies' whether they be SPs, immigrants or other women, as well as your wife, then every time you engage with your wife, you're putting her at risk. Physically, the risks aren't too serious for most STDs, provided treatment is quickly provided, but mentally, emotionally? She may have signed on knowing the kind of person you were, but she definitely did not sign on for any STDs, and to compare the risks with that of having a kid sneeze on you, is laughable, and dangerous. You signed on for the risks, she didn't. If you care so little about your wife that you write off exposing her to STDs as part of the 'hypocritical nature of sexual relationships' then why even marry her in the first place?
The Bash Fuji Thread
- Thread starter havingfun
- Start date
- Status
Do you engage in unprotected oral and/or vaginal sex with any of these women, in particular SPs? If you don't then fine, I accept your premise that walking into a daycare centre has about the same medical risk as sex. Personally I still think you're twisting your case around to extremes to justify your stance on the negligible medical risks, but I can accept that transmission rates for most STIs, and in particular the incurable ones are very very low in cases of protected sex. However, I'm not presuming anything, but if you engage in unprotected oral sex, then you are absolutely dead wrong on the risks. There is a vast difference between a case of herpes, that you can catch from unprotected sex, versus a common cold that you could catch in your daycare example. Physically, mentally, emotionally. If you don't see that, then there's nothing more to say. Even gonorrhea, notwithstanding the scary incurable new strain that was posted about today, which is the most easily treatable STD (I think), has severe medical risks if untreated. Also, it has more health consequences for the woman than the man. Now if you get yourself tested regularly, then that's fine, or you engage in only protected activities with your wife, but if you don't, and you engage in unprotected sex with your 'ladies' whether they be SPs, immigrants or other women, as well as your wife, then every time you engage with your wife, you're putting her at risk. Physically, the risks aren't too serious for most STDs, provided treatment is quickly provided, but mentally, emotionally? She may have signed on knowing the kind of person you were, but she definitely did not sign on for any STDs, and to compare the risks with that of having a kid sneeze on you, is laughable, and dangerous. You signed on for the risks, she didn't. If you care so little about your wife that you write off exposing her to STDs as part of the 'hypocritical nature of sexual relationships' then why even marry her in the first place?
Oral yes. Vaginal no. You're overblowing the risks from unprotected oral sex. While there are various things that CAN transmit, the odds are pretty low that they WILL transmit, and doubly lower (literally) that they will transmit on to your wife before you treat them. For example, while it's possible for genital herpes to infect your mouth, or vise versa, it's much rarer than genital-to-genital herpes or mouth-to-mouth. They're usually different strains, and when they cross infect like that MUCH less virulent. Among other things that means you are also much less likely to pass it on to someone else if you get it. In short, the risks here are smaller than the risks arising from many normal things you do in life.
Moreover you really have no way of knowing whether you already have herpes. It's pretty common, and many people show no symptoms on first infection. Many people carry it for years and years, perhaps for life, without ever knowing they have it. Thus your wife really already has to be prepared that you picked it up in some past relationship and just don't know it yet. The notion that you are adding much additional risk by ongoing current relationships, on top of the historic risk ALREADY present, is really a bit innumerate.
Pretty much everything else is treatable. Cases are still relatively rare, but if you DO cross contaminate your wife this way then really she's going to go to a doctor, get treated, and be fine. YOU may not be fine, since the episode will out your cheating, but then there are any number of other unlikely things that could out you. In terms of ways you're likely to get caught cheating transmission of a treatable disease you caught from oral sex with another woman is pretty unlikely.
The one big risk is HPV, and I maintain that every woman should be vaccinated against HPV, regardless of whether she thinks she is in a monogamous relationship or not. The vaccine is so effective, and HPV so common, that it's insane not to vaccinate. Odds are, though, that if your wife is older than 30, and she was in any way sexually active when she was younger, that she already has HPV.
It's absolutely true. I have many gifts. They're not from God, but they're real. I'm in the top 1% of earners, I'm a highly capable person, I have connections, I provide good advice. There are lots of ways I help my friends. I do maintain that everyone in my life is better off in their life for having known me. I believe that all of my ex girlfriends would agree with that statement, including the one who left me because I cheated on her--she got a good career out of knowing me. Literally. I trained her into it, and found her the job that got her started. I am pretty sure she appreciates that, even though she barely speaks to me now, since she found out that I had been cheating on her with my present wife.
My deception is strictly limited to the sexual arena. I never deceive about anything else. I earn people's trust by being a positive force in their life, by being reliable, by being there for them when they need me, without fail.
I have every intention of having a relationship with this woman.
So bareback vaginal is okay? Is bareback anal the only "insane" sexual activity in the world?
Oh, and there is a legal basis. It comes up in divorces all the time. If it can be proven you cheated, that can be used against you and in some cases, varying depending on georgraphy, it can have an impact on the settlement. Now you're not going to go to jail for it, but it can still have legal consequences for you.
Sorry if it wasn't clear: I said I have bareback oral sex, but not bareback vaginal sex, with SP's. However, bareback vaginal sex is not insane. You are really unlikely to pick up anything fatal that way--there's a host of non-fatal things you are going to get--but your odds of getting HIV that way, for example, is remote. That said, I still don't do it, because of the curable diseases you might get that way, and of course the much bigger risk--pregnancy. Bareback anal, on the other hand, carries an insane amount of risk, unlike bareback vaginal.
As for legal basis in Canada the only thing that cheating can do is accelerate the timing of a divorce. It will not influence the settlement in any way, as we have "no fault" divorce here. The only impact of cheating is your spouse can file for divorce immediately if she can prove adultery rather than going through the one year separation. Big deal.
I can't speak for more primitive jurisdictions with backwards, unenlightened laws.
...
Well fuji I think this would make one interesting topic for a separate thread followed by one one modesty, ethics and morals.
You come across as confident but life does have its challenges and I feel one day you're going to hit a brick wall...:frusty:
That's basically true. My usual reaction when I read these posts from people "bashing" me is that I have a good hearty laugh. Anyway, I want to answer this:
The alternative is moral relativism. For a long time when I was younger I used to debate with myself this question--is it possible that all moral codes are equal? That it's not the case that one is wrong, and one is right, but that they are all somehow right? And if so, how do you answer someone who says terrorism isn't wrong, because their moral code says it's OK? How do you say that Al Qaeda is wrong, for example, when their moral code says that killing civilians is right? Are all moral codes equal?
Eventually I concluded that moral relativism is bullshit. You have to take a side. There is right, and wrong, and while we might not always know what it is, when we do think we know what it is, we need to stand up for that. Not accept that someone else is going to come along and say, ya ya but according to MY code terrorism is OK.
So I apply that, and I apply it without hesitation. There are lots of questions where I don't know what's right or wrong, but on the ones where I do know right for wrong I am going to say so. I think bigotry is wrong, for example, and I will not shy away from calling someone a bigot when they are a bigot, and subsequently informing them that it makes them an inferior human being.
Similarly I've concluded that there's a pretty strong virtually moral imperative to embrace life, to embrace being human, and to be fundamentally positive about who and what we are. I mean that in the same sense that D.H. Lawrence would mean that, that we are the creators of value, and we face a fundamental choice of embracing life as it is, or wholesale rejecting life in some well-meaning but doomed Platonic search for a perfection of ideas that does not exist. While I don't agree with Lawrence's radical political views, in his literature he routinely expressed a concept of what an empowered person is like, being a person who is at one with their whole being, a creative force emanating from a healthy alignment of human desire to action, and I think he was dead on accurate in that. Nietzche's Zarathustra is a related, though more radical, version of the same. If you don't know what I am talking about I recommend you read some of D.H. Lawrence's books, like Women in Love, which applies Nietzche's concept of a will to power to sexual relationships.
It is in this sense I think anyone who fails to embrace their core being, which strongly includes sexual hypocrisy, is a life-denier.
I view him as a weak pathetic person. He needs to brag about his exploits,the money he makes the girls he conquers etc to feed his little man ego. Often people that talk like this are the exact opposite in real life. All bark,no bite ,with very little substance.
I have no idea whether Fuji is a positive force in the lives of others.
However, I do agree with his position on moral relativism. And he's definitely right about the risks (and, by extension, the myths) about sexually transmitted diseases. That's kind of surprising, considering how much time he claims to spend listening to the CBC.
However, I do agree with his position on moral relativism. And he's definitely right about the risks (and, by extension, the myths) about sexually transmitted diseases. That's kind of surprising, considering how much time he claims to spend listening to the CBC.
B
burt-oh-my!
Fuji makes some reasonable points in his arguments. However, when he gets into difficulty he slips into a mode where he ceases arguing rationally. He will then succumb to a number of techniques, the most common of which is "I'm right , you are wrong" which needless to say accomplishes little! I guess it makes him feel like he actually is right, bu tto me it is a sign of immaturity. He will similarly assert that you have 'admitted you are wrong", or "you are backpedalling" or other assorted nonsense. He also likes to do a little name-calling, saying your ideas are stupid etc without actually proving them so. That kind of thing is just a waste of words.
Finally, some things are open to interpretation. He will take extreme interpretations for proving his point of view, which we are obligated to accept, yet he then refuses to accept the possibility of other interpretations.
In short, I find him to be a poor debater.
Finally, some things are open to interpretation. He will take extreme interpretations for proving his point of view, which we are obligated to accept, yet he then refuses to accept the possibility of other interpretations.
In short, I find him to be a poor debater.
It still sounds to me like you are agreeing me that sexual hypocrisy is fundamental to the human condition.
You've set up a false dichotomy in asserting that choosing a wife is choosing monogamy. In reality I choose to have a wife AND others. It's not a question of whether or not this is possible to do, as like many other people, I have done it. So your question is wrong, choosing a wife is not strugglign with monogamy or non-monogamy.
Choosing a wife is choosing to be in a long-term, intimate, public, live-in, family oriented relationship with someone. It is choosing to have a partner in life. It is choosing to have someone in your life who is around even when you aren't looking or feeling your best. It is choosing to share the boring parts of your life, as well as the exciting.
There are many benefits to having a wife, it's fulfilling and rewarding, and I choose to have that in my life.
This does not mean that I am struggling with my choice to have other women in my life. I agree fully with you that I am "in the same boat as the rest of us swill, stuggling with aspects of his sexual nature" -- the only thing is I embrace it, love it, want it. I don't reject it.
No, I don't, that's just you being childish because my comfort with sexual hypocrisy unsettles you. I'm controversial, so you feel a need to insult me. It's your own failing.
Sorry Aardvark but I did not find the word "unacceptable" in the Divorce Act, nor did I find anything there that would imply cheating is unacceptable. For example, I did not find any penalty for cheating. All that it does is give the cheated on party the option to get out of the marriage sooner. I fail to see how that makes it unacceptable?
Do you feel separation is unacceptable too? The Divorce Act treats a year's separation identically to cheating. Presumably if it means cheating is unacceptable, you also think separation is unacceptable. That's absurd!
Actually I specifically cited Zarathustra, which was put together by Nietzsche. The version of the theory which appears in Beyond Good & Evil is also interesting. Which book Lawrence drew his interpretation from I don't know, but I find Lawrence's sexual version in Women In Love to be the more compelling version in any case.
Fuji's bark is worse than his bite!
7817 posts before he hits 30000. This thread should account for 6000 of those posts in my estimation.[video]http://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=you+tube+fuji+warrior&n=21&ei=utf-8&js=1&tnr=20&b=1[/video]
7817 posts before he hits 30000. This thread should account for 6000 of those posts in my estimation.[video]http://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=you+tube+fuji+warrior&n=21&ei=utf-8&js=1&tnr=20&b=1[/video]
Perhaps it's shocking to you, but Canada did move to a no-fault divorce model. The fact that a divorce can be accelerated in the case of infidelity does not mean that the courts view infidelity as a fault. This is clearly established.
Keep dancing on the head of the pin. No fault is different from the fact that Adultry is clearly grounds in Canada.
You can keep trying to say that there is no legal basis to claim that Canadian society finds cheating unacceptable, however clearly that is not the case.
- Status
