3 ms·

I mean change attitudes about sex. What law of the universe says people should have sex with only one person? It's not cheating if it's accepted. I think AM is

by jazoom 9y ago

I mean change attitudes about sex. What law of the universe says people should have sex with only one person? It's not cheating if it's accepted. I think AM is a scummy company but they are only accommodating what people already want to do.

Chris2048 9y ago
> It's not cheating if it's accepted True, which means this is a tangent. For those who do commit, they shouldn't cheat. I'm not going to go into reasons for monogamy, but "what people already want to do" is cheat. Should there be no insider trading laws either? Clearly crooked traders want to cheat, so why not let them?
- jazoom 9y ago
  No one loses anything in this case. In fact, if the couple is okay with it, you could consider it a gain. Your analogy isn't even close. By the way, I mean no disrespect. My way of thinking used to be more similar to yours.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    No problem, but I'm not sure I follow. What is this case? We're talking about cheating, but that is specifically cheating on a commitment. A couple who are happy with an open relationship are not cheating. There are already dating sites for swingers etc, AM is not one of them, AM if specifically for cheaters. They act against the interests of the cheated-upon. This is why I made the analogy; a inside trader might be OK with it because they see the gain, but not the loss.
    - jazoom 9y ago
      You are right. AM does seem specifically for sneaky commitment-breaking, which is one reason I think they are scummy. I also believe it bad to cheat on a commitment. I suppose I lost my point, which was this shouldn't be illegal. Not all scumminess should be illegal since you will end up making criminals out of decent people who do a scummy thing. Road rage is bad but if everyone who succumbs to it was a criminal then half the country would have a criminal record. A better solution would be a culture change where this commitment isn't strongly pushed onto people from social pressure when it's obviously not the right thing for that person. Another better solution would be reducing social stigma around divorce.

by jazoom 9y ago

Chris2048 9y ago

> It's not cheating if it's accepted True, which means this is a tangent. For those who do commit, they shouldn't cheat. I'm not going to go into reasons for monogamy, but "what people already want to do" is cheat. Should there be no insider trading laws either? Clearly crooked traders want to cheat, so why not let them?

jazoom 9y ago
No one loses anything in this case. In fact, if the couple is okay with it, you could consider it a gain. Your analogy isn't even close. By the way, I mean no disrespect. My way of thinking used to be more similar to yours.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  No problem, but I'm not sure I follow. What is this case? We're talking about cheating, but that is specifically cheating on a commitment. A couple who are happy with an open relationship are not cheating. There are already dating sites for swingers etc, AM is not one of them, AM if specifically for cheaters. They act against the interests of the cheated-upon. This is why I made the analogy; a inside trader might be OK with it because they see the gain, but not the loss.
  - jazoom 9y ago
    You are right. AM does seem specifically for sneaky commitment-breaking, which is one reason I think they are scummy. I also believe it bad to cheat on a commitment. I suppose I lost my point, which was this shouldn't be illegal. Not all scumminess should be illegal since you will end up making criminals out of decent people who do a scummy thing. Road rage is bad but if everyone who succumbs to it was a criminal then half the country would have a criminal record. A better solution would be a culture change where this commitment isn't strongly pushed onto people from social pressure when it's obviously not the right thing for that person. Another better solution would be reducing social stigma around divorce.