Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Individuality-ness]

Or maybe you should stop caring about what other people want to do with their sex lives, okay?

Look, when two people are in a relationship, and then one of the people goes out and screws around with someone outside of the relationship, they should be shamed. They caused harm to their partner. It is no different than someone physically hurting someone.

Then they should be shamed for being cheaters, not for being sexually promiscuous. Call them cheaters, not sluts.

[Ovisterra]

Or maybe you should stop caring about what other people want to do with their sex lives, okay?

Look, when two people are in a relationship, and then one of the people goes out and screws around with someone outside of the relationship, they should be shamed. They caused harm to their partner.

What if it's an open relationship? What if their partner did the same thing? How is it any of my business either way?

Clue: It's not.

It is no different than someone physically hurting someone.

Erm, yes, it's very different.

[Anachronous Rex]

Or maybe you should stop caring about what other people want to do with their sex lives, okay?

The point is married persons have a right and reasonable expectation to NOT be hit on by people.

No. They don't.

For many reasons not the least of which being that it is not always obvious if someone is married. I ran into this problem recently, in fact (my dreams of dating an Ethiopian goddess were horribly dashed.) But also because it is possible to say "no." If they continue after you say no, that's sexual harassment.

And all people have a right and reasonable expectation to not being sexually harassed.

[Hathradic States]

Look, when two people are in a relationship, and then one of the people goes out and screws around with someone outside of the relationship, they should be shamed. They caused harm to their partner. It is no different than someone physically hurting someone.

If they're in a monogamous relationship, perhaps. It should be left to the discretion of those involved. If they're in an open one, who the fuck cares.

If they are in an open relationship, then nobody should be hurt by what happens. Almost always, just saying "relationship" implies the monogamy of it.

[Llamalandia]

If they don't wear wedding rings and their spouses aren't around, you can't really tell who's married and who's not.

Didn't you know that when you get married you're constantly followed by Cherubim carrying a "Married to 'so and so'" banner over your head?

No but generally the ring is pretty dead give away for most people who take even a second too look.

[Individuality-ness]

If they're in a monogamous relationship, perhaps. It should be left to the discretion of those involved. If they're in an open one, who the fuck cares.

If they are in an open relationship, then nobody should be hurt by what happens. Almost always, just saying "relationship" implies the monogamy of it.

Because that's the connotation. Polyamory does exist you know, it's as valid as any other.

[Calixs]

source?

It's a little known book called Intro Colum Meum Vide by Merda Tauri.

can you give me a summery

[Ovisterra]

Didn't you know that when you get married you're constantly followed by Cherubim carrying a "Married to 'so and so'" banner over your head?

No but generally the ring is pretty dead give away for most people who take even a second too look.

If they don't wear wedding rings and their spouses aren't around, you can't really tell who's married and who's not.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Didn't you know that when you get married you're constantly followed by Cherubim carrying a "Married to 'so and so'" banner over your head?

No but generally the ring is pretty dead give away for most people who take even a second too look.

If they don't wear wedding rings.

[Hathradic States]

Look, when two people are in a relationship, and then one of the people goes out and screws around with someone outside of the relationship, they should be shamed. They caused harm to their partner. It is no different than someone physically hurting someone.

Then they should be shamed for being cheaters, not for being sexually promiscuous. Call them cheaters, not sluts.

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women. Kinda like how "bastard" just means a man who is a dick, whereas it used to mean someone born out of wedlock.

[Pillea]

It's a little known book called Intro Colum Meum Vide by Merda Tauri.

can you give me a summery

It's a deep read. Really deeeep.
And everyone seems to take something different from it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If they're in a monogamous relationship, perhaps. It should be left to the discretion of those involved. If they're in an open one, who the fuck cares.

If they are in an open relationship, then nobody should be hurt by what happens. Almost always, just saying "relationship" implies the monogamy of it.

No, it doesn't. Not unless the couple involved has agreed on being monogamous.

[Dakini]

1. No, usually men who sleep around are described in positive terms.
2. Having a single sexual partner can cause distress and pain. I was never more miserable in my life than when I was in a shitty relationship that lasted way too long. Was I sleeping with a lot of people? No, only the one.

1. Not in my experience, but that may just be my circle of friends, there.
2. That's when you break it off. But sleeping around because the relationship is shitty, instead of, you know, talking about it with your partner? No, not good. Far from it.

1. My circle of friends doesn't tend to shame anyone for their sexual behaviour. In the broader culture, this is what happens though.
2. No. The relationship made me miserable. The fact that this man berated me, accused me of cheating on him (I didn't) and made me feel like I couldn't do any better than him over the course of a few years hurt me and caused me distress. When I finally scraped together enough self-respect to dump his ass, I felt awesome.

[YellowApple]

Wrong.

Shaming is not the duty of anyone.

Actually i disagree. You can't actually prosecute a potential pedophile for merely photographing children but society should certainly shame and identify potential pedophiles for the purposes of keeping children safe. Of course there is a fine line between mob justice and simple societal corrections via a shame mechanism. Heck look at Japan though the whole country is built on shame and face saving.

Now you're leaving the context (sexual promiscuity involving adults) and going off on a tangent unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Return to that context and try again.

[Individuality-ness]

Then they should be shamed for being cheaters, not for being sexually promiscuous. Call them cheaters, not sluts.

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women. Kinda like how "bastard" just means a man who is a dick, whereas it used to mean someone born out of wedlock.

I'd rather not have the word "slut" be used to shame anyone at all. Gender neutral please!

[Ovisterra]

Then they should be shamed for being cheaters, not for being sexually promiscuous. Call them cheaters, not sluts.

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women.

Oh right, I'll just go edit the slang of the English language, shall I? Let me find the config file.

[YellowApple]

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women.

Oh right, I'll just go edit the slang of the English language, shall I? Let me find the config file.

/etc/english/slang.conf, line 348.

Try there.

[Hathradic States]

If they are in an open relationship, then nobody should be hurt by what happens. Almost always, just saying "relationship" implies the monogamy of it.

No, it doesn't. Not unless the couple involved has agreed on being monogamous.

In most American culture, the one we are, for the most part, dealing with here, saying you are in a relationship with someone implies it is monogamous. That is why Facebook has different options for "in a relationship" and "in an open relationship".

[Individuality-ness]

No but generally the ring is pretty dead give away for most people who take even a second too look.

If they don't wear wedding rings and their spouses aren't around, you can't really tell who's married and who's not.

It's as if he thinks the wedding rings are welded on their fingers or something.

[Hathradic States]

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women. Kinda like how "bastard" just means a man who is a dick, whereas it used to mean someone born out of wedlock.

I'd rather not have the word "slut" be used to shame anyone at all. Gender neutral please!

Gender neutral is overrated. Just add the prefix "man-" to it. Does the job well enough.

[Llamalandia]

The point is married persons have a right and reasonable expectation to NOT be hit on by people.

No. They don't.

For many reasons not the least of which being that it is not always obvious if someone is married. I ran into this problem recently, in fact (my dreams of dating an Ethiopian goddess were horribly dashed.) But also because it is possible to say "no." If they continue after you say no, that's sexual harassment.

And all people have a right and reasonable expectation to not being sexually harassed.

Yes I agree all people have a right to be free from harassment (which is repeated and unreasonable attempts not just one 'no') however married people have traditionally been seen as totally off limits, not even to be asked once (except perhaps in error).

[The Rich Port]

If they don't wear wedding rings and their spouses aren't around, you can't really tell who's married and who's not.

Didn't you know that when you get married you're constantly followed by Cherubim carrying a "Married to 'so and so'" banner over your head?

My mom always said it was people who wear muted colors because brightness was gone from their lives.

[Hathradic States]

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women.

Oh right, I'll just go edit the slang of the English language, shall I? Let me find the config file.

Slang is a bitch to edit, I'll give you that. Start using it in context, eventually, it catches on as acceptence grows.

[Dakini]

Then they should be shamed for being cheaters, not for being sexually promiscuous. Call them cheaters, not sluts.

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women. Kinda like how "bastard" just means a man who is a dick, whereas it used to mean someone born out of wedlock.

No can do. Current efforts to change the meaning of "slut" have actually been focused on trying to give it a positive connotation (e.g. of a person who is unapologetic for their sexual behaviour).

You're better off with using more accurate terminology. Unless you want to get used to explaining what you mean every time you mention the word. You're also certainly not going to get everyone else to agree to your definition so you should accept that a lot of people will consider slut shaming a bad thing, even if we would agree with you that cheating pieces of shit should be shamed.

[Anachronous Rex]

Or, make it so the term slut applies to cheaters instead of promiscuous women.

Oh right, I'll just go edit the slang of the English language, shall I? Let me find the config file.

Just remember to keep the parenthesis in order.

I screwed that up once a while back while touring Babylon... You wouldn't believe the trouble it caused.