This entire article is hilarious

[Malakar]

If I shouldn't end a relationship upon discovery that my partner is into beastiality (in either form), and I should accept them for who they are regardless, why shouldn't society do the same?

If I should end the relationship, the discovery of beastiality still has the potential to end the relationship through no fault of my own. That's the only point I was trying to make with the analogy. But now that you got me thinking about it, I think the ending of a relationship due to beastiality in which my partner still has interest in me would be even worse because it would hurt them more.

[Guest]

Hmmm - selfishness is underated.

[Occhidiangela]

Hmmm - selfishness is underated.
[right][snapback]86822[/snapback][/right]

Greed is good.

-=Gordon Gecko--

Occhi

[Guest]

Not quite the same.

Greed is bad IMO. But putting yourself first has its place. "Me first" definetly not a rule to live by, but its not to be rejected either.

A bit of "rreal Politic" on the personal level helps make everything work better.

[Doc]

Virtue of Selfishness.

Ayn Rand.

[Occhidiangela]

Virtue of Selfishness.

Ayn Rand.
[right][snapback]86857[/snapback][/right]

Who is John Galt? With gas hitting 2.50 a gallon here in South Texas, that question is no longer rhetorical. I imagine it is near 3.00 per gallon elsewhere.

Occhi

[Guest]

Yuck I really hate her.

The problem was she seemed to see it as a virtue. Thats wrong.

Like so manyt useful concepts it spoils quicklywhen elevated to precept.

[whyBish]

Who is John Galt?  With gas hitting 2.50 a gallon here in South Texas, that question is no longer rhetorical.  I imagine it is near 3.00 per gallon elsewhere.

Occhi
[right][snapback]86858[/snapback][/right]

It's ~$NZ1.50/Litre here...

= 1.5 *($NZ/L) *0.70 ($US/$NZ)*3.785 (L/US Gallon)
= $US3.97/Gallon

dammit metric petrol is so expensive :P

[Armin]

It's ~$NZ1.50/Litre here...

= 1.5 *($NZ/L) *0.70 ($US/$NZ)*3.785 (L/US Gallon)
= $US3.97/Gallon

dammit metric petrol is so expensive  :P
[right][snapback]86865[/snapback][/right]

I can easily top that:

Germany's current top price for high octane unleaded: 1.30€ter

That's 5.98 US$ per Gallon :P

But as long as people keep buying dinosaur-size SUVs and Minivans and Volkswagen's 3liter (consumption per 100KM) Lupo collects dust in the showrooms, I refuse to call petrol "too expensive" :ph34r:

[Occhidiangela]

I can easily top that:

Germany's current top price for high octane unleaded: 1.30€ter

That's 5.98 US$ per Gallon  :P

But as long as people keep buying dinosaur-size SUVs and Minivans and Volkswagen's 3liter (consumption per 100KM) Lupo collects dust in the showrooms, I refuse to call petrol "too expensive"  :ph34r:
[right][snapback]86868[/snapback][/right]

I thought all Europeans drove little sedans, like Renault Twingos, Ford Kas, or small Alpha Romeo or VW sedans. OH, and Mini Coopers.

What's with this SUV in Europe stuff? :blink: The parking spaces and streets I remember weren't big enough to handle the proliferation Urban Assault Vehicles.

Occhi

[Armin]

I thought all Europeans drove little sedans, like Renault Twingos, Ford Kas, or small Alpha Romeo or VW sedans.  OH, and Mini Coopers.

What's with this SUV in Europe stuff?  :blink:  The parking spaces and streets I remember weren't big enough to handle the proliferation Urban Assault Vehicles.

Occhi
[right][snapback]86879[/snapback][/right]

Well, we're not exactly talking Hummer H2s here (though I DID see one on occasion), but Mercedes M Class, BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touran - there a huge number of them around recently. On our company parking lot alone there's a Land Rover and a Mitsubishi Pajero... <_<

Not that my own Hyundai V6 coupe (2.7l, 167 hp) would exactly be a fuel conserver... :rolleyes:

[Munkay]

Yuck I really hate her.

Agreed whole heartedly.

I'll have to come back and edit in a longer post. In the process of moving currently :blink: .

Cheers,

Munk

[Occhidiangela]

Well, we're not exactly talking Hummer H2s here (though I DID see one on occasion), but Mercedes M Class, BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touran - there a huge number of them around recently. On our company parking lot alone there's a Land Rover and a Mitsubishi Pajero...&nbsp; <_<

Not that my own Hyundai V6 coupe (2.7l, 167 hp) would exactly be a fuel conserver...&nbsp; :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]86883[/snapback][/right]

Armin:

Partly due to my love for VW, I am still looking at their Touareg. (Yes, I am generally a non fan of the SUV, but when the wife's mini van finally dies, I want to be ready.) Is the Touran the German domestic version of that SUV?

But dear Armin, a Hyundai? :huh:

My brain rebels at the idea of a German buying a Korean car when a VW, Audi, BMW, or other excelent sedans is available locally. Is this a cost issue? Did you win it as a prize? Or was it so loaded with extras that you couldn't resist? :w00t:

Occhi

[Armin]

Armin:

Partly due to my love for VW, I am still looking at their Touareg.&nbsp; (Yes, I am generally a non fan of the SUV, but when the wife's mini van finally dies, I want to be ready.)&nbsp; Is the Touran the German domestic version of that SUV?

But dear Armin, a Hyundai?&nbsp; :huh:

My brain rebels at the idea of a German buying a Korean car when a VW, Audi, BMW, or other excelent sedans is available locally.&nbsp; Is this a cost issue?&nbsp; Did you win it as a prize?&nbsp; Or was it so loaded with extras that you couldn't resist?&nbsp; :w00t:

Occhi
[right][snapback]86897[/snapback][/right]

I'm not sure if Touran and Touareg have much in common (certainly lots of common parts from the big corporate box, like engine and electronics.

But the base from which the Touran is built is, IIRC the same as some French and Japanese minivans, while the Touareg shares the same base as a Porsche Cayenne (minus the overpowered engine and luxury equipment ;) )

The Hyundai was for one reason first: I completely fell in love with the looks.
And when I compared the price and included extras (the V6 extra list is short: a Nav 'puter and a rear spoiler cost extra, everthing else - air condition, leather seats, aluminium finish in the cockpit etc. - is included) the math was easy: german car with comparable horsepower and equipment (and boring looks B) ): 35.000€ and up. My Hyundai: 24.000€

AND: german cars having quality issues of late (my uncle's brand new Mercedes was at the shop 7 times in 6 months!), companies spending millions on silly prestige projects and huge management salaries while laying off workers made me quickly forget my patriotism :P

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure if Touran and Touareg have much in common (certainly lots of common parts from the big corporate box, like engine and electronics.

But the base from which the Touran is built is, IIRC the same as some French and Japanese minivans, while the Touareg shares the same base as a Porsche Cayenne (minus the overpowered engine and luxury equipment  ;) )

The Hyundai was for one reason first: I completely fell in love with the looks.
And when I compared the price and included extras (the V6 extra list is short: a Nav 'puter and a rear spoiler cost extra, everthing else - air condition, leather seats, aluminium finish in the cockpit etc. - is included) the math was easy: german car with comparable horsepower and equipment (and boring looks  B) ): 35.000€ and up. My Hyundai: 24.000€

AND: german cars having quality issues of late (my uncle's brand new Mercedes was at the shop 7 times in 6 months!), companies spending millions on silly prestige projects and huge management salaries while laying off workers made me quickly forget my patriotism  :P
[right][snapback]86901[/snapback][/right]

How disappointing. The Nissan, Toyota, and Honda theme of quality was an "in your face" assault on Detroit's indifference. To a certain extent, American car companies responded well enough to that quality standard. Hate to see German car companies fall into the Big Three mental trap. As buy American as I am, I still love VW's. My first ever car was a Bug. :D

I see the immense price differential, I get it. :) I would myself own a Toyota Sienna minivan were it not for an $8,000 dollar price delta between it and the Chrysler Grand Voyager we do own. Lucky for me, a "buy American" loyalty was able to find a car model that was pretty much an industry standard, but if Toyota had come down a few thousand, I think we would have gone with them. My sister swears by Toyota Camray's, as does my sister in law.

I am looking at Scion for a next commuter car, which I don't think is an American brand of Toyota. Intriguing cars, but the price just shot up on two of the models, locally, due I think to the price of gas going up. What I could have had for $13,800 last year will cost me just under $18,000.

New car just became a non option.

Cost plus is achievable in this area for some fuel efficient models, and a Toyota Prius Hybrid is hard to get one's hands on. But they are over $20,000 to start with, and thus out of my car budget.

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

If I shouldn't end a relationship upon discovery that my partner is into beastiality (in either form), and I should accept them for who they are regardless, why shouldn't society do the same?

I view beastiality as a sexual kink. As such, it's not something that eveybody and their mother needs to know about. So, I don't like the comparison to homosexuality public acceptance of it because I don't view homosexuality as a sexual kink. While homosexuality is not something that needs to be broadcast from loudspeakers either, it's also not something that should be villified and demonized. After all, we're just talking about people who are as interested in finding a partner as your average heterosexual. If mate-seeking with respect to opposite-sex partners is acceptable conversation in the public square, it should be acceptable with respect to same-sex partners. Kinks are another story.

If I should end the relationship, the discovery of beastiality still has the potential to end the relationship through no fault of my own. That's the only point I was trying to make with the analogy.

I wouldn't look at it in terms of whose fault it is, but in terms of who's still interested in the relationship. In general, kinks can range from the seemingly "weird but harmless" to "dangerous and extreme," and if one's partner is unwilling to give up a kink, that might be a deal-breaker for the relationship. Or it might not, if the non-kinky partner is willing to tolerate it (though not necessarily indulge in it).

Some people might view "the discovery of homosexuality" along the same lines as a kink. As long as we ignore exclusive homosexuality (instead, the partner might be bisexual), the relationship still has the potential to continue. Unfortunately, I can still see many people in this situation viewing it as a relationship-ender due (1) to assuming their partner is exclusively homosexual or (2) to not wanting to be associated with a "queer." (1) is just wrong, and the assumption comes from not realizing there's more than just "straight" and "gay." That's another reason why sexual orientation should be better understood by society. (2) is closer to the kink situation outlined with beastiality (in terms of the discoverer's perception) because the discoverer finds the situation so objectionable that they find themselves in a potential deal-breaker situation. Unless the bisexual partner was committing adultery (or something else that's actually objectionable), the situation need not be seen in that light, but I think for some people it'd just work that way.

But now that you got me thinking about it, I think the ending of a relationship due to beastiality in which my partner still has interest in me would be even worse because it would hurt them more.

Nevertheless, I think it's still a valid potential relationship-ender. If your partner gettin' it on with a sheep grosses you out to the point where you can't perform with them, that's just how it is.

-Lemmy

[Occhidiangela]

I view beastiality as a sexual kink.

That is one way to look at it. I'd rather not watch, personally, but then, I have been to a real live dog and pony show, and it ain't pretty.

As such, it's not something that eveybody and their mother needs to know about.
Some people might view "the discovery of homosexuality" along the same lines as a kink. As long as we ignore exclusive homosexuality (instead, the partner might be bisexual), the relationship still has the potential to continue. Unfortunately, I can still see many people in this situation viewing it as a relationship-ender due (1) to assuming their partner is exclusively homosexual or (2) to not wanting to be associated with a "queer." (1) is just wrong, and the assumption comes from not realizing there's more than just "straight" and "gay."

Lem, you might want to add to your list the problem of how people handle affairs outside the context of the relationship. Some people are more possessive than other, or are dead set on the monagomous relationship being the only suitable model. Relationships of any sort can founder on such grounds.

A "discovery" that one's partner swings both ways could be anecdotal, as in

"yes, two years ago I had same sex sex and rather enjoyed it" that may be more easilly resolved than

"you just had sex with who?"

The problem to deal with on the second reaction is the problem of breaking the trust in the relationship.

Or is that what you were getting at with this?

Unless the bisexual partner was committing adultery (or something else that's actually objectionable), the situation need not be seen in that light, but I think for some people it'd just work that way.  Nevertheless, I think it's still a valid potential relationship-ender. If your partner gettin' it on with a sheep grosses you out to the point where you can't perform with them, that's just how it is.

Adultery is normally confinded to a discussion involving marriage, though one doctrinal definition is any sex outside of marriage, which would put all homosexual sex into adultery (or more properly fornication) unless the couple are operating under conventions where same sex marriages fit within norms/doctrinal limits.

On the other hand, if the lady loves the family horse, there are likely to be some endowment insecurities leaping to the fore in any discussion over resolving that excursion outside the box . . . so to speak.

Occhi

[BruceGod]

http://www.well.com/user/cynsa/gerbilstory.html

Back to the gerbils! :D

[LemmingofGlory]

That is one way to look at it.&nbsp; I'd rather not watch, personally, but then, I have been to a real live dog and pony show, and it ain't pretty.

I suppose you could also look at it as "mental problem" or "immoral" (or other ways I haven't thought of?), but then it leaves the realm of "Could you not do that anymore?" and enters the realm of "You've got a problem." I prefer the former. It's more direct and solution-oriented rather than accusatory.

Lem, you might want to add to your list the problem of how people handle affairs outside the context of the relationship.&nbsp; Some people are more possessive than other, or are dead set on the monagomous relationship being the only suitable model.&nbsp; Relationships of any sort can founder on such grounds.&nbsp;

Yup, "discovery of opposing theory of relationship dynamics" is another subset of "relationship dealbreakers." My purpose wasn't to examine all possible deal-breakers, just only those directly relating to "discovery of kink" or "discovery of sexual orientation" since the analogy between "discovering beastiality" and "discovering homosexuality" was what I disagreed with. So, I didn't consider it necessary to cover all potential relationship-enders.

The problem to deal with on the second reaction is the problem of breaking the trust in the relationship.

Or is that what you were getting at with this?

Unless the bisexual partner was committing adultery (or something else that's actually objectionable)...

Adultery is normally confinded to a discussion involving marriage, though one doctrinal definition is any sex outside of marriage, which would put all homosexual sex into adultery (or more properly fornication) unless the couple are operating under conventions where same sex marriages fit within norms/doctrinal limits.

"Adultery" was just specific case I used as an example; explaining adultery is unnecessary. The idea I was getting at is what's nested in my parenthetical.

As an aside, use of "fornication" with respect to homosexual sex is loaded language that carries a negative connotation. I don't see any point to using the term in situations where same-sex marriage is not an option, because then it's a way of sneering at homosexuals for unwed sex when their relationships can't be recognized as "wed" anyway, and that's elitist horsespit. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

On the other hand, if the lady loves the family horse, there are likely to be some endowment insecurities leaping to the fore in any discussion over resolving that excursion outside the box . . . so to speak.

That's assuming she loves Mr Ed. What if it's Mrs Ed?

-Lemmy

[Occhidiangela]

That's assuming she loves Mr Ed. What if it's Mrs Ed?
-Lemmy
[right][snapback]87151[/snapback][/right]

Then it becomes a lady with backhair.

As to the adultery and fornication issues, every human relationship takes place within a social context, and the subtle connotations between infidelity and fornication, with both its neutral and perjorative connotations considered, underwrite the relationship. I understand your preference to keep the conversation as neutral as possible. Problem is, most words have connotations and multiple meanings, which is what makes discussions on forums so fruitful sometimes, and fruitless other times. Speaking of fruits . . . nah, let's not. That led to trouble in a different thread. :blink:

Occhi