“So what’s the difference between screwing someone just because you want to… and taking a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, just because you want to?”

There is a huge difference. Well, first of all, it’s not about screwing someone just because you want to. It’s about two people who are not married to each other and both want to have sex, and have the consent of their spouses. Everyone involved accepts it. (If everyone involved does not accept it, then yes, it is wrong. But that’s not what the author was talking about.) When you take a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, though, not everyone is happy with that. People have to walk past it. It makes people feel uncomfortable. And these people were not willingly involved — they are being forced to tolerate your disrespect of their wishes, namely the wish for there not to be crap on the sidewalk.

One situation is one in which all participating parties are satisfied. The other is one where one person is satisfied at the expense of everyone else. I do hope that you can see the difference.

One can only be accused of hypocrisy if one has standards. Those without standards feel free to accuse those of us (sinners all) who fall short of perfection of hypocrisy.

Therefore, the amoral are morally superior to the moral, as hypocrisy is the supreme vice.

(‘Splodey head)

In all fairness, what they’re really objecting to is not un-fun people who tell them what not to do. It’s the un-fun people who tell them what not to do and then turn around and do that thing themselves. Which is a problem.

That said, I do find it ironic that people can think “I can trust you not to sleep with anyone else” is an unrealistic demand, but yet somehow think “I can trust you not to fall for any of your other sexual partners” is a perfectly reasonable one. The same people who blithely admit, “The heart wants what it wants,” are always the ones most bitterly crushed when a heart turns out to want someone else more than them. I’d be interested to see how many “open” marriages fall apart when one partner decides they do want fidelity after all — just not with the person they first married.

I also can’t help but notice that Block doesn’t talk about children at all. If people can’t be expected to handle the commitment of monogamy, what the heck does that say about our ability to be parents?

Even strong pre-nups can be overturned in court. People have turned marriage these days into such a joke that I seriously wonder at times if we’ll ever get back to normal (yes, I did use the “n” word).

No sign? No wine, no dine, no blood line!

1. Creating a safe, stable, private place to express yourself in those ways you cannot to the wider population, sexual or otherwise

2. Contract Obligation:
Liberals will destroy this country by making all contracts worth exactly nothing. Walk away from any contract at any time.

3. Liberals have attempted to make Divorce an excuse to behave like vindictive spoiled children. Just watch how most divorces play out

4. Compromise is the most important lesson of marriage and many liberals especially radical feminists want none of it. They want to speak of it and pretend they do it but not actually follow through

Doing whatever you want is a wonderful thing as long as it’s conscious, honest and true. What should not be tolerated is growing a pair and telling people they shouldn’t be doing stuff.

Funny thing about liberals and the “H” word. They use it as a catch-all to describe those un-fun people trying to tell them not to do stuff. The inherent contradiction that is supposed to be a vital ingredient to real hypocrisy, has nothing to do with it. It’s fun to ask these cultural-libs if it’s possible for anyone to tell them not to do stuff, without being a hypocrite. It isn’t; so real “hypocrisy” is not what they mean. They’re re-defining the term.

They’re just people who’ve never been told “No” about anything, until after they came-of-age and figured they aren’t supposed to be told no about anything.