If you could, would you cuck other guys?

[Speed]

Yes, but only if it wasn't a friends girl

 

[Deleted member 17883]

Everybody who voted yes is a fucking degenerate. You're literally pro-cuckoldry.

Kek. Do as thy wish.

 

[Sheogorath]

Everybody who voted yes is a fucking degenerate.
You're literally pro-cuckoldry.

There's nothing wrong with cucking someone who would've cucked you first.

 

[EyesAreSoCold]

Let's say that you have the chance of escaping inceldom but the woman in question have a boyfriend or husband.

Yes. I wouldn't actively pursue women that are married, but if they came on to me I would consider their relationship dead because the woman has betrayed him.

 

[Deleted member 17724]

Yes, if the woman in question is willing to have an affair with you and you reject her, then she'll just cheat with someone else. She's disloyal anyway so you might as well take advantage of it before anyone else does.
I'd feel bad for the guy of course but on the other hand, men who get cheated on are often soyboys who trust their gfs/wives way too much so they tend to have it coming for them.

 

[based_meme]

There's nothing wrong with cucking someone who would've cucked you first.

Our moral value systems are obviously very different. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 18193]

I'd cuck my hs bullies, inceltears fags, and dipshit normies

 

[FukFeminism]

Yes

 

[TheSecondComing]

Yes of course, except other incels, but incels don't have girlfriends or wives so its not a problem

nice

 

[Sheogorath]

Our moral value systems are obviously very different. Let's agree to disagree.

I never agree to that, it's BS. We need to figure out which one of us is wrong.

I guess my point here is: if this foid didn't cheat with you, she'd cheat with someone else, so it may as well be you.

The difference is that you could do something to assure she gets caught and the guy dumps her.

That's better for his long-term happiness (better he find out now than years later of this foid truly cucking him for resources) and it lowers her SMV so she'll be more accessible to incels.

 

[BrendioEEE]

As an incel you cannot choose lol

You can choose to rise up.

 

[Bane of Arthropods]

You can choose to rise up.

 

[Sheogorath]

As an incel you cannot choose lol

Incels are capable of cucking noncels, just not necessarily with cooperation.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

If you are Chad, you cuck guys by just existing. Notice, I didn't even say "just living." For even a dead Chad mogs an incel.

 

[based_meme]

I guess my point here is: if this foid didn't cheat with you, she'd cheat with someone else, so it may as well be you.

The difference is that you could do something to assure she gets caught and the guy dumps her.

This is terrible logic. "If I didn't, someone else would have" is a low hanging fruit of moral reasoning.

You could apply that reasoning to anything from stealing, to participating in mass murder.

That's better for his long-term happiness (better he find out now than years later of this foid truly cucking him for resources) and it lowers her SMV so she'll be more accessible to incels.

This is like conning somebody out of their money to show them how the swindler did it, so that they can be better prepared for the next guy.

I never agree to that, it's BS. We need to figure out which one of us is wrong.

Yeah, no mystery here.

 

[Fat Link]

When I was younger, immature and didn’t know anything about the true nature of women I probably would if say I was somehow offered a Chad status at that time but now?

No.

I don’t want to contribute to the ugliness ie bad nature of our world which is already largely filled with far too much of that negative shit already.

So if I got to be a Chad now and I somehow discovered any hint of a girl I was with secretly having a boyfriend and cucking him with me to get her rocks off I’d be done with her immediately.

I’d want to out the girl to the boyfriend as well so he’d know what he was truly dealing with but I’d probably only do so in cases where I could somehow determine beyond a shadow of doubt that she was doing this to him purely out of spite for perhaps wanting to punish him for having a weak, beta nature or sexual fetish reasons or something else I’d deem to be negative ie sick and sadistic on her part.

If she was however say cucking him for revenge for his fucking around on her and screwing other girls I’d then just simply leave her since it’d be clear to me she’s caught up in drama and negativity and not truly focused on building anything of a genuine nature between us.

 

[Sheogorath]

This is terrible logic. "If I didn't, someone else would have" is a low hanging fruit of moral reasoning.

I'm not the one doing it though: it's the foid who cheats, not the man.

You could apply that reasoning to anything from stealing, to participating in mass murder.

Stealing is something you do to objects. Foids are not objects. They are people with agency responsible for their decisions.

They choose to cheat, and by accepting her advances, you become a prime witness to her degeneracy so you could then inform the guy if he's someone worthy of admiration who deserves to know what she's up to.

This is like conning somebody out of their money to show them how the swindler did it, so that they can be better prepared for the next guy.

Foids aren't money.

If the foid was already willing to cheat, the guy has already lost whatever he might have had before.

It's more like the foid already robbed him, and you're just a bank where she deposits the stolen goods, and then you inform the police.

I don’t want to contribute to the ugliness ie bad nature of our world which is already largely filled with far too much of that negative shit already.

So if I got to be a Chad now and I somehow discovered any hint of a girl I was with secretly having a boyfriend and cucking him with me to get her rocks off I’d be done with her immediately.

Nobody is obligating you to keep fucking a degenerate foid. She cheats on her last BF so she would cheat on you.

But you should fuck them at least once to supply proof to the BF of how disloyal she is.

If she was however say cucking him for revenge for his fucking around on her and screwing other girls I’d then just simply leave her since it’d be clear to me she’s caught up in drama and negativity and not truly focused on building anything of a genuine nature between us.

You should still fuck her and supply proof if you like the guy. A foid might cuck a BF because she THINKS he's fucking around and screwing girls, when he actually isn't. Foids project their disloyalty onto guys sometimes, just as sometimes guys project their disloyalty onto foids (though that probably only happens half as often).

 

[based_meme]

I'm not the one doing it though: it's the foid who cheats, not the man.

What the hell is this gymnastic fuckery?

The OP clearly asks, "would you cuck other guys." This means you knowingly fuck a woman who is involved with another man. You're party to the cheating.

Stealing is something you do to objects. Foids are not objects. They are people with agency responsible for their decisions.

They choose to cheat, and by accepting her advances, you become a prime witness to her degeneracy so you could then inform the guy if he's someone worthy of admiration who deserves to know what she's up to.

You're either not following the reasoning behind the analogy, or you're misconstruing it. Replace "stealing" with "assault" or whatever you like.

The idea is that you're doing some harm x to person y, and the justification of, "x was going to happen to person y anyway, so I may as well be the one doing x" is not valid. In fact it's grossly flawed.

Foids aren't money.

If the foid was already willing to cheat, the guy has already lost whatever he might have had before.

It's more like the foid already robbed him, and you're just a bank where she deposits the stolen goods, and then you inform the police.

See above.

Replace the scenario with you beating somebody up to show them what happens when they get attacked to show them the kinds of things to expect from a future attacker.

You're really grasping at thin, worn out straws to try and argue that knowingly participating in adultery to cuckold another man is morally justified.

It isn't. Only in some warped reality would this be considered fine.

Oh... Wait a minute.



Honk on.

 

[Sheogorath]

The OP clearly asks, "would you cuck other guys."
This means you knowingly fuck a woman who is involved with another man.
You're party to the cheating.

I never made any vows to this guy to not fuck his woman, she is the only one who possibly made such a vow.

It is actually the foid who does the cucking because she is the active party, the sex-chooser.

In that sense it is inaccurate to say the male is the cucker, because it treats him as the person with agency and ignores the agency of the female.

The only situation it might be appropriate is if someone was raping the foid, in which case it is the rapist (the sex-chooser) who is the cucker and not the foid, since she isn't consenting to the cucking.

Furthermore: if the male cheated on it informed about it afterward, this is actually anti-cuck because the idea of cuck is rooted in deception: ie the guy never knows.

So you're only cucking assholes who you don't admire if you don't inform them, but if you inform the ones you do admire, you are NOT cucking them.

You're either not following the reasoning behind the analogy, or you're misconstruing it. Replace "stealing" with "assault" or whatever you like.

It is your burden to pick an appropriate analogy. Assault doesn't work: that's still a problem because you're fucking with someone else's property (their body).

The foid's body is the foid's property, it is only assault against a man (a father or a husband) if we live in a society where women lack agency and basically become the property of men. That is not the current state of things.

The idea is that you're doing some harm x to person y, and the justification of, "x was going to happen to person y anyway, so I may as well be the one doing x" is not valid. In fact it's grossly flawed.

No harm is being done. This is about feels.

If the foid is willing to cheat on a guy, his feels are based on a lie, so you are doing him a disservice if you aren't willing to expose the foid's lie. You are neglecting his wellbeing if you don't let his girlfriend seduce you.

Replace the scenario with you beating somebody up to show them what happens when they get attacked to show them the kinds of things to expect from a future attacker.

This is a wrong analogy. This guy is ALREADY GETTING HIS ASS KICKED. The foid is already willing to cheat on him, she is already disloyal.

Foids do this stuff with their friends anyway. There's even a business model where they hire a woman to try and seduce their BF and report if he tries to cheat or not.

Hell, a version of this appeared in the 1992 film "Single White Female" but it was a wrong version (rape) to begin with: due to wig the guy didn't realize he was cheating on GF until his dick was already wet. I think at that point it's understandable since when you near orgasm it's harder to process stuff or act moral.

 

[based_meme]

I never made any vows to this guy to not fuck his woman, she is the only one who possibly made such a vow.

It is actually the foid who does the cucking because she is the active party, the sex-chooser.

In that sense it is inaccurate to say the male is the cucker, because it treats him as the person with agency and ignores the agency of the female.

The only situation it might be appropriate is if someone was raping the foid, in which case it is the rapist (the sex-chooser) who is the cucker and not the foid, since she isn't consenting to the cucking.

Furthermore: if the male cheated on it informed about it afterward, this is actually anti-cuck because the idea of cuck is rooted in deception: ie the guy never knows.

So you're only cucking assholes who you don't admire if you don't inform them, but if you inform the ones you do admire, you are NOT cucking them.

You don't allow the concept of guilty party into your moral worldview? If you ask me for a gun to kill somebody and I give it to you fully knowing what you intend to do, somehow according to your system of morality I did nothing wrong?

Both of the adulterers maintain their agency, regardless of who you attribute the cucker label to. "Agency" is a non-argument here.

The attribution of negative moral value to the act of adultery and cucking the other man is not contingent upon deception. It's not the deception that makes it immoral, IT'S THE FUCKING.

JFL.....

It is your burden to pick an appropriate analogy. Assault doesn't work: that's still a problem because you're fucking with someone else's property (their body).

The foid's body is the foid's property, it is only assault against a man (a father or a husband) if we live in a society where women lack agency and basically become the property of men. That is not the current state of things.

The analogy is valid one, precisely because of the harm principle.

That's exactly what this is all about: harm done.

No harm is being done. This is about feels.

What exactly is your idea of harm anyway? You realize that the concept of harm is multi-faceted, right? There is physical harm, psychological harm, financial harm, social harm, professional harm. And on and on. Harm, as a moral philosophical concept, extends very broadly over a wide domain.

I get the sense that you have some very obtuse and narrow definiton for what constitutes as harm.

This is about much more than feels, though feels is a good chunk of it. This is about breaking trust, causing psychological and emotional stress that even manifests physiologically with adverse health effects, disrupting social harmony, reducing social capital/standing and reducing status within a community, just to name a handful.

If the foid is willing to cheat on a guy, his feels are based on a lie, so you are doing him a disservice if you aren't willing to expose the foid's lie. You are neglecting his wellbeing if you don't let his girlfriend seduce you.

I have to hand it to you. This is the most hilariously absurd and twisted logic I've ever seen in an otherwise coherent discussion.

This is a wrong analogy. This guy is ALREADY GETTING HIS ASS KICKED. The foid is already willing to cheat on him, she is already disloyal.

Foids do this stuff with their friends anyway. There's even a business model where they hire a woman to try and seduce their BF and report if he tries to cheat or not.

The analogy doesn't work for you, because you don't classify the adultery as a harm done.

The business model you used as an example actually hurts your argument, because there is no adultery being committed. Your argument was that you should fuck the wife and then tell the husband, because the wife was already disloyal.

No, you don't have to fuck the wife. All you have to do is do what those foids do in the business model and convince the slutty wife that you're willing to cheat with her, then report back to the good guy husband you want to look out for. That's what you would do, if you really gave a shit about the guy and his feelings, not fuck his wife then go, "oh hey bro, your wife's a total slut, btw. She totally fucked my brains out. Just thought I'd let you know. You're a good guy, you know. I'm just looking out for you."

 

[Fat Link]

 

[Sheogorath]

You don't allow the concept of guilty party into your moral worldview? If you ask me for a gun to kill somebody and I give it to you fully knowing what you intend to do, somehow according to your system of morality I did nothing wrong?

Murder is not a correct metaphor for 2 parties engaging in a relationship they both consent to.

A guy is going to get heartbroken if a foid dumps him to go fuck guys anyway, if the foid was doing things correctly.

But since she is choosing not to: she has already murdered the honesty in the relationship.

You really think if a foid cheats with you, that you're the first guy? That's cope. You're just MAYBE the first guy with the scruples to inform the guy (assuming he's a good guy who deserves to know) she's cheating on, so that he can have knowledge of the disloyal person in his life.

If you don't fuck her, then how exactly are you going to convince this guy she's a cheater?

Both of the adulterers maintain their agency, regardless of who you attribute the cucker label to. "Agency" is a non-argument here.

The foid has agency over what she does with her body, so my agency is not held accountable for it.

My agency would be accountable if I was the one cheating on a relationship.

The attribution of negative moral value to the act of adultery and cucking the other man is not contingent upon deception. It's not the deception that makes it immoral, IT'S THE FUCKING.

If there was not deception, the foid would either break up with the guy first, or inform him that she's choosing for it to be an open relationship.

Neither of those things are immoral. I don't know if I could tolerate a polyandrous relationship, but if I chose to stay with a foid who openly told me this was how she wants to operate, then I am not being wronged because I am consenting to it.

The analogy is valid one, precisely because of the harm principle.

That's exactly what this is all about: harm done.

The harm to the relationship is by having a disloyal foid willing to cheat and the guy being ignorant of that.

Removing his ignorance pretty much requires fucking her, otherwise he won't likely believe she would.

What exactly is your idea of harm anyway? You realize that the concept of harm is multi-faceted, right? There is physical harm, psychological harm, financial harm, social harm, professional harm. And on and on. Harm, as a moral philosophical concept, extends very broadly over a wide domain.

I get the sense that you have some very obtuse and narrow definiton for what constitutes as harm.

We do have to put parameters on what harm is.

Some guys might complain for example that a foid dumping them is 'harming' them, but that doesn't necessarily mean a foid shouldn't be able to end a relationship with a guy.

This is about much more than feels, though feels is a good chunk of it. This is about breaking trust, causing psychological and emotional stress that even manifests physiologically with adverse health effects, disrupting social harmony, reducing social capital/standing and reducing status within a community, just to name a handful.

Correct. But unless I promised a guy I wouldn't fuck his GF, I am not breaking his trust.

The foid broke his trust with her willingness to cheat. I would merely be an instrument of that revelation.

you don't classify the adultery as a harm done.

Adultery is done by a spouse who cheats on the other spouse, not who the cheating spouse cheats with.

The business model you used as an example actually hurts your argument, because there is no adultery being committed. Your argument was that you should fuck the wife and then tell the husband, because the wife was already disloyal.

Correct, unless she's an AI and you rewrite her or you mindfuck her with hypnosis/drugs, she was already in the mindset to cheat.

All you have to do is do what those foids do in the business model and convince the slutty wife that you're willing to cheat with her, then report back to the good guy husband you want to look out for. That's what you would do, if you really gave a shit about the guy and his feelings, not fuck his wife then go, "oh hey bro, your wife's a total slut, btw. She totally fucked my brains out. Just thought I'd let you know. You're a good guy, you know. I'm just looking out for you."

You are misleading by writing "willing to cheat with her". She is the one who would be cheating. Whoever she fucks isn't cheating on the BF/husband.

If you simply report back "hey your wife wants to fuck me" he might think you're lying. It's he said / she said. He would cope by convincing himself that she would change her mind at the last second and be loyal. Hell, who knows, maybe she would've.

Actually seeing whether or not she follows through on fucking another guy is the only true test. It's also the best way to optimize blackpilling the poor guy.

Even if you do fuck her a lot of guys are going to cope by accepting some apology from her, promises that she won't do it again, etc. It's THAT bad.

 

[Capable_Onion]

Cucking is gay ngl

 

[based_meme]

Murder is not a correct metaphor for 2 parties engaging in a relationship they both consent to.

I'm getting the impression that you're purposefully ignoring the point. Answer the question. Do you incorporate the concept of a guilty party into your moral value system?

As for consent, there is consent between two members of one party on one side (both adulterers, and both the killer and the accomplice). Don't introduce irrelevancy, they're just red herrings.

A guy is going to get heartbroken if a foid dumps him to go fuck guys anyway, if the foid was doing things correctly.

Doing what correctly? Cheating? There's a correct way to commit adultery?

But since she is choosing not to: she has already murdered the honesty in the relationship.

You really think if a foid cheats with you, that you're the first guy? That's cope. You're just MAYBE the first guy with the scruples to inform the guy (assuming he's a good guy who deserves to know) she's cheating on, so that he can have knowledge of the disloyal person in his life.

If you don't fuck her, then how exactly are you going to convince this guy she's a cheater?

Are you fucking serious or just trolling right now?

There are an abundance of ways that you can convince somebody that don't involve you being party to the wrongdoing in question.

This is so completely asinine that I shouldn't even be addressing this, because of how ridiculous it is.

J F L

The foid has agency over what she does with her body, so my agency is not held accountable for it.

My agency would be accountable if I was the one cheating on a relationship.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between the concepts of agency and moral complicity. Complicity is shared moral culpability using your agency. Accountability for your agency is not independent from the moral culpability of an action, once you use that agency to engage in a moral action that involves the agency of others tied to that moral outcome.

In the case of adultery where the outside party (you cucking the other man) is knowingly engaging in a negative moral action, then your moral culpability is tied to the other member of the party you're sharing agency with i.e., agreeing to participate in the same action.

Suppose that you ask me to give you a ride to the convenient store and I drop you off and wait in the parking lot. Five minutes later you come out running, jump in the car and tell me to floor the gas. We're driving far away now and I'm asking WTF is going on? You open a plastic bag full of cash and laugh. You just robbed the store.

Here, I don't share the moral culpability of your robbery, since I had no idea you had intended to do that all along. My giving you a ride is in no way an immoral act. But if you came to me and said you wanted to rob that store and that you needed a getaway driver, then my decision to agree means that my agency has tied me to the moral value of the act of robbery.

In the case of adultery if the man she's committing adultery with is legitimately clueless about her marital status, because he either assumed thay she's unmarried due to her advances or she outright lied to him, then, and only then, is he absolved of moral culpability in the act of her committing adultery.

How you fail process such a simple moral concept frankly amazes me. Ded srs.

If there was not deception, the foid would either break up with the guy first, or inform him that she's choosing for it to be an open relationship.

Neither of those things are immoral. I don't know if I could tolerate a polyandrous relationship, but if I chose to stay with a foid who openly told me this was how she wants to operate, then I am not being wronged because I am consenting to it.

What the hell are you even trying to argue here?

Deception is an integral component of adultery, but it's not what determines whether or not adultery is occurring. A man or woman can be openly adulterous, much to the disapproval of the wronged party, as is the case all over the world.

The harm to the relationship is by having a disloyal foid willing to cheat and the guy being ignorant of that.

That's a smaller part of the harm. The larger part of that harm comes from the fucking, not the lying about the fucking.

It's quite literally incredible to me that you don't see that.

Removing his ignorance pretty much requires fucking her, otherwise he won't likely believe she would.

Just fucking KEK. We're reaching levels of absurdity that shouldn't be comprehensible.

We do have to put parameters on what harm is.

So put them. That's what I asked you to do. Define and flesh out your concept of harm. Then later we might get to moral wrongdoing as a function of harm done.

A big part of the reason why we don't appear to be making any headway in this discussion is that you and I have different operational definitions of simple moral concepts such as harm. Because of our different starting points, we have a very divergent set of moral principles that manifest as conclusions like, "cheating with a disloyal foid is perfectly fine" vs, "cheating with a disloyal foid is completely wrong."

I must have done this dance at least a thousand times. So way back when I said let's agree to disagree there was wisdom there that you didn't understand at the time. People smarter than I (though rare, if I'm being honest and sucking my own dick about it) have been plugging away at moral problems for hundreds of years.

Hopefully now you'll be able to see that isn't something that can be resolved anytime soon.

Some guys might complain for example that a foid dumping them is 'harming' them, but that doesn't necessarily mean a foid shouldn't be able to end a relationship with a guy.

OK, we're getting somewhere. Keep going.

Correct. But unless I promised a guy I wouldn't fuck his GF, I am not breaking his trust.

The foid broke his trust with her willingness to cheat. I would merely be an instrument of that revelation.

The breaking of trust I mentioned was referring to the trust between the husband and wife. That is a type of harm done I was referring to.

Adultery is done by a spouse who cheats on the other spouse, not who the cheating spouse cheats with.

This does not absolve the party with whom the adulterer cheated of moral responsibility, given the condition of knowledge of the adulterer's relationship status. See above.

Correct, unless she's an AI and you rewrite her or you mindfuck her with hypnosis/drugs, she was already in the mindset to cheat.

Her existing intent to cheat does not excuse your act of being the complicit party in the adultery.

This was already addressed. Again, see above.

You are misleading by writing "willing to cheat with her". She is the one who would be cheating. Whoever she fucks isn't cheating on the BF/husband.

This is simply a rehash of the above.

If you simply report back "hey your wife wants to fuck me" he might think you're lying. It's he said / she said. He would cope by convincing himself that she would change her mind at the last second and be loyal. Hell, who knows, maybe she would've.

Those are huge assumptions, neither of which give you a free pass to justify helping her commit adultery and being complicit in the immorality of it.

Actually seeing whether or not she follows through on fucking another guy is the only true test. It's also the best way to optimize blackpilling the poor guy.

Is that so? Ever heard of audio and video?

Even granting that, according to your own reasoning he would still think you're lying, which means that regardless of whether you tell him his wife is adulterous or actually fucking his wife and telling him about it, he would deny it.

Your point is contradictory.

Even if you do fuck her a lot of guys are going to cope by accepting some apology from her, promises that she won't do it again, etc. It's THAT bad.

OK.... How is this relevant? You don't fuck her and tell him, he copes. You do fuck her and tell him, he copes.

What's this adding to your point?

I believe you when you say it's that bad, though.

 

[Sheogorath]

I'm getting the impression that you're purposefully ignoring the point.
Answer the question.
Do you incorporate the concept of a guilty party into your moral value system.

I think so. In this case the guilty party is the foid if she is breaking a promise.

As for consent, there is consent between two members of one party on one side (both adulterers, and both the killer and the accomplice). Don't introduce irrelevancy, they're just red herrings.

Equating cheating to murder is a red herring. If a foid is murdered, the crime is against her because it is her body.
If a foid is raped, the crime is against her because it is her body.
If a foid fucks another guy: sad for the guy who wanted dibs on her body, but unless her body becomes his property, the crime is not against him.

It's only tenable to present it as you are if we enact a system where foids don't own their bodies and instant it is passed from father to husband. I will reject speaking as if that is the case unless you actually enact it though.

Doing what correctly? Cheating? There's a correct way to commit adultery?

No, fucking other guys: the correct way to do it is to inform the guy you want to end the relationship, or to inform him you want to be polyandrous and give him opportunity to end it before he has indirect contact with other guys' cum.

"Foid dumps him" was clearly "it". Context was obvious.

There are an abundance of ways that you can convince somebody that don't involve you being party to the wrongdoing in question.

How? Break into her house and record a video of her fucking Chad?

You're not party to the wrongdoing. Only the foid is.

That's like saying if a foid promises to keep a secret and then you listen to that secret, you're on the hook for listening.

You're not: only the foid is. She's the one who made the promise. She's the one breaking trust.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between the concepts of agency and moral complicity. Complicity is shared moral culpability using your agency. Accountability for your agency is not independent from the moral culpability of an action, once you use that agency to engage in a moral action that involves the agency of others tied to that moral outcome.

There is no complicity. The only 'moral action' happening here is a foid consenting to fuck someone else.

For example: if a foid did not consent to fuck someone else, and she was simply raped, then cheating did not occur at all. Whether or not cheating happened is entirely upon the onus of her choice and nobody else's.

If you raped a guy's GF, the immoral act would not be 'cheating' (crime against guy) but rather 'rape' (crime against girl).

You are only responsible for your own promises, not a foid's.

I mean fuck, if a foid wants to skip work and you offer to take her out to a baseball game, I guess it's your problem that she skipped work? Fuck no.

In the case of adultery where the outside party (you cucking the other man) is knowingly engaging in a negative moral action, then your moral culpability is tied to the other member of the party you're sharing agency with i.e., agreeing to participate in the same action.

Traditionally: only foids can cuck. The root of cucking is what female cuckoo birds do.

You are misunderstanding the root analogy and thinking of foids as being the nest, a passive object instead of an active agent.

Unless it's rape (for example the TV series "Almost Family" where a fertility doctor used his own sperm instead of husbands and the foids didn't know) it's the foid on the line for her choice.

Suppose that you ask me to give you a ride to the convenient store and I drop you off and wait in the parking lot. Five minutes later you come out running, jump in the car and tell me to floor the gas. We're driving far away now and I'm asking WTF is going on? You open a plastic bag full of cash and laugh. You just robbed the store.

Here, I don't share the moral culpability of your robbery, since I had no idea you had intended to do that all along. My giving you a ride is in no way an immoral act. But if you came to me and said you wanted to rob that store and that you needed a getaway driver, then my decision to agree means that my agency has tied me to the moral value of the act of robbery.

You're making the same error of confusing objects and ownership.

The store goods belong to the store owner.

Foid pussy belongs to the foid, it doesn't belong to the boyfriend.

If you want to change the world back to dads/husbands owning foids' pussies, I will watch raptly, but otherwise, please stop RPing that's how sex works now. Hasn't been the case for a century.

Perhaps a better comparison here might be filesharing. The foid owns the copyright to her own video.

If you paid 100 bucks for the right to view that video, you will be pissed if she starts giving that video away for free to other guys.

It's bad form. It makes you feel cheated. But she owned the rights to that film so she has the right to do that. The guy viewing a free video didn't steal your fucking video. You still got to watch it.

In the case of adultery if the man she's committing adultery with is legitimately clueless about her marital status, because he either assumed thay she's unmarried due to her advances or she outright lied to him, then, and only then, is he absolved of moral culpability in the act of her committing adultery.

How you fail process such a simple moral concept frankly amazes me. Ded srs.

Sex between 2 people isn't an inherently morally problematic act. The problem is the broken trust from the foid.

Think for example if a foid owns a sweater and she lets her BF wear that sweater and promises to not let any man besides the BF wear the sweater.

She tells you that, and then says "but I lied to my BF, you can wear the sweater".

She is the owner of the sweater, so it is not immoral of you to accept that flip-flop and wear the fucking sweater.

Only if she actually made the BF the owner of the sweater (which such a promise doesn't do) are you then actually stealing it by wearing it.

What the hell are you even trying to argue here?

Deception is an integral component of adultery, but it's not what determines whether or not adultery is occurring.
A man or woman can be openly adulterous, much to the disapproval of the wronged party, as is the case all over the world.

BM it may be important here to establish that 'adultery' refers to fucking someone else while married and that the term may be inappropriate to use for unmarried boyfriend/girlfriend situations.

If that is what you mean (that a separated couple who agree to fuck other people but haven't divorced yet are still immoral) then you're free to think that I guess, but it seems like a technicality to me.

If the "wronged" party is aware of infidelity, why are they not divorcing or breaking up?

That's a smaller part of the harm. The larger part of that harm comes from the fucking, not the lying about the fucking.

It's quite literally incredible to me that you don't see that.

There is no direct harm in fucking, but rather if you fuck the foid again after she fucks a guy (without you knowing) or if you continue to invest resources in her.

Just fucking KEK. We're reaching levels of absurdity that shouldn't be comprehensible.

Don't pretend this isn't how strong the bluepill is in normies. Most guys don't trust each other and if you said their GF was cheating they would start thinking you're lying to ruin his happiness, getting him to dump the foid to free up the foid to be fucked, etc.

Only by showing you can already fuck her do you prove that this is not the ulterior motive: you're already capable of it.

So put them. That's what I asked you to do. Define and flesh out your concept of harm. Then later we might get to moral wrongdoing as a function of harm done.

There is emotional suffering in men who get cheated on, but there is also emotional suffering in men who get rejected before a relationship even starts.

If influencing a foid to make choices that cause male suffering is broadly some kind of moral offense, then it is basically a moral offense to date foids at all, because in doing so you MIGHT make her more inclined to turn other males down, causing their suffering.

So apparently the only 'moral' way you could date a foid would be to encourage her to fuck lots of incels, to abate male suffering rather than ease it. IE your thought process necessitates men becoming bids.

It needs to go by some other standard. You can hurt a guy's feels by mogging him by building muscle or taking a fucking bath.

Merely making choices that result in hurt feelings is not a high enough standard.

So tell me what your standard of harm is. You're the one arguing for one.

A big part of the reason why we don't appear to be making any headway in this discussion is that you and I have different operational definitions of simple moral concepts such as harm. Because of our different starting points, we have a very divergent set of moral principles that manifest as conclusions like, "cheating with a disloyal foid is perfectly fine" vs, "cheating with a disloyal foid is completely wrong."

My conclusion is not so absolute. Plus I don't call it cheating. The foid cheats, her toy does not.

I consider it neutral unless a foid wants to be honest with her BF and you encourage her not to be. Then you are actually facilitating deception, rather than merely tolerating it.

I consider it beneficial if a foid doesn't want to be honest and you out her.

I must have done this dance at least a thousand times. So way back when I said let's agree to disagree there was wisdom there that you didn't understand at the time. People smarter than I (though rare, if I'm being honest and sucking my own dick about it) have been plugging away at moral problems for hundreds of years.

Hopefully now you'll be able to see that isn't something that can be resolved anytime soon.

I still never liked the idea. I'd prefer something like "let's take a pause and come back to this disagreement later, and discuss other matters for a bit to get a fresh perspective".

Perhaps that's what ATD means though?

The breaking of trust I mentioned was referring to the trust between the husband and wife. That is a type of harm done I was referring to.

This does not absolve the party with whom the adulterer cheated of moral responsibility, given the condition of knowledge of the adulterer's relationship status. See above.

You're not cheating on the husband/BF, the wife/GF is.

You are not morally responsible for the foid's choices. She is an acter, she is not acted upon. She has 100% responsibility because cheating is 100% her choice.

Her existing intent to cheat does not excuse your act of being the complicit party in the adultery.

Giving her an opportunity to demonstrate her disloyalty is not complicit in anything but giving an opportunity to bare the truth to the husband/BF.

Those are huge assumptions, neither of which give you a free pass to justify helping her commit adultery and being complicit in the immorality of it.

I don't think there is complicit immorality there.

The difference between something like "hey anon, would you like a bite of this apple that I stole?" and this is that the apple wasn't stolen, it was the foid's property.

She can offer her body to whoever she likes. There's nothing immoral about accepting it. It just means her word is worthless, and it would be good to let the guy know so he doesn't waste further time in illusion about her.

This is like... say I have a favorite baker and I'm like "hey baker, I will pay you triple for your bread if you ONLY sell your bread to me" and he agrees.

Someone overhearing that who buys the baker's bread isn't doing an immoral act. It is still the baker's bread to sell, the baker is just full of shit.

regardless of whether you tell him his wife is adulterous or actually fucking his wife and telling him about it, he would deny it.

Yes, you'd need to get it on tape. If not the sex than something like vid of you entering a hotel arm in arm, or some other proof that she did something she probably denied doing, to get his suspicions up.

How is this relevant? You don't fuck her and tell him, he copes. You do fuck her and tell him, he copes.

What's this adding to your point?

I believe you when you say it's that bad, though.

Coping/Denial is always a possibility but I think you stand better chances of him having a revelation if you actually show the foid enjoying the cock. It's one thing to know cheating theoretically and another thing to actually witness it and be unable to get that real image out of your head.

 

[based_meme]

I think so. In this case the guilty party is the foid if she is breaking a promise.

She's guilty of breaking a promise and engaging in adultery with the man doing the cucking. The man she's engaging it with is only guilty of the adultery, IFF he's aware that this is adultery i.e., she already is in a relationship.

What part of the knowledge condition on is difficult to grasp here?

Equating cheating to murder is a red herring. If a foid is murdered, the crime is against her because it is her body.
If a foid is raped, the crime is against her because it is her body.
If a foid fucks another guy: sad for the guy who wanted dibs on her body, but unless her body becomes his property, the crime is not against him.

It's only tenable to present it as you are if we enact a system where foids don't own their bodies and instant it is passed from father to husband. I will reject speaking as if that is the case unless you actually enact it though.

You're not getting the concept. I'm just not getting through to you.

I'm not equating murder to cheating or cheating to stealing or any other permutation of moral wrongdoing compared to another.

I'm abstracting the concept of harm done away from any specific act. The point is that these acts all have moral value - in this case negative moral value - and you're somehow unable to grasp the idea that the act of adultery itself is a morally negative act, by rejecting it due to analogous comparisons to other, arbitrarily selected, morally negative actions.

You're fundamentally unable to make this abstraction. There's simply nothing I'm able to argue, if you fail to understand this.

No, fucking other guys: the correct way to do it is to inform the guy you want to end the relationship, or to inform him you want to be polyandrous and give him opportunity to end it before he has indirect contact with other guys' cum.

"Foid dumps him" was clearly "it". Context was obvious.

Yes, that's right. And why do you suppose that this is the correct way for her to go about fucking other guys?

It's precisely because of the harm done of doing it through adultery. Harm like emotional and psychological distress (as was mentioned), and other peripheral harms (also previously mentioned).

How? Break into her house and record a video of her fucking Chad?

Don't be a fucking dumbass. You yourself brought up that fidelity checking business model nonsense earlier. Why would you mention that, and then say that no, having sex with the adulteress is the only way of proving disloyalty?

Hire a private investigator? Have a hidden camera? Record of phone/text/email logs? Have the person she intended to cheat with come forth as a witness and admit it to the husband prior to the actusl adultery taking place?

There's a shit ton of ways you can convince the husband of her wife's disloyalty. "You have to fuck her bro" is ridiculous, and if anybody agrees with that, it's a sad moment on the sub.

You're not party to the wrongdoing. Only the foid is.

That's like saying if a foid promises to keep a secret and then you listen to that secret, you're on the hook for listening.

You're not: only the foid is. She's the one who made the promise. She's the one breaking trust.

You've truly failed to understand the relationship between the concepts of moral complicity and agency.

Sex is a two-party act where both parties are active participants. Adultery is when one party has a prior arrangement with an outside party where the current act becomes a breach of trust. Knowledge of this breach of trust by the second party makes that party morally complicit in adultery, but not morally complicit in the breach of trust.

The act of listening to a secret is a two-party act where one party is an active participant, while the other is passive. The active participant is the one who has breached the trust, and the passive participant is not morally culpable in the breach of trust.

Your example here is not saying anything new nor counters anything I've argued thus far.

There is no complicity. The only 'moral action' happening here is a foid consenting to fuck someone else.

For example: if a foid did not consent to fuck someone else, and she was simply raped, then cheating did not occur at all. Whether or not cheating happened is entirely upon the onus of her choice and nobody else's.

If you raped a guy's GF, the immoral act would not be 'cheating' (crime against guy) but rather 'rape' (crime against girl).

You are only responsible for your own promises, not a foid's.

I mean fuck, if a foid wants to skip work and you offer to take her out to a baseball game, I guess it's your problem that she skipped work? Fuck no.

As I said, the moral value of the act from the perspective of the second party (the guy she's cheating with) is contingent upon his knowledge that their sexual act is adultery on her part.

The adulterer is guilty 100% of the time here, but the.. let's call it co-adulterer.. is only conditionally guilty.

Traditionally: only foids can cuck. The root of cucking is what female cuckoo birds do.

Thanks for the etymological lesson.

You are misunderstanding the root analogy and thinking of foids as being the nest, a passive object instead of an active agent.

Unless it's rape (for example the TV series "Almost Family" where a fertility doctor used his own sperm instead of husbands and the foids didn't know) it's the foid on the line for her choice.

You gotta be fucking kidding me, man...

Are you even reading the arguments I'm making? This entire fucking time I've been arguing from a postion of moral agency for all parties.

I don't think I've ever been this patient with anybody in my entire life before.

If you're gonna ignore things people say, then just stop. It doesn't help the discussion.

You're making the same error of confusing objects and ownership.

The store goods belong to the store owner.

Foid pussy belongs to the foid, it doesn't belong to the boyfriend.

If you want to change the world back to dads/husbands owning foids' pussies, I will watch raptly, but otherwise, please stop RPing that's how sex works now. Hasn't been the case for a century.

Perhaps a better comparison here might be filesharing. The foid owns the copyright to her own video.

If you paid 100 bucks for the right to view that video, you will be pissed if she starts giving that video away for free to other guys.

It's bad form. It makes you feel cheated. But she owned the rights to that film so she has the right to do that. The guy viewing a free video didn't steal your fucking video. You still got to watch it.

What in the epic fuck is this?

WHAT THE FUCK does ownership have to do with the moral value of a particular action? Why are you even injecting ownership into this?

You completely airballed and misunderstood the point. The money is not supposed to represent the foid. The cashier is not supposed to represent the husband. The robber is not supposed to represent the guy she's cheating with.

The whole point was to demonstrate that shared moral culpability is contingent upon knowledge of intent of one party by the other party.

Holy fucking shit dude.... I can't go on... I just.. I just can't.

Sex between 2 people isn't an inherently morally problematic act. The problem is the broken trust from the foid.

Think for example if a foid owns a sweater and she lets her BF wear that sweater and promises to not let any man besides the BF wear the sweater.

She tells you that, and then says "but I lied to my BF, you can wear the sweater".

She is the owner of the sweater, so it is not immoral of you to accept that flip-flop and wear the fucking sweater.

Only if she actually made the BF the owner of the sweater (which such a promise doesn't do) are you then actually stealing it by wearing it.

I am trying to tell you that the breach of trust is the initial moral problem. The adultery itself is the bigger moral problem. And it's only a moral problem for the second party (guy cheating with) is if this second party is aware that she is in fact committing adultery.

BM it may be important here to establish that 'adultery' refers to fucking someone else while married and that the term may be inappropriate to use for unmarried boyfriend/girlfriend situations.

If that is what you mean (that a separated couple who agree to fuck other people but haven't divorced yet are still immoral) then you're free to think that I guess, but it seems like a technicality to me.

If the "wronged" party is aware of infidelity, why are they not divorcing or breaking up?

I'm merely saying adultery for simplicity's sake.

There is no direct harm in fucking, but rather if you fuck the foid again after she fucks a guy (without you knowing) or if you continue to invest resources in her.

Outside of STDs, no, there is no direct harm in the fucking. The harm comes after the fact.

Don't pretend this isn't how strong the bluepill is in normies. Most guys don't trust each other and if you said their GF was cheating they would start thinking you're lying to ruin his happiness, getting him to dump the foid to free up the foid to be fucked, etc.

Only by showing you can already fuck her do you prove that this is not the ulterior motive: you're already capable of it.

You're being ridiculous.

There is emotional suffering in men who get cheated on, but there is also emotional suffering in men who get rejected before a relationship even starts.

If influencing a foid to make choices that cause male suffering is broadly some kind of moral offense, then it is basically a moral offense to date foids at all, because in doing so you MIGHT make her more inclined to turn other males down, causing their suffering.

So apparently the only 'moral' way you could date a foid would be to encourage her to fuck lots of incels, to abate male suffering rather than ease it. IE your thought process necessitates men becoming bids.

It needs to go by some other standard. You can hurt a guy's feels by mogging him by building muscle or taking a fucking bath.

Merely making choices that result in hurt feelings is not a high enough standard.

So tell me what your standard of harm is. You're the one arguing for one.

You're not really saying anything here.

Don't "no u" this back to me. You have some bizarre notion of what is and isn't considered harm done, and apparently adultery doesn't fall under that.

You need to estsblish your definition and reference point.

My conclusion is not so absolute. Plus I don't call it cheating. The foid cheats, her toy does not.

I consider it neutral unless a foid wants to be honest with her BF and you encourage her not to be. Then you are actually facilitating deception, rather than merely tolerating it.

I consider it beneficial if a foid doesn't want to be honest and you out her.

OK.

I still never liked the idea. I'd prefer something like "let's take a pause and come back to this disagreement later, and discuss other matters for a bit to get a fresh perspective".

Perhaps that's what ATD means though?

OK.

No, it means let's not argue about it. Ironic, isn't it?

You're not cheating on the husband/BF, the wife/GF is.

You are not morally responsible for the foid's choices. She is an acter, she is not acted upon. She has 100% responsibility because cheating is 100% her choice.

You are also an actor. You are responsible for your own choices.

Giving her an opportunity to demonstrate her disloyalty is not complicit in anything but giving an opportunity to bare the truth to the husband/BF.

Already discussed.

I don't think there is complicit immorality there.

The difference between something like "hey anon, would you like a bite of this apple that I stole?" and this is that the apple wasn't stolen, it was the foid's property.

She can offer her body to whoever she likes. There's nothing immoral about accepting it. It just means her word is worthless, and it would be good to let the guy know so he doesn't waste further time in illusion about her.

This is like... say I have a favorite baker and I'm like "hey baker, I will pay you triple for your bread if you ONLY sell your bread to me" and he agrees.

Someone overhearing that who buys the baker's bread isn't doing an immoral act. It is still the baker's bread to sell, the baker is just full of shit.

Again, you misinderstood moral agency and complicity and have erroneously introduced ownership into the morality equation.

Yes, you'd need to get it on tape. If not the sex than something like vid of you entering a hotel arm in arm, or some other proof that she did something she probably denied doing, to get his suspicions up.

Yeah, and this doesn't include you being the one fucking her.

Coping/Denial is always a possibility but I think you stand better chances of him having a revelation if you actually show the foid enjoying the cock. It's one thing to know cheating theoretically and another thing to actually witness it and be unable to get that real image out of your head.

Once again, you don't need to be the one sticking your cock in her disloyal cunt to get it across to the blue pilled cuck that his wife is a whore.

 

[Sheogorath]

@based_meme would you edit in the opening bracket for the quote tags around my statements to make middle quotes more legible?

She's guilty of breaking a promise and engaging in adultery with the man doing the cucking.
The man she's engaging it with is only guilty of the adultery, IFF he's aware that this is adultery i.e., she already is in a relationship.

The etymology of adultery goes back to Old French "adultere" which means "violation of conjugal faith".

It is the wife who violates the conjugal faith, not whoever she fucks.

Wives who cheat on their husbands are adulteresses.
Husbands who cheat on their wives are adulterers.

Whoever they cheat with are merely fornicators.
They are guilty of having sex outside the bonds of marriage, but that's it.

 

[BachusPL]

Lmao imagine saying no

 

[based_meme]

@based_meme would you edit in the opening bracket for the quote tags around my statements to make middle quotes more legible?

It should be good now.