butterflyl1on:


Is marriage a prison?

If you choose to make it so.

DeSepiero:


When we want a woman (our wife) to have sex with no one else than us, we are being selfish.

I can't think of a more selfish act than to bind and personalise other people's love and bodies to us using a symbolic ring and autographed papers. Yet the person making this argument claims love is selfless.

Raintaker:

We do have the option to do what we want but there are consequences for it later. In this life, God allows things to happen and take place. He allows us to choose but holds us accountable when we disobey or do things wrong. This life is meant to be a test for us. Think of it like this: You are taking an exam at a university and you have the free choice to mark any answer you wish but the consequences for it will be later during the grading process. We as Muslims believe the grading process is in the afterlife.
“[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed – and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving.” [Qur’an 67:2]
Also, just because you did something wrong doesn’t mean you’re going to Hell. It’s all up to God. He is the best of judges and knows who deserves His Mercy and who deserves His wrath. It’s not up to us. As a Muslim, I don’t know if I’m going to paradise or not. It’s not up to me. It’s up to God. This is why we have stories in our texts of even sinful people entering paradise at times and seemingly righteous people entering hell. It’s because God knows those who deserve it and those who do not. There is always some reason behind it which we may or may not understand. We do the best we can in order to earn His pleasure by obeying His laws and keep hope for His mercy. That’s what He wants. He wants us to try our best to find and follow the truth to the best of our ability. Think of it like this: You work at a company and hope to get a promotion from your CEO. You do your best but at the end of the day, you really don’t know if you’re going to get that promotion or not. But this doesn’t stop you from trying to impress the CEO. Just imagine that CEO to be absolute just, fair, non-partisan, no weaknesses, and full of absolute wisdom.

Please read the question I asked and answer it. I don't follow your prevarications.

Proudgorgeousga:


isn't evolutionary biology a branch or a field under biology

DoctorAlien knows best and knows all!

DoctorAlien:


Cannot exist or does not exist (maybe for now)?

Why can a society where 99.9% of the members see nothing wrong with racism, murder and adultery not exist?

Cannot:

dalaman:


A society with 99% of its members as rapist, murderers and racist will exterminate each other out. The society will cease to exist in no time because it is made up of rapist, murderers and racist. They will keep killing, raping and discriminating against each other till they wipe each other off completely.

dalaman:


Why one percent of their body?

Mathematical convergence..because 99%

DoctorAlien:


Still going farther off the lane.

It's disappointing.

But the dalaman is apt to suggest such a society cannot exist. The only way such a society is feasible is if it's a one (wo)man society where the sole inhabitant is all three (racist, murderer and rapist), and has lost 1% of their body.

jtigwell0:
Allaah does not admit people to Paradise or Hell simply because He knows that they deserve that, rather He will admit them to Paradise or Hell on the basis of the deeds that they actually did in this world. If Allaah created mankind and put them in His Hell, they would soon argue that He did not test them or give them the chance to strive. Allaah wanted to refute this argument, so He created them in this world and gave them reason, and revealed His Books, and sent His Messengers; all of that is so that they will have no argument against Allaah on the Day of Resurrection.

Here's an example. Not a good one but something that will clarify the logic.

Say Jhon is your friend. He is walking down the street and runs into you. You both chat for a while. Then you ask Jhon where he is going. He tells you that he is going to the other side of town. You tell him that the road he's taking is blocked, there's a fight between two groups and he will surely not be able to make it to the other side of town and will get hurt or- even worse- die. If he listens to you and trust you, he will change his mind. If he doesn't and continue the path you believe is dangerous, he will get hurt. Now do you think you were being unjust to your friend Jhon? Do you think you were being tricky? Or was it more like Jhon's own stupidity that sent him the path you both clearly knew was dangerous.

It's the same with our deeds. Allah (SWT) clearly tells us not to do certain things. To believe in him and always seek His forgiveness. But still we go our own way. We do what we think is right. And then when bad things happen to us or when we are punished for what we have done, we blame Allah (SWT) for it? I seek refugee in Allah.

You evaded my question! I didn't create Jhon, I didn't cause the fight, I didn't make Jhon's path dangerous, and there's no way I know for sure, as in with 100% certainty that Jhon will be harmed, I've only just guessed and I may yet be wrong. Jhon may come out unscathed! Allah created me and created hell, so is Allah guessing my destination or does Allah know it with 100% certainty? Just answer my question directly, without any contrived analogies.

jtigwell0:
done above

Okay. Does God know if I'll end up in hell or heaven?

OliviaPope:
perhaps he has a crush on you

Then he should just ask...haha

butterflyl1on:


Lol you have said enough already.

I thought so too!

jtigwell0, can you define free will and destiny?

butterflyl1on:


For sake of this thread kindly state the kind of man you are with relation to the OP.

Who knows your type of woman may be reading it.

What is this? A conversation or a profiling exercise? This is getting too personal for my taste.

I decline

butterflyl1on:


Remember I said people can be complacent based on their complex and cannot be like you?

Do not expect to much from your wife because your experiences vary and she may not be as emotionally grounded as you claim to be.

So you demand that if you are a sexual deviant your wife must accept it regardless of her own feelings and if her feelings are not presented to you in a logically convincing argument then it is not worth considering and would be discarded right?

Of course not! We're either compatible or we're not. I would probably not end up with a woman who can't accept this about me...just as she should not accept to end up with a man like me. We both must look out for our personal interests first, and if being together doesn't enhance this, we have no business being together at all.

butterflyl1on:


Being honest between both parties wouldn't erase the act/continuous act neither would it justify the act.

A pleasurable act is its own justification. Honesty is just a matter of course.

What would do that is forgiveness! However how sure would you be that even the forgiveness is absolute?

So would it be better to abstain or to risk it regardless of the others feelings?

You aren't paying attention! Again, I repeat: Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, so I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden! It's not my job to act on another human's behalf, just as I wouldn't appreciate another human acting on my behalf, or second guessing me. If you cannot be honest with me, you have no business being my wife, simple! So the question of hidden feelings isn't my concern at all!

butterflyl1on:


You prefer upfront honesty but you can never be sure if such honesty is absolute coming from the other person.

No! You can never be.

So which is better, assuming you have gotten absolute consent even when the person is secretly hurting or denying yourself this pleasure so the person can be unequivocally happy simply because you are not sure of the level of consent?

Is it better to take a selfish risk when the other is hurting secretly or it is better to put the other first.

I could turn your query around too: So what if you're in a relationship where the other secretly prefers polyamory, but then choose to hide it from you because they think you'll be hurt (in spite of your assurances)? Which would you prefer? Honesty or Secrecy?

Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, which is why I try to be as open to people as possible. This occasionally earns me the 'arsehole' epithet, but in the end, there is no mistaking my intent. Going back to your question, I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden!

AlmiqhteeAllah:
Hehehe. Have you ever heard of the concept of Homo Duplex? French sociologist Emile Durkheim coined the term "homo duplex", meaning that a human being is composed of two parts, which he labelled "sacred" and "profane".

"Sacred" comes from the Latin SACRARE, "to make holy, to consecrate". The sacred refers to our religious and spiritual dimension, to the things on which we confer special, holy status, the things we hold in highest regard and mean the most to us. (Your LOVE for your spouse falls under this category).

"Profane" is from the Latin PROFANARE, meaning "to desecrate, to render unholy, to violate." It's basically just the opposite, the flipside of the sacred.

A human being in this view has a dual nature, with a holy and unholy part. We are all Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

People invest much more in the sacred than the profane. The sacred is something for which you will give your life. It's your holy cause, the thing that defines who you really are and what you really believe or support. It binds you, commits you, seperates you from everyone who does not share your cause. REALISE THAT THE LOVE YOU HAVE FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON IS A SACRED CAUSE FOR WHICH YOU CAN GIVE ANYTHING AND MAKE ENORMOUS SACRIFICES.

Those who are profane are cynical, selfish people with no cause other than their own self-interest and self-preservation.

But realise this: there is a bizzare CORRESPONDENCE between the sacred and the profane. In one way or another, the cause taken up by an individual is really just an extension of himself. In all cases, the individual seeks to advance his cause - his self-interest - and do harm to any cause opposed to his. In these terms, the "sacred" is revealed as merely the profane in disguise, dignified by being associated with more than one person. It's this notion that a person is fighting on behalf of something greater than himself, yet which is also secretly an EXTENSION OF HIMSELF, that has proved so seductive and powerful. A person can believe he's serving a higher purpose while just serving his own purpose. He can dress up his selfishness in noble robes and admire himself in his seemingly altruistic guise, when in fact he's as selfish as ever.

There is NO SUCH THING as pure love, altruism or self-sacrifice that is 100% detached from the person's SELF-INTEREST. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Whatever love or self-sacrifice you're indulging in, it must SATISFY YOUR SPIRIT in one way or another before you can really immerse yourself in it. You must find it delightful and emotionally suiting in some way. If you DON'T find the very act APPEALING IN ANY WAY AT ALL, you definitely won't get absorbed by it. Such is human nature.

Plato said that we can NEVER fall in love with something we find ugly (either physically or metaphysically). If you fall in love with a person, you must find something about them beautiful (their appearance, their character, their intellect, or whatever else). If you fall in love with an idea, you must find SOMETHING about that idea beautiful (it must appeal to your higher self, your sense of being, or whatever else). Simply put, SOMETHING about the thing you love must resonate with you (ie you find it beautiful) on some level. If it doesn't, you will NOT be able to love it. You may be able to love something even if it has flaws, but it must possess beauty on some level for you to be able to love it at all. Something you find utterly repulsive in every way would be an impossible thing to love.

So, you see, when you remove all the propaganda, it's all about SELF-INTEREST in the end.

---

AgentOfAllah, this is what you mean, isn't it?

Et voila! I wouldn't have had the patience to put it so succinctly...I always knew you had my back Almightee Oga at the top...Forever your agent!

butterflyl1on:


Well God says I am not an animal but a special breed of creation who can only act and think like an animal when I forsake my maker.

God should open its biology textbooks.

butterflyl1on:


This is what you seem not to understand.

Consent can be of face value and can also be from the heart.

Face value could be due to a complex the person has but deep down they are hurting.

How can you tell when consent is absolute?

You can't...and by this same token, you can never tell when or whether someone means anything they say. But that's all we've got to work on, isn't it? Someone can as well lie that they are faithful and devoted, but cheat on you, right? You just have to choose which you prefer, and I prefer upfront honesty.

butterflyl1on:


So confirming what you said earlier, it's all about selfish interests. You do not believe in sacrifice or endurance in marriage but will simply go where your selfish feelings lead.

Seems you didn't pay attention to my post. Like I said, if she can convince me why I should sacrifice that urge, I will be happy to listen!

Isn't that a bit too mechanical? Where then is the love? You talk like you do not believe in love or that love holds no value to you.

I believe in love...but love is selfish! So also are sacrifice and endurance!

peacesamuel94:

if being more conscious of the consequences of uncontrolled feelings is what you call pretentious, then that's so wrong, This ability to think before acting is what has placed man above other animals. So your opinion that man should do only what he feels like, will most definitely lead to the self destruction of mankind.

Good argument, but I don't think I've ever opined that man should do whatever he feels like. In fact, I've only ever said man should do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't harm others. So if you can tell me of the negative consequences of consensual sex with multiple partners, you may yet convince me that it is wrong.

butterflyl1on:

You said many an not all animals. So those who do not offer Consent are raped. We cannot be human and animals at the same time so saying we are human animals doesn't work .

A dog is a dog and an animal at the same time, a bonobo is a bonobo and an animal at the same time, a fish is a fish and an animal at the same time, but a dog does not behave like a fish and a bonobo certainly doesn't behave like a dog. You can dispute this all you want, if it makes you feel good, but biology says we are human animals, and human animals we are!

butterflyl1on:


Now this is what i don't understand. Not all couples or people hold this view of yours as theirs. They believe in devotion.

If you were married to a woman who believes in devotion even though you obviously do not and you keep having the urge to stray due to various other women you are sexually drawn to and who are also interested and due to your belief that consent makes it right, if and when your wife denies you consent and you can not bear it any longer would you lie to satisfy your craving which matches your worldview?

Good question! If it comes to that, I would prefer not to lie to her, so I will let her know that I can't bear it any longer, so the ball is in her court. She would either then give me a compelling argument (and I believe I'm a reasonable person) why I shouldn't follow through. If I am convinced, I wouldn't do it. Or she will have to allow me, or we will have to part ways.

However, I hope it never comes to that because this is the kind of thing I'd have ironed out way before we got married.

butterflyl1on:


Read my comment again

.

You read my response again...not all animals are the same! So which kind of animal are you referring to in your hypothetical? I am a human animal, and human animals have a strong sense of empathy; thus rape is a no no in my philosophy.

butterflyl1on:


You can have the same legal framework protect them even without marriage.

Probably, but marriage is an easy way out, because I wouldn't have to draw up personalized contracts for everybody with whom I am involved.

Since you say sexual devotion is dumb are you an advocate of polygamy or polyandry or both?

I support all the polys (as long as only consensual adults are involved)! Polygyny, polyandry, polyamory...and of course, monopoly (the game)! No one should place limits on how many people you can or should love.

butterflyl1on:



Who decides what animals are and what humans are?

You say we are animals so based on this notion you believe that acting like animals in the form of consensual fornication and adultery is perfectly alright. However, do animals give consent? If the barbaric nature of an animal is to take by force or cunning what is not his and still feel good about it how then do you talk about consent? As animals whom you say we are then it shouldn't matter to you if consent is given/gotten or not.

I say we are not animals. Anyway let me now derail

I say we are animals, knowing fully well that not animals are the same. If you don't know this, and choose to lump all animals into Hillary's basket of deplorables, that's your fault!
My advocacy is that we should embrace our true nature. We judiciously violate the very rules we pretend to uphold anyway, so we'd do ourselves plenty of good by dropping the pretense all together.

---

Speaking of animal consent, what do you think many animals do when they start their elaborate courtship rituals? Rape?

butterflyl1on:


So procreation is dumb? Being devoted to each other sexually is dumb? So it's all about the legal framework for you.

Procreation isn't dumb, it's natural...almost like eating. It can, and frequently does happen outside of the institution of marriage. But yes, sexual devotion is dumb and pretentious!

So you simply see it all as a forced union or something forced on you so just have to mechanically follow? Is this what you are insinuating ?

Union isn't forced, social expectations are! I don't need marriage to do right by the people I love, but if I died, the legal framework of marriage will protect them and their inheritance from the prying eyes of predators.

peacesamuel94:


Hope you know that humans are also very selfish in nature, and hence can LIE consequently to satisfy their interest if it gets to that point..

Yes I do. The crux of the matter is self-interest, like you mentioned. So if you allow people to pursue their interests, as long as it does not harm anybody, they'll have no need to lie.

I think this pattern of reasoning is flawed, if we were to succumb to all our feelings because its in our nature, then there will be no atom of difference between a man and an animal.

Nor should there be! Humans are most assuredly animals...pretentious, but animals no less!

butterflyl1on:



Hmm her body, her rights!

She can play anytime she likes!

Noted!

However since its her body and her rights why then did you get married to her?

Great question! I actually believe the institution of marriage is inherently dumb, and I'd rather it didn't exist. But it does exist, and provides certain legal protections for all parties involved. If someone will bear kids for me, then I'm prepared to relinquish parts of my principles to afford her such legal protections.

DoctorAlien:


So while you see the person who lied to and/or cheated you as having done wrong, the person has not necessarily done wrong.

Good.

The person has done wrong by me!

butterflyl1on:


So take away lying and cheating and adultery and fornication become right.

So your wife has your permission to play when you cannot play anymore and if you walk in on her being bedded by another man based on your already given consent you would cheer him/her on and probably get a good sitting position too for sake of observation.

So everyone is free to boink everyone despite being married as long as consent was given. So adultery or fornication is Cool to carry out and is not wrong.

Okay got you

She can play anytime she likes! Her body, her right! So, yep, pretty much...except the walking in on them bit...that'll just be awkward. I hope I get advance notice if they're to do it at home.

DoctorAlien:


I believe you're saying that in your own opinion, lying and cheating is wrong, not that they are absolutely and necessarily wrong, yes?

I feel hurt when someone lies to me and/or cheats me, so yes! Strictly from my experience!