A Moral Conundrum for you guys, Would you sleep with a married person? (READ THE OP BEFORE POSTING)

[Ledan]

Nope, that is sorta a mood killer.

 

[Loonyyy]

Also, even though it'd be immoral, I'd probably do it.

I'm a jerk. Sue me.

 

[Sprinal]

If she was willing to have sex with me when in another relationship. There must have been a reason. Now if she was doing it. I would assume she was in a low point in her marriage. That usually (as far as I have observed) is followed with seperation and divorce so I personally would probably ask whether they wanted to continue. But otherwise I would be fine with it.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

My initial reaction is no but it really depends, there are way too many unknown variables. Are they separated, are they getting divorced, do I think this person is awesome enough to risk chopped up and thrown in a river (probably not but still).

I would leave, and would probably not be interested in them any more. It's cliche but I do believe someone who will cheat with you will cheat on you.
Being faithful in a relationship is very important to me, and I wouldn't be with anyone it wasn't important to.

Why would you leave? According the scenario, this is your place. You're just going to leave some stranger to hang out at your place?

LOL XD

She is apparently so disgusted by this person it's as if their very presence has desecrated her home and she can no longer be there =O

But yeah rofl... I'm going to guess she missed that and I sure missed it the first time I read through the thread XD

Dammit! double ninjad.
I was thinking this as well, arngraly walking down the street and then, "waaaaaaaait a second", turn around and see them running off with your TV. "Dammit! not again!"

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

I'd have a talk with her about why she is trying to cheat on her husband. Depending on the reason, like if she's being abused or something, then maybe.

Not to attack you or anything but sleeping with someone who was being abused and so probably in a vulnerable mental state, I don't know man. I guess it could be a good thing but still.

(again not attaking)

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

I'd have a talk with her about why she is trying to cheat on her husband. Depending on the reason, like if she's being abused or something, then maybe.

Not to attack you or anything but sleeping with someone who was being abused and so probably in a vulnerable mental state, I don't know man. I guess it could be a good thing but still.

(again not attaking)

I meant, y'know, he treats her like shit, cheats on her, that kind of thing, not sexual or emotional and mental abuse.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

No. I find the idea reprehensible.

 

[zumbledum]

well there are marriages and marriages aren't there? i was in this very situation just this last weekend gone. and i didnt go through with it then , but solely because the woman in question was the mother of my nephew's fiance and it would of been some serious drama.

But i know quite a few people who are married but not monogamous and in that situation its all fun and games. and if they were in a monogamous relationship and i found myself in the op's scenario id be all over it like a cheap suit from moss bross.

no point protecting a marriage that isnt satisfying both partners, living in that situation is worse than changing it.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Nah, ai fair on her husband and to be fair if she was a random married women I don't think I could morally do it.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

I'd have a talk with her about why she is trying to cheat on her husband. Depending on the reason, like if she's being abused or something, then maybe.

Not to attack you or anything but sleeping with someone who was being abused and so probably in a vulnerable mental state, I don't know man. I guess it could be a good thing but still.

(again not attaking)

I meant, y'know, he treats her like shit, cheats on her, that kind of thing, not sexual or emotional and mental abuse.

Ah, ok, I just misunderstood, I apologise.

 

[endnuen]

I would honestly not be bothered.

I might have walked away if I was told very early on in the evening, because the potential for a score is usually that lower with a girl in any kind of relationship.
I would not walk away due to morals or ethics, but simple because of long odds.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

I have slept with a married woman before. Though at the time she was getting a divorce, we had about a 3 week fling where it was pure sex, nothing else. After that she got back with her husband and I ended it. She has called me up a few times but I refuse her

 

[thirion1850]

Odds are, if she outright told me, I probably wouldn't. If not and she just coyly drops hints on the subject, I don't really care. She's attractive enough to catch my eye, so what the hell, right?

 

[Sam Ronin]

I had this happen to me for real. They only told me after the act though.

A couple of weeks later they wanted to hook up again and I told them that I would not be "That Guy".

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

From past experience and the developed skills of self-preservation, I give an extremely confident "I'm out of here." and that is that.

Any idiot who takes the "Oh it's just a one-night stand, that's her/his problem" has obviously never actually had this B.S. blow up in their face later when the angered s.o. comes to your workplace or home looking to explain to you how YES it indeed is your problem now.

Drop that like it's not yours and get the hell out while you can.

 

[Shpongled]

Point is people generally like to hold themselves in high regard, yet when the situation actually comes down to it, many people will break their ethical standards. I don't think it's fair to call any average human being whose brain is essentially run by neurotransmitters terrible, they do what they do, it's human nature.
---
I'm not saying you're a complete slave to it or anything, just that i'm willing to bet that at least half of will, given the circumstances (horniness) of the question and give the right girl or guy, will just say "fuck it" and fuck. To put it bluntly. 'Cos that what human beings are.

Reference as many scientists as you like, I still don't think that's just "how it is". Basically, the thing that separates man from, say, a lovestruck baboon is that we have more to us than that. We have hormones, and we're pulled by our genitals or our stomachs in different directions, but we also have moral systems. We have rules of society and behaviour that each person crafts for themselves. The question here is about morals, and whether or not one should do it. Of course not! It would be a rare and personal set of rules that would allow sleeping with another person's spouse. If the majority would say that it's wrong, and you do it anyway, then that makes you responsible for your actions. Nobody should have to go into a lab mid-coitus and get their dopamine levels checked to see if they're above the certified "OK" levels. We just know it's not right and act accordingly.

Say someone is craving meat, because the iron in their body is getting low. Say this person is also opposed to eating any creature. They can recognize that their body needs something that meat provides, and pass by the McDonald's and the butcher shop and the sandwich stall on their way home to eat a meal that will provide what they need because they are a THINKING creature. They can hold themselves to a higher standard than a jealous squirrel, because we have societal rules. A generous squirrel could starve if it didn't violently jump on the acorn that another squirrel is eyeing. I would hope a human being can stop rubbing and start walking rather than finish their knowingly reprehensible act!

Actually the question here is whether or not one would do it, and that's the question my replies were addressing specifically. Your analogy would be more fitting if i was already starving (horny), the McD's burger (womans ass/breasts, whatever) was already in my hands and there was no certainty of getting any food (sex) when i get home.

I mean, that analogy falls down because that wouldn't situation wouldn't arise unless i'd already gone into McD's and stolen a burger, in this particular scenario presented by the OP, i don't know I'm doing anything reprehensible right up until the point where i'm about the have sex. We've already started fooling around and all those chemicals related to sexual arousal are already kicking in.

To make the analogy more fitting: Say you're craving food, you have no food at home and all the shops have closed, your friend hands you a burger, and just as you're about the take a bite your friend tells you it's stolen. The analogy still fails, but i suspect in this situation more people would take a bite than they'd like to admit.

It's not about whether dopamine levels are "ok" or not, it's just simple (neuro)chemistry. There are parts of our brain that have been developing for millions and millions on years, the parts we share with reptiles, and it has more of an impact on our actions than we as humans like to admit.

GET THE F*CK OUT OF MY HOUSE YOU DIRTY SLAPPER

Sex is not worth making someone else very miserable, if you go ahead with the sex you are a terrible person.
I would definitely tell her husband if I knew them, (but I would not have known they were married obviously) if they were someone I did not know then I would just tell them to get lost.

Or they're a fairly standard human being. First look up Stanley Milgram and his studies (and the countless offshoots of it, all with similar results), then check out the funky neurochemical known as Dopamine, and what it does to your brain during sexual arousal (OP's question states we're about to get down to the act of it when s/he tells me, chances are i'm aroused at this point).

You might be surprised.

Fairly standard and terrible are not mutually exclusive. Also if you're going to cite his studies, do be more specific. For instance the rather well known Milgram experiment is on something completely different. Even if it has something to do with dopamine that is not going to be much of an excuse to say the experiment particularly applies to this.

Point is people generally like to hold themselves in high regard, yet when the situation actually comes down to it, many people will break their ethical standards. I don't think it's fair to call any average human being whose brain is essentially run by neurotransmitters terrible, they do what they do, it's human nature.

Yes, it is completely fair. If you're going to try and throw out deterministic talk about how their neurotransmitters control them, then at least be consistent and do *try* not to judge it by nonsensical standards like their free will. If all they are is run by their neurotransmitters then they should be judged by their god damn neurotransmitters. It's an absolutely cowardly excuse to go to "I can't help it" when the argument you make can be made for anything you do.

If the question would have been "would you continue to flirt and start a little fondling if you knew this person was married", then you'd be more justified to question ethics, but the specifically stipulates that the fooling around has start (little fondling? maybe some rubbing and grinding going on somewhere..). At this point the dopomine is wanting to start making itself known in force and your brain lowers its inhibitions, so to speak (rats walking over electrified dose in order to recieve a spike over dopomine, for example(can't remember study, google it).

No, if you're going to play the stupid "My brain controls me" card I can apply it to everything.

I'm not saying you're a complete slave to it or anything, just that i'm willing to bet that at least half of will, given the circumstances (horniness) of the question and give the right girl or guy, will just say "fuck it" and fuck. To put it bluntly. /'Cos that what human beings are.

I'm willing to bet that you're just pulling shit out of nowhere and deserve no respect for it. Also the amount of people who would do it does not justify it.

You missed my point entirely, i'm not trying to justify it, i'm not even arguing about the moral or ethical side of the question at all, i'm merely pointing out the monumental effect neurotransmitters actually have on what we like to call "free will". Yes, you can apply it to everything, which is why we have Provocation and Diminished Responsibility defense laws, and why we don't (legally) treat those with mental illnesses the same as healthy individuals. Even the law is willing to accept "heat of the moment" violence or severe depression as a mitigating factor. Because at some point you have to acknowledge that what we like to think of as "free will" is at it's core entirely based on a whole bunch of chemical/biological reactions, and chemistry/biology (or biochemistry if you like) doesn't bother with morals or ethics. Especially when it comes to two particular things: survival, and, you guessed it, sex.

Ever been seriously depressed? Or taken a particularly high dosage of a potent psychoactive drug? Or been in a particularly extreme situation? Or some sort of addiction? In any one of those situations the average person can find themselves doing things that they wouldn't normally do. Why? Because that's just how the human brain works, it does what it does. Normally it keeps us on an even keel, allows us to sensibly analyse a situation, develop and adhere to a certain code of morals or ethics etc etc, but there are certain times when the more baser side will kick in, some neurotransmitter will in increase or decrease in activity, biochemistry will start doing what it does, and people will find themselves doing something they wouldn't normally do. Often it happens when sex is involved, what are the general estimations? some 50% of marriages involve unfaithfulness?, i seriously doubt all of those people are ok with cheating, they're just subject to chemistry. Whether they like it or not, they did something they knew wasn't right.

Again, i'm not saying we should be free of all responsibility for our actions, I'm just pointing out that everyone does things they know aren't right at some point in their lives, generally because some baser part of the brain or some certain neurotransmitter is at work and they aren't thinking sensibly. Everyone is subject to chemistry, refusing to even acknowledge that is pointless really, you're just holding everyone (and yourself) to an unrealistically high degree.

 

[Sean951]

I usually take the moral high ground, but it would depend on how long of a dry spell I was having. I recently got off a 2 year drought, and by the end I was getting pretty desperate which led to my first one night stand, something I had found repulsive when I was younger. Now, I'm all for them.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

If I was after sex I think I actully would think about doing it...
It all depend on how much I know the other part tho I wouldn´t do it to a friend, but if there are no bad repercussions of it I would do it.