Is it morally wrong for me to fuck a married woman?

Is it morally wrong for me to frick a married woman?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not if she's married to you.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s her moral failure, not yours

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's his too, prostitutes wouldn't exist without prostitute makers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Both will always exist. She made a commitment, he didn’t. The more noble thing would be to frick her and then let the husband know

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Her fault might be worse but knowingly fricking a married woman is still a scumbag thing to do. The "more noble thing to do" would be sending their texts etc to the husband without fricking her.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >being a snitch and ruining lives is the noble thing to do

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're one of those people who when they cheat on their partner deludes themselves it's better to keep it a secret because hurting her would be "selfish", aren't you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't cheat.

            He didn’t ruin anyone’s life, the adulterer that wasn’t loyal ruined her own life.

            Not her fault her husband went limp dick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not her fault her husband went limp dick.
            It's her fault for not divorcing him.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He didn’t ruin anyone’s life, the adulterer that wasn’t loyal ruined her own life.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's mens fault that women open their legs casually to strangers
        The lengths that women will go to to evade responsibility for their own actions is truly amazing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope. Wrong.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's his too, prostitutes wouldn't exist without prostitute makers.

      It's only the interloper's fault when they have a personal relationship with the opposite party in the relationship, and know them as someone of good character and deserving of respect.

      You don't have any obligation to protect a relationship containing people you know nothing about. Perhaps you're ruining the perfect marriage with two saints, but perhaps you're """ruining""" a marriage where the man beats his spouse and hasn't made her orgasm in 30 years and beats his kids too and kills dogs for fun. More likely in both cases, you both just get away with it and there isn't even a harm caused, so you've just made one person happier, which is a moral good. Ultimately people, including interlopers, don't have a moral obligation to dig into someone's personal life, and without that context, pretty much the worst you can say is
      >but they're doing something which might makes the counterparty sad if it was public, which could be bad if the person's a good person and the relationship was of good quality and you got caught and the other party cares!
      Which is too many "ifs" to justify moral condemnation when 50% of the relationship has clearly cast its vote that "it's fine and I want this".

      When you DO know the counterparty though, and have a positive and personal relationship with them, that's when it changes from
      >it's not your job to know everyone in the universe and protect strangers from doing things they explicitly want to do with you
      to
      >you are intentionally betraying the confidence of a friend who you know is a good person and that you're doing wrong
      and violating the maxim
      >it's a dick move to not tell a friend information about a situation in which where you know they're being lied to and the knowledge would be very relevant to them.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Morals are a spook to keep the cattle away from reaching its goals and purposes.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    obviously, but what she's doing is worse. if she'd frick you she'd frick somebody else, so bang her and then snitch on her.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This dude knows what’s up. You get the c**t and then the c**t gets what she deserves.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, but you are required to make her cum hard. It's a rule.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, her breaking her vows to someone else is Not Your Problem.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is it morally wrong for me to frick a married woman?
      No

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is it morally wrong for me to frick a married woman?
    No

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ...like there was any chance of that actually happening

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i suppose it depends on the situation. if you know her husband and actively pursue her that is very different to just meeting her at a bar and going back to your place etc.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    obv. 10 commandments. news recent crazy

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I fricked 3 married women and did not feel guilt, they pursued me. But karma is a b***h and it comes in a different package than you may think. I no longer trust ANY woman. None I've listened as they told lies to their husband naked in my bed. Or fabricate a work trip and we spend a weekend fricking at a beach resort etc. I have met wonderful honest women since but there is now a trigger in my brain never get too close emotionally. I did this to myself.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP has been posting this girl for a long time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      frankly she does look like a cheating prostitute wife

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it is. The only scenario where it is moral is when she knows her husband cheated and wants a divorce. So if you help her with your wiener, you’re actually possibly helping their family stay together. If she cheats back on him they’re even.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    PUTA

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hell no, but if not you then who else... go fricking wild man

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've been in this situation and I turned her down. If I were to frick her, that would be casting a vote for dishonesty and infidelity. By saying no, I am casting a vote for monogamy and honesty. By doing this, she will be forced to either divorce him or find some other chud to have sex with.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is driving the getaway car for a robbery illegal?
    Youre knowingly participating in an action that harms someone.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Coming from someone who has been cheated on. Kill your feelings for her. There is a relationship that might have some issues. But you can ruin something that could have been fixed. I'm still hurt and this is years after the events. You'll just contribute to the ruin dating pool that is already shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You'll just contribute to the ruin dating pool that is already shit.
      Just be part of the problem

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nah

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    lol @ moralgays

    It's completely natural for a taken woman to experience lust for a fantasy. You just play the role, satisfy her, and let her keep the cuck.

    I do find it morally irresponsible to frick her feathered nest up, because she so graciously serviced my wiener, so I will protect her hard work getting beta bucks and just give her the sexual and emotional gratification beta bucks doesn't possess

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just frick her dude. it's the husband's fault for putting a ring on a prostitute.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Charity Crawford lookin ass

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The woman has an obligation to divorce the man if she is in a bad relationship.
    Nope, because society has imbued the social status of "marriage" with a legally binding government-enforced contract with massive economic and legal weight, with associated massive consequences for breaking.

    In a world where a marriage SOLELY meant
    >an agreement in which we signal to outside parties that we love and are committed to each other and plan on staying with each other for a long time
    that obligation would probably exist - that's not the world we exist in.

    >the guy can be a crazed savage who kills both of you.
    Arguments from fear aren't moral arguments, and you actually have a moral obligation to reject this kind of
    >do it or I'll hurt someone else
    blackmail, as accepting the framing incentivizes and encourages what is essentially hostage-taking as a normal behavior to get results. Correct response is to have a consistent policy of not negotiating with terrorists so losers don't think these kinds of chimp-outs buy them any security in their relationships.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Nope, because society has imbued the social status of "marriage" with a legally binding government-enforced contract with massive economic and legal weight, with associated massive consequences for breaking.
      The woman voluntarily entered this arrangement. Indeed, she pushed for it.
      >Arguments from fear aren't moral arguments, and you actually have a moral obligation to reject this kind of
      It is a moral argument. If both of you die, it will hurt countless other people. Maybe one of you work as a doctor and now there's patients who will lose you because you wanted to have sex.
      >Correct response is to have a consistent policy of not negotiating with terrorists so losers don't think these kinds of chimp-outs buy them any security in their relationships.
      This is essentially the same as saying that if you want to punch someone in the face for your personal pleasure, you should just punch them in the face even if they will fight back.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The woman voluntarily entered this arrangement
        You don't want this voluntariness standard, otherwise I just say
        >and she can voluntarily seek out sexual partners on the side, indeed she pushed for it. her man can voluntarily end the marriage if he cares"
        and we're done here.

        >If both of you die
        >implying both
        this_is_america.gif, if you're worried the man wants to play real world CSGO if he finds out, glocks and 9mm are cheap, plus the state's playing for your team, plus if we're gonna be frank and discuss the threat of murderous violence as a practical matter, unless you two get caught literally at her home (a very avoidable choice!) she goes first. Most murderers aren't getting away with it for a few hours, let alone enough time to take the fight over to wherever you are.

        >Maybe one of you work as a doctor and now there's patients who will lose you because you wanted to have sex.
        Yeah, and maybe one or both of you are sex traffickers who beats up puppies and take a daily shit on the front steps of an orphanage. Selecting for a random perspective, you're going to get something that approximates values-neutrality, good and bad is graded on a curve and a random sample is gonna give you someone who's probably "just okay".

        >This is essentially the same as saying that if you want to punch someone in the face for your personal pleasure, you should just punch them in the face even if they will fight back.
        No, it's saying as a moral choice, living like "I won't do something because a raging moron would rage" empowers rational bad actors who want to build up a cultural commons like
        >no one will cheat if we just rage-chimp-out every time it happens, and since everyone else would do it too no jury will convict me
        The moral way to prevent a consensus like that is make it well known
        >You might rage? I don't care, still gonna frick your wife 'cuz she wants my dick, divorce the unfaithful b***h if you don't like it :^)
        Which has largely worked quite swimmingly

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>and she can voluntarily seek out sexual partners on the side, indeed she pushed for it. her man can voluntarily end the marriage if he cares"
          >and we're done here.
          That is a non-sequitur. The point is that she entered a contract and if she chooses to voluntarily violate that contract instead of leaving it appropriately then she is morally responsible for the consequences that follow.
          >unless you two get caught literally at her home (a very avoidable choice!) she goes first. Most murderers aren't getting away with it for a few hours, let alone enough time to take the fight over to wherever you are.
          This is making the assumption that the murderer isn't going to make plans to surprise you. Anyway, even if he only killed the girl, you still have to live with that for the rest of your life.
          >Selecting for a random perspective, you're going to get something that approximates values-neutrality, good and bad is graded on a curve and a random sample is gonna give you someone who's probably "just okay".
          That doesn't help me because I am an exceptional person and I only attract exceptional people who are on occasion morally bankrupt.
          >Which has largely worked quite swimmingly
          But that's not the cultural consensus. The cultural consensus is that marriage is not to be violated and cheaters deserve public scorn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a non-sequitur
            No it's not. The summary of what you're saying is "The woman has taken on an obligation to divorce the man if she is in a bad relationship" plus "she doesn't get to discharge this obligation at any point as any and all negative personal, legal and economic effects which the deal imposes were cost in when she made the initial agreement". You're further asserting this holds EVEN IF both of your lives sufficiently changed substantially over time, or if the government's imposed legal and economic bindings are imposing sufficient duress in a way which we might feel would otherwise overpower her obligation - doesn't matter because her initial voluntary choice to take on the obligation overrides her ability to object to this change or duress. Three problems.

            First problem is that I don't think most women would agree they even took on that obligation for divorce. Death till us part religious types will say they have an overriding obligation to stay in shit relationships, secular normies still include in their vows "through good times and bad", you need to justify where this obligation even comes from.

            Second problem is your "prior acceptance and continuance is a given due to prior voluntariness" is repugnant, and it's essentially the same argument that justifies marital rape:
            >"look man, she signed up for the marriage, she's still in it, she could voluntarily leave it if she doesn't like it or thinks this is a bad relationship, she hasn't yet, so it clearly can't be that bad for her - she clearly thinks things are fine enough to stick with me. Sshe's got an obligation to leave if things are bad - if she ain't leaving, I'm gucci"

            Third is that even if I ceded the duty existed, this duty should be symmetric - if a woman has a duty to divorce bad relationships, so does a man: she can voluntarily seek out sexual partners, he can voluntarily end the marriage if he thinks this is a bad relationship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're further asserting this holds EVEN IF both of your lives sufficiently changed substantially over time, or if the government's imposed legal and economic bindings are imposing sufficient duress in a way which we might feel would otherwise overpower her obligation - doesn't matter because her initial voluntary choice to take on the obligation overrides her ability to object to this change or duress.
            Yes.
            >First problem is that I don't think most women would agree they even took on that obligation for divorce. Death till us part religious types will say they have an overriding obligation to stay in shit relationships, secular normies still include in their vows "through good times and bad", you need to justify where this obligation even comes from.
            It's a contradiction to hold these views while simultaneously cheating.
            The contract contains predefined terms for dealing with a failing relationship and cheating is not one of them.
            >Second problem is your "prior acceptance and continuance is a given due to prior voluntariness" is repugnant, and it's essentially the same argument that justifies marital rape
            It's not a justification. If this is happening, it is the woman's obligation to divorce and call the police. Who else would it be?
            >if a woman has a duty to divorce bad relationships, so does a man: she can voluntarily seek out sexual partners, he can voluntarily end the marriage if he thinks this is a bad relationship.
            If the woman is sneaking around, in most cases the man thinks he's in a fine relationship. He is being deceived.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            These and your other posts are all ultimately a lot of great arguments why you interloping might be a bad idea (crazy people definitely exist), her cheating is wrong (we agree), or even that as a practical matter she should probably get divorced if her relationship sucks (if she can without undue hardship, yeah, she probably should), my point is that
            >you haven't demonstrated she has agreed to a MORAL obligation to divorce in a bad relationship
            and
            >you haven't demonstrated that you have a MORAL obligation as an interloper to not interlope on a marriage, assuming you don't otherwise know the other party and have a positive and personal relationship with them.

            >It's not a justification
            Yeah it is. You're continually saying ongoing participation is a proxy for voluntariness, I'm continually calling out
            >there are a LOT of reasons someone would choose to keep participating in something that sucks ass such that the "voluntary" nature of their participation is either suspect or wholly compromised.
            your argument is quite literally the one people used till the 1970s to say "you literally can't rape someone in a marriage", not mine.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you haven't demonstrated she has agreed to a MORAL obligation to divorce in a bad relationship
            How are you supposed to demonstrate a moral obligation besides the argument I have already made? Morality is nebulous in any case.
            >you haven't demonstrated that you have a MORAL obligation as an interloper to not interlope on a marriage, assuming you don't otherwise know the other party and have a positive and personal relationship with them.
            This is the same argument as a heroin dealer saying that all he's doing is providing the supply for the demand.
            Of course if there were no heroin dealers, no one would be on heroin.
            >your argument is quite literally the one people used till the 1970s to say "you literally can't rape someone in a marriage", not mine.
            Not raping your partner is a condition specified within the contract and other social contracts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not raping your partner is a condition specified within the contract and other social contracts.
            Again, not until the 70s it wasn't, and not until 1993 across the entirety of the US:
            >Historically, sexual intercourse within marriage was regarded as a right of spouses
            >The 1962 Model Penal Code repeated the marital rape exemption, stating: A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: ....[133]
            >Reforms of marital rape laws in the United States began in the mid-1970s with the criminalization of marital rape. The earlier laws of the 1970s often required the husband and wife to no longer be living together for marital rape charges to be brought. The case in the United States that first challenged this cohabitation clause was Oregon v. Rideout in 1978.[134]:172
            >Although the husband was acquitted of raping his wife, it spurred the movement towards reform.
            >By 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states
            The marriage contract has been a fluid arrangement whose rules have changed massively in the last 30-50 years, I'd encourage a great deal more humility in what you considered as being "specified within the contract and other social contracts".

            >this is like a heroin dealer saying that all he's doing is providing the supply for the demand.
            Bad analogy because this isn't "addiction", quite literally it's voluntary demand, by her, for outside sex. It's not your job to be the relationship defender for a relationship where 50% of parties in it want some outside strange and you don't know anything about the counterparty, it's an unfair demand to say
            >you cannot frick or engage in relationships with people unless you know everyone else of importance in their life and have deemed them to be irrelevant
            You're without a shade of irony arguing for pic related.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The marriage contract has been a fluid arrangement whose rules have changed massively in the last 30-50 years, I'd encourage a great deal more humility in what you considered as being "specified within the contract and other social contracts".
            There are different laws in different time periods and areas of the world.. During that time period, that was accepted. In the current time period, it is not. You can only judge it as wrong in the context of the current time period.
            >Bad analogy because this isn't "addiction", quite literally it's voluntary demand, by her, for outside sex.
            Sex is the greatest driver known to man, it is arguably more addictive than heroin. A person with healthy hormone levels craves sex almost everyday and many people have destroyed their lives over sex.
            >It's not your job to be the relationship defender for a relationship where 50% of parties in it want some outside strange and you don't know anything about the counterparty, it's an unfair demand to say
            >you cannot frick or engage in relationships with people unless you know everyone else of importance in their life and have deemed them to be irrelevant
            That's good because when you adhere to principles, you never have to assume that. You can safely avoid all negative consequences by abstaining.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can only judge it as wrong in the context of the current time period.
            This seems tepidly nihilistic to me. I dislike the extent to which you seem willing to outsource your morality to changes within the contract and legal system, the same standards suggest contracts

            >Sex is the greatest driver known to man, it is arguably more addictive than heroin.
            Nevertheless, we assume that people can make their own choices on sex, as opposed to heroin: you might not think assigning people that level of autonomy is fair or reasonable, but the alternative where some dystopian entity says
            >actually, no, you mustn't have sex that you both want for this would be too much for your petty sex-addicted minds to bear
            as an adult would be monstrous and shitty. Errybody thinks they're gonna get to be the sex warden, nobody wants to HAVE a sex warden telling them they don't get to frick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the same standards suggest* contracts made socially can change too: whose to say they don't change to explicitly lose their demand for faithfulness if the relationship's quality begins to flag?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This seems tepidly nihilistic to me. I dislike the extent to which you seem willing to outsource your morality to changes within the contract and legal system, the same standards suggest contracts
            If I was alive back then I would most likely be defending the marital rape laws.
            Stuff that is legal today will be considered morally abhorrent in 50 years.
            >Nevertheless, we assume that people can make their own choices on sex, as opposed to heroin: you might not think assigning people that level of autonomy is fair or reasonable, but the alternative where some dystopian entity says
            >Errybody thinks they're gonna get to be the sex warden, nobody wants to HAVE a sex warden telling them they don't get to frick.
            I don't think there needs to be an entity, I think these moral guidelines are a guideline so that people don't hurt themselves. Every single religion says that infidelity is bad.
            >whose to say they don't change to explicitly lose their demand for faithfulness if the relationship's quality begins to flag?
            There would be no need for marriage.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All the times Ive fricked a married woman/someone's gf, they were the ones pushing it. I feel no guilt.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, marriage is not that serious.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not really. Marriage is just a concept invented by uggos that wanted to marry children. It’s why there are so many ugly stupid people today

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If this story is real, you have a moral obligation to have sex with her and tell the husband. Not joking. He deserves to know that his wife is a prostitute. If he cucks himself to her, then it becomes his fault. But he should know. This is the most moral possible path.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the funniest possible path because you fricked both of them. You are the only winner.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        AND it happens to be morally correct. This is the winner's choice, OP.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why you exposing this person here anon? what have her done to you

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You should rat her out to her husband tbh. That satisfaction is better than cooming in a married roastie

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. Infidelity should unironically be seen as nothing wrong at all.

      People who get cheated on are most often pigs who deserve to have their narcissistic senses of entitlement their spouse's sexuality invalidated. Snitches are also huge homosexuals who deserve to get stabbed and die of Alzeimer's.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Damn. This autism is still posting here wtf... Get a life dude

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *