Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "Monogamy and fidelity, long winded response to Dan Savage." video.

  1. Well said and done. People don't really want to see it this way, but cold analysis, relationships are contracts. Overall, with rare exceptions, monogamy is basically the main clause of marriages. What I mean is, if you are someone with expectations to fuck around and not value outside intimage relationships from one another, then, for this contract not to be breached, the condition must be estabilished beforehand. And I mean marriage not in the strict religious way, just the contractual one. I mean, I can imagine a contract estabilished where it's previously expected from one or both parties to not be faithful in specific terms of sex. If both sides see a handjob, a blowjob, sex with other people as inconsequential, well then fine. The actual spectrum on how marriage happens probably varies quite a lot. People marry for money, for image, for power, for imigration purposes, etc. In the past people used to marry to avoid wars, to strenghten political positions and whatnot. But if you are in a marriage in modern times were this wasn't previously discussed and agreed upon, it's safe to say that monogamy is the main requirement there, as well as stuff like trust, support, and sharing several aspects of life. So if you cheat, doesn't matter what exactly the cheating was composed of - because something you label petty does not mean the other side also do -, then you have no right to complain about a divorce. Since you are the one who breatched the contract, you are not allowed to complain about getting the full breadth of penalty. And like Louis well said, once you forgive for something the other side is calling "petty", you can full well expect the behaviour to not only continue, but also be fueled by it. It's like an addendum added to the contract. You are the one who will be writting right there, "you are now allowed, in this marriage, to get a masseuse handjob, estabilished as a minor or non-offense". Dan's discourse is basically a salesman pitch. See how he brings up an extreme false equivalence and comparison on his discourse. A divorce doesn't always mean you are discarding the whole family, kids, 20 years of relationship, etc etc etc. Most of the times, it actually means preserving it as best as possible after a disastrous situation in which the other side is to blame. It's often best for the entire family and to preserve whatever you got from several years of relationship to cut ties right now than keep forcing a miserable situation that will keep you unhappy for the rest of your life. False equivalences: masseuse handjob a "petty offense" (because he's assuming just one side of the equation, the one in the wrong, in violation of marriage terms), divorce as destruction of 20 years of marriage, destruction of family, destruction of whatever was build in these 20 years of living together - it really isn't. Divorce is terminating a contract that was breached. None of that has to be destroyed. The side that violated the terms gets penalties, and the contract is terminated. Your kids won't die just because you divorced your spouse, your family won't be gone, the 20 years that have passed won't disappear and be forgotten automagically and properties that were purchased during the time won't go back to the government or disappear in a limbo. It'll all be there, and will have to be split accordingly.
    11