Except the title and premise of the thread is, exactly, going alone with the information of "who they are dating". Not that "they are fully informed and recognize what the other partner does".
From the OP.
Is this something lots of people do? Is it a useful trait to judge someone on? Does it provide more information than, say, who someone is friends with?
That is it. Nothing about them knowing of this behavior. Just about dating.
edited 24th Feb '15 8:01:48 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesGab no, and I'm fine with the idea of not associating with people. You however have said "You're a jackass" about such people, which sure feels like a moral judgement. Plus I believe Vericrat said how he'd "never" date someone who dated an asshole, which sounds pretty final.
Not you, but Vericrat called it " the gift of romantic companionship" in post 62.
Again, deciding that they are more trouble than they're worth is fine by me, that's your call, but you don't have to start declaring that they're "a jackass" just because they made a bad dating choice.
Some people are stupid, some people are weak, some people are messed up, some people are in a bad place mentally, but that makes them that, not "a jackass".
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@94: Actually, hookers do take care of their health, and they are much less likely than non-professional promiscuous women to have ST Ds.
You wrote "Because their husbands have been cheating on them their entire lives, they get AIDS from a prostitute, and then go home and infect it to their stay-at-home 60+ year old wife." I understand that you appropriately blame the husband for cheating, but I say that it is very unlikely that he was infected by a prostitute (who has a very compelling interest in taking every precaution she can to avoid being infected by any STD).
They don't. He doesn't. He is likely the one not taking care and the example with the hookers (again, these are sad, real life cases) is that he was very promiscuous. Eventually he was going to land on one though the majority of prostitutes have the necesity and hopefully means to properly look after their sexual health.
But he did not.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesBuying the services of a prostitute is also illegal in the US, so both parties are doing something illegal (and neither would benefit from an intervention by the cops). By the same logic, clients are also in a weaker position to refuse using condoms. And, regardless of legislation, all sex workers have a very compelling interest in their sexual health (and ST Ds would be far less common if everyone took theirs as seriously).
@Gabrael: Illegality does not automatically transform an activity into abuse, even if it increases the risk of it happening.
edited 25th Feb '15 8:38:05 AM by Khudzlin
It A) Did not happen in the U.S and B) even in the U.S, and for every single thing ever, just because it behooves people to do something, itdoes not necesarily mean they will always do it.
Prostitutes are certainly more likely to take care of their bodies, but they are still exposed, and there are prostitutes with STDs, and this guy went out with so many, it is not really rare to think he would have come across with one who did.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
I would encourage you to do more research on the subject then.
Very, very few of the willing prostitutes in America, male or female, are treated with respect and aren't in some way punished for what they did.
Even less chose the profession willingly, as in, not being forced into it due to parents, kidnapping, drug abuse or forced addiction, etc.
There is a reason why the Prostitutes of Nevada have been very outspoken and adamant about legalizing the enterprise across the nation to stop abuse and health problems.
Besides, it's not like being a prostitute can be claimed as self employment so you can get health insurance. The majority of people are not in good shape.
So, about that topic...
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurYeah prostitution isn't exactly on topic. It was an example for a wider point. The point was that asshole husbands got an STD/STI via being an asshole and gave it to their long term wives. The details beyond that aren't important to the point it's making.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNot going to discuss the prostitution thing because it seems to have already headed off into derail territory.
@Gabrael
Absolutely agree with what you said at 104. If someone is too stupid to notice that their partner is abusive of others, then there is a very, very good chance that they are unsafe to be around. Hell, even if they were safe to be around, that doesn't mean that I, being something of an intellectual snob, am going to enjoy their company or they mine.
@Electric Nova
"People don't choose their intelligence and you can't exactly just will yourself to be more intelligent"
There's lots of things about us that we can't control though. I've got a cousin whose FAS is so bad he comes off as a pseudopsychopath. It's not his fault (it's my idiot aunt's) but that doesn't mean that you'd want to hang out with him. Or, to bring this back to the thread topic, with any of the girls he's dated, because unsurprisingly, they tend to be just as damaged and screwed-up as he is.
That last part actually brings me to another reason why "judging people based on who they date" is pretty fair. If Bob's last three girlfriends have all been unmitigated lunatics, then—unless I have very good reasons to think that Bob's type has changed—then I don't have much reason to get to know girlfriend #4, do I? Additionally my opinion of Bob is going to go down, because for whatever reason he keeps going out with these awful people.
@Silasw
I'm not Vericrat. I'm on his side of the debate, perhaps, and I agree with his general viewpoint, but I'd prefer it if we don't automatically assume I share his every opinion.
"Some people are stupid, some people are weak, some people are messed up, some people are in a bad place mentally, but that makes them that, not "a jackass"."
I disagree with this. If you are unpleasant to be around, you are unpleasant to be around, and I don't need to know your baggage. When I was having my paranoid episode last year, a large number of people told me I was acting like a jackass, and you know what? They were right, I was. I was also messed up and in a bad place mentally, but that didn't make me not a jackass. I was all of the above.
@Aszur
"Here is the thing. You are thinking less of people for reasons that are not necessarily in their control, and if you think they are under their control then I pull the Jon Snow clause. You know nothing."
In an attempt at ratcheting down the vitriol that seems to be infecting the discussion I would note that is technically the Ygritte clause. And that in the end he turned out to be right about a whole lot more than she gave him credit for. On a more serious note, I'm not accusing you of being an idiot or knowing nothing, and I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.
As to the rest:
First off, if you're the kind of person who failed not notice for years that you were getting cheated on, I will indeed have a lower opinion of you—specifically of your observational skills. You also, in the specific example of a woman married to "a rowdy macho man who fucks hookers" probably have a whole lot of qualities that I would be less than attracted to.
I will reiterate, by the way, for what I hope is the last time, that "thinking less of somebody" does not automatically mean—at least for me—considering them a "fucking asshole" (your choice of description). Pretend there's a scale from +100 to -100. That is my opinion of you. Failing to notice that somebody was cheating on you for years would probably drop my opinion of you, but by about -10 at the most. Dating somebody who verbally or physically abuses other people in front of you while you do nothing, on the other hand, is more likely to be a deal breaker.
Going through your list of people (I'll stick with the ones I'm familiar with).
"The lovers of Alexander the Great". This is a bad example, because Alexander's lovers didn't necessarily have a choice. He's a king, you're not, and it's the era of arranged marriages to boot (whereas this thread is explicitly about judging people on the basis of who they choose to date). That said anybody who willingly chose to enter a relationship with that man, I would cheerfully judge. Because he didn't hide what a jackass he was. He bragged about it nonstop for most of his life in fact.
"Bess Wallace, whose husband Harry S. Truman had a presidency that caused unleashing the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" I have no problem with the nuclear bombing and think Truman was an okay president. Any judgement I would pass on his wife for marrying him would be neutral at worst.
"Should I dislike Laura Welch because I disagree with the politics of George W. Bush?" I might not dislike her but I certainly wouldn't choose to hang out with her either. She didn't find her husband's politics distasteful (or at least not distasteful enough to avoid marrying him). I find them incredibly distasteful. Therefore, at the very least, we probably aren't going to have a very enlightening conversation, and I should avoid her.
"If all murderers are sanctioned by their couples then why are Bonnie and Clyde the only famous ones?" Once again, I will say this—I don't hold people equally responsible for their partner's actions. But my opinion of someone whose spouse committed a murder would definitely go down—and it would go down even farther if they refuse to condemn their spouse's actions.
"Should I despise an entire country's people (say, The U.S) for the decisions their politicians make?" No, but you can dislike everybody who voted for the politicians in question since they are the people who have chosen to associate themselves with that particular political party (which is the appropriate analogue when comparing politics to dating; hating the losing side of the election on the basis of the winner's actions would be like hating you because of who one of your relatives dates).
"Something that might involve things as menial as “comfort”, or “hope”?"
I don't care about your comfort or hope. I really, sincerely, and honestly don't. My concern is with my safety and the safety of the people around me. If you prioritise your comfort and hope over the right of other people to not be abused by your partner then I don't want to get to know you.
Someone doesn't have to be pure evil, in order to have too much baggage to be worth my time and effort. And who people go out with has always been, in my experience, a pretty reliable indicator of how much baggage they have.
"How is that reasonable? How is a pattern of social personality, behavior and mannerisms telling of a person's "self"? People can lie. People can wear masks."
That's entirely reasonable. People do lie, and people do where masks, but it's not my responsibility to see past the mask, or unravel all the lies. It's my responsibility to deal with people as they present themselves. If you present as deeply unpleasant, well, too bad for you. I'm not going to take hours out of my life to get to know "the real you". I'll go find somebody else to associate with who doesn't present in such a manner.
As a corollary I'll add that if you decide someday to stop lying and drop the mask and make an effort to get to know me, then I might reconsider. It is on you to decide to do that though, not on me to get you to drop it in the first place.
"That is it. Nothing about them knowing of this behavior. Just about dating."
What the title of the thread is, and people's specific opinions on the matter do not have to exactly align, you know. Saying "it is not okay to judge people for dating this person, but is okay to judge them for dating this other person" is in fact a perfectly reasonable stance. I think this is where some of your comparisons have fallen flat too. Not speaking for anybody else, I wouldn't judge someone for dating somebody who has a reputation for getting around (one of the examples you brought up), but I would judge someone for dating a bullying bastard who abuses their friends (the example I keep coming back to).
I'll also note that you and I clearly have very different ideas about how dating ought to work. I personally could never date someone I didn't already know a whole lot about, and I have little sympathy for people who go out with folks they don't know, and are surprised when that person turns out to have skeletons in the closet.
Just because you were a jackass when in a bad place mentally doesn't mean that anyone who ends up in a bad place mentally must be a jackass.
Also what's up with your response to Aszur? It's directly contradicting what you just said to me.
You say to me.
edited 25th Feb '15 6:34:04 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt is very possible to think less of someone without thinking them a jackass.
I can pity someone, lack respect for someone, think nothing of someone. I can hold all these emotions toward someone without holding hatred or disdain for them.
Most people arent worth that energy and thought.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur![]()
Aszur was using the specific example of people who were cheated on for years by men who like to sleep with hookers. In that specific example I would indeed think less of a person (if nothing else my opinion of their observational skills is going down a bit) but I don't necessarily think they are a bad person from a moral perspective—the only victim, after all, was they themselves.
Someone who, on the other hand, deliberately stays with a person who is abusive of other people, ignoring the victims, is, in my opinion, a worse person than somebody who does not. And it is on those people I'll slap my jackass label.
In short, two different situations, two different labels.
"Just because you were a jackass when in a bad place mentally doesn't mean that anyone who ends up in a bad place mentally must be a jackass."
Maybe not. But the specific example we are discussing here is somebody who, courtesy of being in a bad place mentally, chooses to stay with somebody who is abusive of third parties. If you decide, for whatever reason, that your "right" to be in a relationship is more important than the rights of the people around you to not be abused, then you are, in my view at least, acting like a jackass.
Put another way: if you act like a jerk, you are a jerk. You may have all the reasons in the world for doing so, but that doesn't make you less of a jerk, and that doesn't make me more inclined to stick around while you do it.
Thank you.
edited 25th Feb '15 7:35:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Hold on there, that's a new limiting factor. What do they have to do to not be counted as ignoring the victims? Feel bad? Try and stop their partner? Try and get their partner to be in a place where they don't act that way? Help the victims afterwards? Leave their partner the moment they hurt others? I'm really asking.
That's another narrowing factor then. People stay in relationships for reasons other than feeling that they have a "right" to be in a relationship.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
What could they do? Nothing you just listed is going to stop somebody who is consistently abusive, and the simple act of continuing to associate with that person and bringing them around is, in effect, ignoring the damage they do to others. They can get out, or they can stay away from me.
And no that's not a narrowing factor because there really aren't other reasons. At the end of the day, if you stay in a relationship with somebody who abuses the people around you, you are prioritizing your desire to stay in that relationship over everyone else's right to not get abused.
EDIT: Since I'm getting tired of responding to arguments against positions I don't hold, and questions about what I'd do in circumstances I really don't care about I'm going to restate my position below:
If you are dating somebody who is abusive of other people, than I have no interest in getting to know you. That is the extent of my position. That is really all I have to say on the subject. I have been asked what I think of people who get cheated on, of people who are themselves victims of abuse, etc, and while I do indeed have opinions on those subjects, said opinions are nowhere near as hard and fast as the above statement. If your partner is abusive of other people, I don't want to get to know you. Anything else we can negotiate.
edited 25th Feb '15 9:48:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
You honestly don't believe that bad people can be changed by being guided towards goodness? No carrot all stick? If so than that's our divide, because I have found reality to be a lot less black and white then you seem to think it is.
You must spend time with a very small group of people, I can assure you that people stay in relationships for a fuck ton of reasons. People get into and stay in relationships that make then unhappy all the fucking time.
There is a point where staying with an abusi e person is morally bad.
Again, I am judging myself in this. When I realized that my ex was what he was, I left. My son's father? I took him to court.
You can try to fix a situation or try to hold someone accountable without continuing to date them.
Sometimes the only way a fucked up person can change is to be dropped on their ass like the pieces of shit they are.
Perfect example: parents who stay in abusive relationships. If you want to try and fix an abuser or you can't get yourself together toleave tthat's on you. But anyone who allows their child to stay in an abusive environment is a piece of shit.
edited 26th Feb '15 5:58:59 AM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurSee, each, and every example used just definitely hinges on the necessity of knowing everything about the other person with nothing but a glance. For example.
Alexanders generals were hardly strongarmed. They even split the empire fighting each other, and his most famous lovers were pretty wilful companions. To refer to “lovers” as “whomever Alexander decided to rape in the battlefield” is a pretty big misconception of the word.
What this relies on, is that you trust your judgment is the only one, great, and infallible. Would a Japanese person who suffered from the bombings hold this same view? Would that make THEM right and you wrong, or them wrong and you right? Only if you hold assumptions instead of judging your decision on meeting the person themselves (when judging her wife)
This hinging on premises such as A) The president did not fulfill the expectations and the person trusted them. B) Than an affinity to a political party dictates personality and morality and C) That politics are all about morality. Can simply be about economics.
And I understand that and believe it is perfectly fine. But when you assume that the slightest connection to someone misbehaving implies you are at risk is a gross, comical exaggeration of a person. I understand risk assessment. I do not understand magical tarot predictions.
What you are saying here is that it is not your problem to “unravel lies”, but it is the task of other people? In a relationship? Do you need to know every single secret, thought and behavior about our date, lover, or spouse? Tap their phones, screen their emails?
And again the thing here is that you are not dealing with the person being abusive, just their spouse. So there is not even a mask to see, you are judging a movie not even by the director, but by Passerby #31 in scene #46.
Perhaps this might be it. To me, dating is all about getting to know the other person. Getting to see if they click together, see if they enjoy each others time. Converse to know each other. Dating someone whom you already know everything of seems not like dating, but more in the realm of two friends doing things. A date implies an accord (Movies. 8pm. I pay for the popcorn, you for the sodas). An objective (Fun) and the opportunity to know more of the other.
To get in contact with someone and know about them, I don’t call dating. I call interviewing.
Listen. I can understand people who are jaded, who were recently hurt, people with experience or hardships who are quick to judge. Everyone has a right to decide whom and whom they do not relate with. But to predispose yourself to a set of behaviors (Defensive ones, at that) out on a very vague tether such as “Whom they date”, is not what I believe obeys to any variable that would ever allow me to predict a person’s behavior.
So I am opposed to stating “Whom a person dates is a valid variable that tells me what kind of person they are”, because there are way too many stringent variables at play here that do not allow me to say such things and be right. The idea is, honestly, laughable to think that such a thing would tell me anything about personality. It would tell me about preferences, but personality and morality? Gross assumption.
edited 26th Feb '15 7:34:53 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Unethical conduct tends to make me not like somebody, no matter how nice or funny they are.
I think the problem of understanding here is that you think I would merely judge them by the information of "dating" a person whereas we talk about dating and knowing about the shit (or part of the shit) their partners do. So yes, if they knew about the bullys bullying during the time they dated I would judge them on it. Of course, they could have changed by now since they're not dating them anymore. But if they still dated them? I'd think a bit less of them.