In article ,
 "bluesmama"  wrote:

> > Incorrect.  You hold the married person to a higher moral standard
> only
> > because in the first scenario, it was the *man* who was married.  You
> > merely had to offer feminist lip service (meaning _propaganda_) to a
> > converse scenario that involved a woman "cheater" and
her unmarried
> > boyfriend.
>
> I hold the married person to a higher moral standard whether they are
> male or female. It's the marital status, not the sex, of the person
> that I'm concerned with.

I'll give you a bone on this one: I think you're being sincere.

I also can see how the married person at least is breaking
a vow while the other person, albeit icky, made
no promises.

That said, of course, it's interesting how you claim to
hold men equally responsible for making bastard children
that just magically pop out of a woman's tummy and
she decides to keep from two people just having sex.

In that particular case, the man's motives are reasonably
clear and obvious and usually didn't make any promises either.
Yet, you hold him to an equal standard even if the other
person is largely in control of everything that happens
afterwards.

So yes, you're not guilty of using a chauvanist double standard
in one case, but your logic exposes another one.

Honestly, bluesmomma, what are you doing here?  You live
in a nice society that's anti-male and if you just
keep your eyes shut and don't question things too much,
you can go on living thinking you're so kind and
caring and egalitarian.

Asking questions gets you answers you clearly don't want to hear.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:46 AM ---