Conference quark::mennotes

    
    In a second, my wife agreed.

    yes
    

    No, I, too, hold my marriage vows of fidelity sacred, beyond purchase
    power.  
    
    

    It would depend on who the person to be slept with was, and I would
    want it in writing that I would have half the money deposited in my
    account.
    
    Lorna
    

I saw a cartoon the other day - had a couple coming out of the theatre just
having seen "Indecent Proposal" (in which, for those who haven't heard of
this, Robert Redford pays $1,000,000 to spend a night with Demi Moore, who
is married to Woody Harrelson.)  The man asks his wife "Would you sleep with
Robert Redford for a million bucks?"  She replies "Sure, but I don't think
I could come up with that much money."

I find it interesting that replies .3 and .4 suggest that marriage vows 
impart ownership of their partner.  They may certainly feel that their partner
broke their marriage vows if such a thing happened, but I find rather
offensive the notion that a spouse should be treated as a child.  The real
question is what do the vows mean to the spouse who took up the offer?

Incidentally, the movie is reported to be pretty awful, though it stimulates
anew a discussion of the concept of "women as objects to be bought and sold
(or rented, as the case may be)".

				Steve

    re .6, the movie is not really that awful.  I'd call it a fairly
    pleasant love story.  The plot held my attention and the acting was
    competent.  On the other hand, I doubt it will be up for any oscars
    next year.
    
    Lorna
    

    I read the comments regarding marriage vows to say "No amount of
    money would be enough to persuade me to consent."  Where's the 
    "ownership of the spouse" idea come from?
    
    						andrew

    There is a pretty well known old "joke" that goes.

    A rich old man asks the pretty young women, "would you have sex with
    me for $1,000,000?" The woman answers in the affirmative. The man then
    asks "would you have sex with me for $10?" The reply, "of course not!
    What sort of a women do you think I am?"

    Rich old man replies, "We've already established that. Now we're
    negotiating over the price."

    			Alfred

    re .9, and my answer would be, "Oh, yeah.  Well, now we're going to
    establish what kind of man you are.  Ugly!  The price is a million
    dollars."   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

Isn't .9 George Bernard Shaw?

    I'd have to establish some criteria before I could answer this:
    
    A. Define "consent to" to mean "accept my husband's decision in the
    matter without threatening to leave him, or hold it against him in
    future, if he went through with it".
    
    B. All sorts of caveats about health and contraceptive issues, spelling
    out who was and wasn't responsible for what in case of accidents.
    
    C. Take the money out of the equation entirely - to me, making such a
    decision re my spouse, this wouldn't make a difference. If "it would be
    just casual sex" for a million, why couldn't it just be casual sex for
    nothing at all? [Exception: If my mythical spouse and I were
    desperately in need of money, I would expect all other considerations
    to fly out the window; but, to me, that level of desperation makes the
    use of the word "consent" questionable.]
    
    So. Would I ever consent to my husband having sex with someone else?
    
    Well... this is where it gets insidious. If he indicated that he really
    wanted to, be it for money or for jollies or for heaven-knows-what, and
    if he still indicated that my feelings in the matter made a difference
    to him, I _think_ I'd "consent" - but I have a feeling that I would not
    be as comfortable with the relationship after that. [If I found out
    after the fact that he'd had sex with someone else, it would put a
    slightly different spin on it, but I don't think I'd up and leave
    someone I loved for one instance of infidelity or falsehood, so that
    might seem to be tacit consent, too...]
    
    Another spin on the question: Would _I_ consent to have sex with a
    stranger for one night for <x amount of money>?
    
    No.
    
    Even if I weren't in a committed relationship and the stranger
    attracted me, somehow the very offer of the money would be such a
    turn-off to me that I think I'd just up and leave. If I were in a
    committed relationship, or if the stranger did not attract me, I
    wouldn't be interested. [If I _had_ a one-night fling with an
    attractive stranger and he left a million dollars on the nightstand, I
    have no _idea_ what I'd do or how I'd feel. Hmmm. Maybe this could be
    the start of "Indecent Proposal: the TV Series," sort of an updated
    version of "The Millionaire"... ;-)]
    
    I have no idea why I feel this way about the money angle. I don't look
    down on people who would choose otherwise, or on people who _do_ take
    money for sex (though if it's by necessity and not by choice I feel for
    them); I just don't think it's something I would do short of grim
    necessity, and in that case, as I said, it sure wouldn't feel like
    "consenting". 
    
    -b

Re: .13

Originally, with details changed, yes.

Re: .8, .10

I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of "consent", and perhaps
I put a different spin on it than intended.

						Steve

    Off hand, I'd say sure.  But that really depends.  
    
    
    Looking away from all the legal points (who, what, when, where, how,
    etc.), there's the matter of how this would affect my relationship with
    my spouse.  If sleeping with this other person meant that I would lose
    my spouse, right away or in time, then it would depend on (here's where
    I don the Cruel hat) how in love I am with them.  How much would it
    mean to me if I lose them?  
    
    That would have a bearing.  If I was head over heels and could not bear
    life without them, then probably not.  If the understanding was that it
    was 'just sex' ("it's just my body, not my mind," as Demi Moore says in
    the movie) and that it wouldn't matter in our relationship later on or
    that it would play a *small* part, then perhaps yes.  If it had no
    bearing on our relationship at all, then certainly yes.  I could always
    use $1,000,000.00.
    
    kim

Would I allow my woman to sleep with another man for that sum?  Not a chance.  
You could add as many zeroes onto that figure as you wish, because I would have 
to find some way of repairing my heart, and as far as I know, such repairs are 
not purchasable commodities.

    I think that I would vote that I would be upset with the origian
    preposal if asked 12 years ago. Today, best said by a joke of:
    
    "Would you do it for $1,000,000.00?"
    
    "Yes!"
    
    "Would you do it for $10.00?"
    
    "No, what kinda woman do you think I am?"
    
    "We know what kinda woman you are, we are now haggling over a
    price..":)
    
    

    
    actually my wife and I had a conversation about this topic last
    weekend.  Understand now, she is not happy with her current job and
    rather be a full time mom.
    
    I said sure - in a hearbeat for either of us. With one night's "work"
    she would not have to work for the rest of her life. A very crude trade
    off but one we would at least think more than twice about.
    
    Also keep in mind, my wife and I are very happily married and plan on 
    staying that way ... In a theoretical conversation we both say yes, but
    when it probably came down to the "real thing" - one or both of us
    would probably get cold feet or hurt feelings ...
    
    tough call ... jgk
    

    Sure with someone would put a million on the table and test me. Just
    think of it as how many years salary that represents to you personally.
    If you make $30,000 per yr that represents 33 years + at your present
    job. Or, it could free up 33 years of your life to do other things.
    Since we all LOVE our jobs, fighting traffic to an from work each day,
    driving in snow/sleet/etc. who could possibly even think of such a
    thing?  Be interesting to know how many who so quickly and righteously
    say "No way" have already played around while married and didn't get
    a dime out of it, while risking everything financially. We all sell
    a piece of ourselves each day for that weekly paycheck and many of us
    take a regular non-sexual screwing on a frequent basis. A million for
    one night looks extremely tempting. Since it isn't about to happen
    I will not lose any sleep over it. Not when Ed McMahon keeps telling
    me I have a good chance of winning $10 million.
    

    Re .20
    
    Maybe some of the "no way" answers are coming from people who *have*
    played around while married and have come to realize just how much they
    could lose.  Think about it, okay?
    
    -dick

    
    Heck, could I have him do it 10 times?
    
    All I ask is that he use condoms. I'm sure we could think of a LOT of
    things to do with $10 million dollars.
    
    My parents and his parents would be set for life. Our children's
    education would be secure. We'd own our own home. We could have a
    cottage in the islands for vacationing. I could open up a small store
    or start a community center which actually had serious funding. He
    could enact many of his dreams, and we'd still have MAJOR amounts of
    money left over for our favorite charities.
    
    Sounds like a serious win-win situation.

    re .24, maybe some people just don't think sex has much to do with a
    life long commitment.  As someone already mentioned, in the movie, Demi
    Moore says something like, "It's just my body, it's not my soul..."
    
    Lorna
    

    
    My wife asked men if I'd let her make love to another man for $1M.
    I told her heck yes!
    
    
    Then I'd make him pay me another $1M to take her back :^).
    
    fred();

    Re .25
    
    > "It's just my body, it's not my soul..."
    
    Wedding vows in most Christian churches (and as administered by most
    notaries public and JPs), if I recall, run something along these lines:
    
    Repeat after me:  "I, <your name here>, take you, <partner's name
    here>, as my lawfully wedded <husband/wife/spouse>, to have and to
    hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, to love and to
    cherish, forsaking all others, till death do us part."
    
    "Forsaking all others," Lorna.  For some people, this means something;
    these people believe that their body and soul are inseparable in this
    life; that what happens to one affects the other.  No matter whether
    you (the generic you) believe this or not, you still have to look out
    through the eyes of the body that is having sex for pay.  You still
    have to know that you are a prostitute, albeit a very high-priced one.

    re .27, .28, well I consider this to be a matter of opinion.  I, also,
    think that it's a matter of opinion whether there is anything
    inherently wrong with a person taking money for sex.  If a person
    doesn't think there is anything morally wrong with taking money for
    sex, then that person is not going to feel that they are looking out at
    the world through the eyes of a prostitute, whatever that is supposed
    to mean.  This is all just your subjective opinion, as well as the
    opinion of certain religions.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .29
    
    As it is your subjective opinion.  This is why I carefully qualified my
    subjective remarks with "if I recall" and "some people believe."
    
    But the part about looking out through a prostitute's eyes I did not
    qualify.  A prostitute, according to the dictionaries I have here in my
    office, is:
    
    OAD;  a person who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse for
    payment.
    
    AHD:  a whore.  (A whore is defined as one who engages in sexual
    intercourse for money.)
    
    W9NCD:  a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse esp. for
    money; a male who engages in sexual practices for money.
    
    Whether you (the generic you) see anything wrong with sex for money is
    immaterial.  If you do it, you're a prostitute.

    
    I'm with Lorna 100% of this one ... if a couple goes for it .. it's
    their choice.  I'm not going to sit in judgement of their values
    regarding sex and marriage .. because I am outraged when someone sits
    in judgement of mine.
    
    
    
>    Maybe some of the "no way" answers are coming from people who *have*
>    played around while married and have come to realize just how much they
>    could lose.  Think about it, okay?
    
    Feels like apples and oranges to me.  How many of these folks
    discussed (with their spouse) their playing around outside of marriage 
    ahead of time?  The proposal implied both folks knowing exactly what
    was going on ... no sneaking around.                                   
                                  
    Greg
    
    PS - If I had less bucks I would consider it (given a different spouse) 
         I know Emmy would shoot me and would never consider it herself
                                 

    >As someone already mentioned, in the movie, Demi Moore says something
    >like, "It's just my body, it's not my soul..."
    
    Turns out she was wrong -- it was her soul.                       
    
    					andrew

    Well, the problem's really not all that much of a problem if both
    members of the married/strongly-committed couple agree on what to do,
    or if both parties can accept the other's freedom to make choices, take
    responsibility, and deal with the consequences openly and without
    rancor (this last is, in so far as my limited observations of the human
    condition indicate, extremely rare).
    
    But what if one wants to accept and the other doesn't? Seems like one
    might get into some interesting (though not very pretty) territory
    here. If A thinks that one night of "it's only sex" is worth enough
    money to make the couple fairly comfortable for life, and B thinks the
    very idea is anathema, what happens? 

    If A is the one being asked to have sex, and A opts to go for it,
    thinking it's perfectly reasonable, will B walk [and will B request
    half of the proceeds as part of the settlement? In our next episode of
    'Hard Copy'...]? Or will B claim to forgive A after all, and settle
    down to a life of martyrdom? If A doesn't go for it, will A resent B
    for (real or imagined) pressure to pass up the bucks? 

    If B is the one being asked to have sex, and refuses to do it, will A
    (especially if money is tight) feel resentful? And if B does do it,
    due to (real or imagined) pressure from A, will B feel resentful?
    Martyred? Degraded? Angry? 

    There are plenty of other permutations, including "whatever A and B
    decide at the time, one or both might change their minds afterwards,"
    or - possibly more likely - "whatever they decide at the time, they
    may be very much surprised to have gut reactions that are at odds with
    their logical choices".
    
    'course, it doesn't take as sensational an offer as the movie's
    proposal to put that kind of stress on a relationship. And one might
    speculate that a couple who couldn't cope with disagreements in this
    area wouldn't be likely to hold up against more mundane disagreements.
    But somehow I doubt the film would be drawing the same box office if it
    were about a couple deciding whether he should quit his job and move to
    Alaska with her to take up caribou-ranching.
    
    -b

    re .32, well, I've seen the movie twice, and that was not my
    interpretation.  
    
    I would say it turns out she had a jealous husband.  Her soul seemed
    intact to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    I am one of those persons who said "no way".  Why?  Because in my
    marriage, between my wife and me, fidelity is a value we both cherish.
    We would not inflict the pain of infidelity on each other.
    
    When I think of faithfulness in marriage, I think of my father who held
    strictly to this value. The result- a solid marriage and family life
    that was spared from the consequences of infidelity. And that is how I
    want to have my marriage.  With so much now pulling marriages and
    families apart, a casual attitude towards marital fidelity is not my
    idea of a good building block for a secure marriage.
    
    The above is not an opinion, but rather a value I hold.   

    $100/night clearly sounds like prostitution.  $1,000,000 for a single
    night doesn't.  Can someone articulate at what dollar amount
    prostitution becomes not prostitution and why?
    
    - M

    Gee, $1,000,000 still sounds like prostitution to me. Perhaps it's the
    idea of doing it once vs. doing it many, many times? Some of the
    definitions of prostitution explicitly said "having promiscuous sex for
    money," as if to exempt someone who just has sex with _one_ person for
    money. [As in, perhaps, marrying rich? It's certainly been done...]
    
    It's easy to see how someone might be willing to do something once, for
    a large amount of money, that they might not be willing to do often for
    lesser amounts. For example, would you permit someone to cut a pound of
    flesh off of you for $1,000,000? Sounds like a fair deal to me - but I
    sure wouldn't want to be in the business of getting chopped at
    regularly. [Even if one could allow enough time to elapse between
    episodes to, er, regenerate the missing bits!]
    
    The million-dollar figure has a certain ring to it; even in today's
    economy, it could, well-invested, provide a moderately comfortable
    living for a couple of people, and if it were added to a regular income
    (or two) it could provide many luxuries. Would a smaller amount induce
    the same degree of interest? Would people be as willing to trade one
    night of sex-with-a-not-necessarily-very-attractive-stranger for, say,
    half a million? A quarter of a million? It's still a great deal of
    money, but no longer enough to provide lifetime security, without some
    additional income and/or a lot of luck with investments. How about
    $100,000? It'd send a kid to a pretty decent college; would that be
    worth one night?
    
    For those who think they would take the $1,000,000 if offered: what
    would be your cut-off point?
    
    -b

>    Gee, $1,000,000 still sounds like prostitution to me. Perhaps it's the
>    idea of doing it once vs. doing it many, many times? 

I would consider it to be prostitution.  Would a first time seller-of-sex
on the streets be considered a prostitute? I suspect the police would pick
them up and charge them as such.


>    The million-dollar figure has a certain ring to it; even in today's
>    economy, it could, well-invested, provide a moderately comfortable
>    living for a couple of people, and if it were added to a regular income
>    (or two) it could provide many luxuries. 

Of course, there may be numerous cans-of-worms to contend with.  Is it
reportable income?  If not reported, then tax evasion.  If reported, 
then you pay taxes on it and get much less than the million (assuming
nothing is done about how it was obtained - and I am sure someone in the
US goverment these days would inquire about the source of the new found income).

Winners of lotteries do not always seem to come out ahead, despite good
intentions.  Perhaps getting such a large sum would create more problems
for the receiver than expected...

    >.29 Good answer to .27 and .28 whether they like it or not.
    A new day has dawned. Lorna and I finally agree on a subject. Thanks
    for the support.  As to my price - prior to being married it was pretty 
    low. Yes, I have to admit it. I was a sexual pushover. Sometimes even
    let some lucky woman abuse me for as little as a good meal and a  few 
    drinks. Sure wish one of them had offered me a million dollars instead.
    Economic reality leads us to compromise many values/beliefs so don't 
    get too righteous in your attitudes unless you have never compromised
    your other values/beliefs out of economic necessity and common-sense.
    
    
    

>     $100/night clearly sounds like prostitution.  $1,000,000 for a single
>    night doesn't.  Can someone articulate at what dollar amount
>    prostitution becomes not prostitution and why?

 Perhaps there is no accurate term in the english language to describe a
one night stand for $1M. It is clearly different than the garden variety
of prostitution, where a series of couplings or sex acts occurs with an
assortment of strangers. Indeed, it is as close to marrying someone for
their ability to provide materially (as opposed to romantically/emotionally)
as it is to prostitution...

re .38:

>Of course, there may be numerous cans-of-worms to contend with.  Is it
>reportable income?  If not reported, then tax evasion.  If reported, 
>then you pay taxes on it and get much less than the million (assuming
>nothing is done about how it was obtained - and I am sure someone in the
>US goverment these days would inquire about the source of the new found income).

There is legal prostitution in at least one state.  The Feds have no reason
to complain.  Of course, if there's a state income tax, they may share
information with the state authorities.  The movie wasn't set in NH, was it?

    Re .40
    
    Actually, there is a term in English to describe a one-night stand for
    a million dollars.  It's "greed."  If you wouldn't do it for $100, or
    for $1,000, then doing it for $1,000,000 is a response based solely on
    the amount of money involved, and that, IMHO, is greed.  YMMV.
    
    1/2 :-)

    re .42, I don't think participating in a 1 night stand is "greed."  I
    would simply consider it completion of a contract.  Why is it greed? 
    To me "greed" pertains to trying to get more than what you have coming
    to you.  For example, if my husband (pretend I have one) and I were
    offered 1 million dollars for me to spend the night with Robert
    Redford, and we agreed to this, my husband would be expecting me to
    share the million dollars with him.  But, if I took off the next day,
    and told my husband that he was out of luck, I was keeping the money
    for myself, and wasn't going to share it with him, then *that* would be
    greed, because I would, out of greed, have decided not to share with
    him as we had first agreed to.  But, if I went back the next day and
    shared the money with my husband, as agreed, it wouldn't be a case of
    greed.  It would have been accepting payment for services rendered. 
    Since when is that greed?  There are people who earn over a million
    dollars a year on their jobs.  Is that greed?  Bob Palmer makes a lot
    more money than you or I do.  Is that greed?  
    
    Lorna
    

    Oh, I think .42 rates a full smiley, not a half-smiley. Heck, how many
    of us would be doing our jobs if we weren't being paid at a certain
    level? Some of us like our work enough that we might do it for _less_,
    but if the money dropped below a certain point (such as "enough to buy
    food") we might opt for more lucrative positions picking cabbages or
    something. Is that greed? Is anything above subsistence level greed?
    [Note: I believe there are some philosophies in which the answer is
    'yes', but, as Dick said, YMMV.]
    
    -b

    Re .44
    
    Yes, Beth, and then there are those who would quit a job - and have
    done so - to take a lesser-paying position with conditions more to
    their liking.  I did it once, don't know if I could afford to again,
    though.  :-)  (Full smiley, okay?)
    
    -dick

    No, nor would I do so.

    
    .37
    
    I liked the juxtaposition of:
    
    	"would you permit someone to cut a pound of flesh off"
    
    and, later on,
    
    	"cut-off point"
    
    =8^o
    
    As to the question, no (not that it's *my* choice anyway).  
    Not necessarily because I'm on a moral high horse, but 
    there are too many risks concerning love, commitment, health, 
    and safety.
    
    Ron  

>   Men:  Would you consent to your wife sleeping with (that means "sex
>   with") another man, one night, for a sum of $1,000,000.

           No.
           
    re: .47
           
>   As to the question, no (not that it's *my* choice anyway).  
>   Not necessarily because I'm on a moral high horse, but 
>   there are too many risks concerning love, commitment, health, 
>   and safety.
        
           Ron,
           
           Good reasons!  But, why would you feel you're "on a moral high
           horse"?  There is great freedom in doing what's right in God's
           eyes.  If you live by God's word, you and your spouse don't
           own your bodies (sexually)... your spouse does.
           
           Steve

    
    re: .48
    
    I was just trying to convey that this was simply my choice
    and that I was not trying to invalidate anyone else's choice
    in the string.  I tend to use disclaimers liberally, being a
    "see both sides" type of person on most issues.  As for the
    basis of my ethics, I'm somewhere between atheista and
    agnostic with enough Taoist thrown in to make things interesting.
    Glad you liked the reasons -- they've stood us in good stead for
    the last 17 years.
    
    Ron

    My husband and I both agreed I'd take the 1 mil.  NOw the question is,
    who would offer it to me ....
    
    just kidding, but serious at the same time!
    
    Tammi

    It just occurred to me that anyone who has enough money that *he could
    easily offer a million bucks for a one-nighter is rich enough that a
    million doesn't make any difference, and it might just as well be $10. 
    Which means, if you think it through, that all you are to the buyer is
    a cheap whore.  I don't think I'd like thinking about myself that way,
    not even for a million bucks, so it does (for me) definitely become a
    question of my soul *and* my body.
    
    -dick

>    Which means, if you think it through, that all you are to the buyer is
>    a cheap whore.

 And the buyer is nothing more than a dumb bastard with more money than brains. 
So what?

Re.51

Not strictly true. It's a question of utility.

We all compromise our moral values at some point in our lives - the only 
questions are 'what's the price ?' and 'what do I gain ?'.

- Paul.

    
    
    Gee whiz, I don't know 'bout the rest of you, but when reply 54 is on
    my screen, it kind glows with a holy radiance.
    
       8-)  (kind of)

    re .56, in .54, you don't state simply that you wouldn't compromise
    your marriage vows.  You state that  you never compromise your moral
    values.  There are very few people who manage to live their entire
    lives without ever compromising their moral values, so when someone
    makes such a statement it's possible to raise a few eyebrows.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re ::sthilarid ::binder
    
    So?
    
    fred();

    	For survival of myself or one of my close family I would consider
    an offer of that sort. Otherwise it would be uninteresting. Ten dollars
    would provide for another day and another chance; a million would
    provide for a few more days. An infinite amount of money doesn't
    guarantee you will live forever.
    
    	Of course, if it got to the point where my wife or myself needed
    money to survive we would probably be too emaciated to be of sexual
    interest to anyone, however perverted ;-)
    
    	Both my parents took early retirement (my mother had to fight for
    it for 3 years) because they thought they had enough money for the rest
    of their lives.

    	The Marquis de Sade spent most of his life in prison because he
    refused to compromise his moral standards. You should try reading one
    of his books. He would not only have accepted the million dollars, he
    would have volunteered to assist or participate.

    OK, how about a twist for folks that say they would not do it:

    Would you allow your spouse to sleep with someone else for a million
    dollars if you and your spouse would magically forget about the whole
    thing as soon as the deed is done, and both of you would be suprised the
    next morning to find a bag of money sitting on your doorstep?

    No guilt, no jealousy, no feeling like a prostitute, just a pile of money.

    - Jim

Re: .64

Your question reminds me of an episode of the newer "Twilight Zone" series
from the mid 80's.  A couple was approached by a man who gave them a box
with a push-button (under a cover) and a proposition.  If in the next 24
hours, they pushed the button, someone "they didn't even know" would die,
but they would receive a million dollars.  At the end, they went ahead
and pushed the button.  Instantly the man appeared, said the money would
be deposited in their account, and started to take the box away.  The wife
then asked what he was going to do with the box, to which he replied "I'm
going to give it to someone you don't even know..."


Regarding the base note question - my wife and I discussed this a few days
ago and we agreed that no amount of money offered would cause us to accept
the proposal.  We were very deliberate about what promises we made to each
other when we married, having written our own vows, and accepting the
proposal would be an abrogation of them.  Other couples certainly might
feel different about it.

				Steve

    Re.....a few back.  Wouldn't compromise moral standards etc.
    
    Geez.  Can't the guy state his position without you people tearing him
    to ribbons for taking a stand?  I don't believe anybody can go an
    entire lifetime without committing some moral goofs, (I thought it
    was Christ who was the only one who managed to do that).  But I do
    respect people for TRYING.
    
    Jeff
    

    re:.61
    
    Good point.  I would sleep with Demi Moore, too, if I had to.  ;')

    
    
    Hell, Mike, for a million bucks even I would! (sleep with Demi Moore).
    
          GJD

     re .72
    
    It'd probably take about that much to repair the damage that Bruce
    would do :^).
    f();

    
    This question has leaned heavily on the wives sleeping with Robert
    Redford for a million. How about the men sleeping with Demi Moore for
    a million ? How many of you think your wives could be convinced to let
    you ? I bet many of you would do it for a lot less than a million too.


    Jim

    For some of us, even if our wives said "yes, go ahead...", we still
    would NOT do it...  If you can't understand this, it's too bad.  In
    a sense it would be like asking Jerry Beeler what his price would be to
    sell out his country.  Picking yourself up off the deck would most
    likely be required...
    
    

    RE:75

    Well neither would I, but I'd still break out in a sweat and have a lump
    in my throat as I turned her offer down. 

    I didn't turn to stone as soon as I took my vows.

    Jim

>    I didn't turn to stone as soon as I took my vows.

 Well, not all of you. ;-)

    I have been reading this string with amazement, laughter and
    unbelivability... I really don't think ANYONE that claims they would
    answer "NO" to this proposal, really knows what they would do, IF they
    were presented with this offer and they KNEW it was legit. $1,000,000,
    even today, is a LOT of dinero!!! 
    
     Make all the claims you'ld like, but you'll never really know WHAT YOU
    would do until someone makes the offer, THE REAL OFFER not this 
    HYPOTHETICAL "WHAT WOULD YOU DO" we have here. 
    
    pm

.76>  I didn't turn to stone as soon as I took my vows.

      Nor me but I try to make my commitment "rock-solid" and in doing so
      my wife and I have achieved something that money can't buy...

Re: .78

Snicker all you like, but this is something that means more to me than
money.  After all, I'd have to live with what I'd done for the rest of
my life.

I suspect that many who answer "No way" have had to face the issue of
infidelity before, either their own or their spouse's.  It's sort of like
divorce - you have no clue what it's like until you've been through it.

If I were single and uncommitted, my answer might be different.  (And I might
not even charge, though I'm not really excited by the thought of what
is essentially a passionless coupling.)

				Steve

    RE: .66  Steve Lionel
    
    >Your question reminds me of an episode of the newer "Twilight Zone" series
    >from the mid 80's.  A couple was approached by a man who gave them a box
    >with a push-button (under a cover) and a proposition.  If in the next 24
    >hours, they pushed the button, someone "they didn't even know" would die,
    >but they would receive a million dollars.  At the end, they went ahead
    >and pushed the button.  Instantly the man appeared, said the money would
    >be deposited in their account, and started to take the box away.  The wife
    >then asked what he was going to do with the box, to which he replied "I'm
    >going to give it to someone you don't even know..."
    
    This reminds *me* of a 30-minute movie (I think it was) on cable - it
    was called "The Heart of the Deal."  A man was approached and offered
    tens of millions of dollars (or some very large sum of money) for his
    WIFE'S heart.  Her blood type, etc. made her the only one who matched 
    a special heart transplant recipient who was the child of a very rich
    and powerful person.  
    
    At first, he flatly refused.  Then he was shown the amount of money
    and reminded of all the good he could do with it, etc.  They also
    knew that his marriage wasn't that great and reminded him of some
    not-wonderful things his wife had done.  He still wasn't going for
    it.  Then his wife came home and went into the kitchen.  While she
    was on the phone, the people told the husband "Ok, never mind. 
    We'll get someone else" (or some such) and he stopped them from
    leaving.  He finally agreed to do it (and signed the paper.)
    
    They called the wife into the room - and told her he had signed.
    She said - "Ok, take him."  (I guess they just needed to show her
    that HE would be willing to sign away HER heart if he were the one
    being offered the money, so she went for the deal to give HIS heart
    to the child.)  :-]

           RE: .78 (I think)
               
>    Make all the claims you'ld like, but you'll never really know WHAT YOU
>   would do until someone makes the offer, THE REAL OFFER not this 
>   HYPOTHETICAL "WHAT WOULD YOU DO" we have here. 

           I boils down to where your treasure is... if it's here on
           earth, it's $, etc.  If it's in heaven, $ and everything else
           don't matter... it'll all burn in the end anyway.
           
           Steve
           
           PS- Yeah, if you don't know how you'd answer in your mind now,
           you could "fall" for anything when it really happens.

    Re .78: Uh, so what's your point? That we shouldn't speculate? Heck, we
    talk about LOTS of things as hypothetical cases...
    
    'sides, isn't it also possible that some of the folks who say they
    _would_ accept might think otherwise if/when such an offer was made?
    
    [I find it an interesting observation that some people honestly believe
    that anybody would do anything for enough money - and equally
    interesting that some folks find this attitude surprising. Gee, you'd
    think we were all _different_ or something.]
    
    -b

    
    re. 81 "Heart of a Deal"
    
    That's great .. sounds like a modern "Hitcock Presnts" ... his
    half-hour TV show.
    

    
    "Heart of the Deal" (if I'm not mistaken) was a one-time 30-minute
    movie (as opposed to a series.)  I've only seen it aired once (several
    months ago.)
    
    One of the premium cable movie channels (I don't remember which one)
    has "The 30-minute movie" as a deal where fledgling directors can
    cut their teeth on a smaller movie that will still be shown to a
    big audience.  I guess it's kind of an apprentice program.
    
    Some of these movies are pretty good.  "12:01" was another one (and
    its story was the same exact idea as "Ground Hogs Day," where a man
    was stuck in the same time frame that looped over and over - except
    that he was stuck in an HOUR, not a day.  Every time he went back
    to the beginning of the hour, the clock showed as 12:01.  This little
    movie was NOT a comedy, though, even tho it's similar to G-Hogs Day.)

.75> In a sense it would be like asking Jerry Beeler what his price would
.75> be to sell out his country.

The amount of money necessary for that .... does not exist.  However, as
history has shown the requisite dollars for one to sell one's country
can be surprisingly small.

.75> Picking yourself up off the deck would most likely be required...

This is entirely possible and most likely if someone who really knew me
asked me (to sell out my country).

I understand and respect those such as Mr. Soule who would resolutely
dismiss any offers of (what amounts to) sex-for-money - for *any* amount
of money.  As for myself - quite frankly - I'm at odds as to what I would
do.

I don't put sex on a pedestal.  I put my family on a pedestal and would do
damned near anything to secure their future .. and .. yes .. I would have
slept with another woman for the $1M - assuming my wife agreed.  Would I
have agreed to let my wife do it with another man?  Yes, if she wanted to.
She is very much a realist and would probably see it the same as I did -
an opportunity to go a long way toward securing a future for the kids.

My kids mean more to me than anything in the world.  It's really quite
simple.  A night of sex with another woman to secure my kids future?
In a heartbeat.

Bubba

    RE: .86 Would it be different (from asking for your wife for a night)
    if someone offered you $1m for a night with one of your daughters? I
    suspect that even though our children are even more "free agents" once
    they reach adulthood most parents still are more protective of them.
    
    			Alfred

    Thud.

    Yep - you've widened the scope, Sir Alfred.

    My first impression is that if someone offered something like that with
    respect to one of my daughters ... I'd resolutely and forthwith with
    malice a forethought ... flatten the Hell out of 'em.

    Bubba

    Anyone notice how this movie is a lot like Honeymoon in Vegas?

    RE:79

>.76>  I didn't turn to stone as soon as I took my vows.

>      Nor me but I try to make my commitment "rock-solid" and in doing so
>      my wife and I have achieved something that money can't buy...

    I do that too ! My point is that temptation is real. If your not solid in
    your belief that it would be wrong, you'll probably give in. The spirit is
    willing(to resist), but the flesh is weak. 

     Jim

    re .86, amazingly enough, I feel exactly the way Jerry describes in his
    last two paragraphs.  (I don't think I usually agree with him on much.)
    
    Except as far as my daughter, age 19 is concerned, I don't feel it's
    any of my business who she decides to have sex with, or why (as long as
    she doesn't get pregnant, or get AIDS).  She's a woman and could make
    her own decision.  I could only hope she'd share the money with me!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .92 Why is it your business if she gets pregnant or AIDS?
    
    			Alfred

    re .92, 
    
    1) I love her
    
    2) I might be called upon to pay bills resulting from either
    
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .94
    
    > 2) I might be called upon to pay bills resulting from either
    
    Devil's advocate response (not disagreement!):
    
    This is a corollary of Reason 1, not a separate reason.  She's an adult
    and is responsible for herself.  You might choose to demonstrate Reason
    1's effect on you by voluntary assumption of bill-paying activities.
    
    -dick

    RE: 'sides isn't it possible those...might change their minds..
    
      That IS my point, the discussion is great, but, you'll never really
    know what YOU would do...
    
    RE: .86 I agree...I also put my family on a pedestal, hence I would at
    least consider the proposal. If my wife was willing, and I'm not sure
    if she would be, I consider our relationship to be solid enough for her
    (or me for that matter) to follow through and be able to continue the
    releationship with the $1m.
    
    
    RE:.87 Well you got me there, I'll assume you mean at her current age,
    7 years young, There is no amount of money that could convince me to
    even consider that. That truley would be an "Indecent Proposal"! 
    
    pm

.91> I do that too ! My point is that temptation is real. If your not solid in
.91> your belief that it would be wrong, you'll probably give in. The spirit is
.91> willing(to resist), but the flesh is weak. 

     "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" or "I'm only human" or
     "In my heart I lust after other women", etc.  Excuses for weak character?
     You tell me...  

     The last quote has special significance for me.  It was uttered by our
     last Democratic Disaster in the White House, Jimmy "Bubba" Carter (Beeler
     will now realize why I never address him by his nick-name...) in his
     infamous Playboy interview.  Well, as you can guess, I didn't think very
     highly of Jimmy Carter but to give credit where credit is due he did help
     me with my aspirations as to the type of Man I was going to be.  I would
     be a better Man than Jimmy Carter and that meant I would no longer lust
     after other Women, in my heart or otherwise...  So, what's it been like?
     Without lust, I am free to love other people or at least find something to
     love about them.  You might say I have many more sisters and brothers then
     ever before...  The desire for materialistic acquisitions waned so the
     need for greed kind of went away as well.  What seems most apparent to me
     is that happiness is a blessing you bestow upon yourself.  If you feel
     $1,000,000 is what it will take to make you happy, it ultimately would
     never be enough.  Same goes for $10,000,000 or whatever.  I figure if
     you don't have a lot of cash but your goal is Philanthropy, this is how
     you do it...  Now, I know I'm guilty of over-simplifying but I wanted to
     take a stab at trying to explain why I or my wife couldn't be bought/sold.

     Don

     (I've said some negative things about Jimmy Carter but to tell you the
      truth I think he's turned into the best Ex-President.  As a rule, I think
      Democrats make the best Ex-Presidents, anyway.  If we could only let them
      be Ex-President without having to put up with their Presidencies... :-)

    Jimmy Carter's comment about "lust in his heart" was perfectly
    understandable in light of his Southern Baptist background.  I always
    took that comment as a reference to the passage in the Sermon on the
    Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit
    adultery.'  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with
    lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  The furor
    that Carter's comment caused always surprised me--as far as I could
    tell, he was simply expressing an element of his Christian faith in
    admitting that he, as a sexual being, sometimes felt temptation.  I
    never inferred that he was making this lust out to be a virtue, but
    rather that he was simply admitting that he is human, and that as an
    imperfect being he therefore is capable of having "impure" thoughts.  I
    am sure that, assuming that this is where he was coming from, he would
    certainly admire and respect any man who can honestly say that he never
    feels lust for other women.  However, having never read the full
    interview, I admit that I don't know the overall context of that
    remark, so I am only inferring what I presume he meant, given that he
    had identified himself during that campaign as a born-again Christian.

    -- Mike

    RE:98

    Mike,
         I agree with your assessment of Jimmy Carter. Lust and being
    attracted to another person are two different things. If I was
    not attracted to women, I most likely would not have found my wife.

    Jim

Snarf!

By the way, I'd like to think that in the real situation I would decline
the offer. I put a high value on my wife and family, and think of sex as
more than just a physical act.

In the same Newsweek article the question 'How faithful are the women of 
America ?' was raised.

Janus (1993) said 26% of married women have had extramarital affairs and
Cosmopolitan Readers Survey (1993) said 39% of married women have cheated on 
their husbands. Statistically not insignificant. The report didn't say how 
many men cheat on their wifes but it did say that according to Janus 10% of 
men have had sex with more than 100 partners (!!!!) and the median number of 
sexual partners was 7.3 per man during his lifetime.

That tends to suggest that not everybody (married or otherwise) in America 
shares the same moral pedestal as some of the noters here.

The report also said that 1 !!! is the median number of times men said they 
had sex per week - slightly more than once for married men - so the results 
could also suggest...American men spend far too much time practising with the 
wrong Gun (smile).

- Paul.

    Re .101
    
    The only constant in this world is that things change.
    
    One of the things that change is how people feel about their morals and
    commitments.  Two men of my acquaintance, both married, have told me at
    one time or another that they have had affairs.  In both cases the
    answer to .0's question now, in April of 1993, is a resounding NO! 
    
    I spoke with one of these two guys just this week, and I actually asked
    him about the contention that foreknowledge and openness might make a
    difference.  He said no, it wouldn't, because he feels after having
    nearly blown his marriage away that that he isn't willing to tip the
    scales even a little bit by introducing the chance for recrimination
    later.  He said that any kind of disturbance like that could open the
    whole thing up all over again, and he won't take the risk. You don'tt
    know how valuable your mate's trust is until you come a hairsbreadth
    from losing it.
    
    YMMV, of course.
    
    -dick

    
    I talked to a close friend about this recently. I sense that he was
    highly dismayed that I could entertain the thought of sleeping with
    someone else for a dollar figure. I guess he sleeps on a higher moral
    plane than I do.
    
    So: I add the following caveat. I would not do anything that
    jeopardized my marriage unless there was something even more precious
    at stake. And its unlikely that this would be any sum of money. I make
    enough currently that it would be hard to tempt me with more. If I made
    a lot less money, and had truly tasted poverty, I might be more
    tempted. I don't know. And I hope not to find out.

    I don't know about this "higher moral plane" argument.  Sure, up front,
    it looks easy: you compromise your values for a large sum of money if
    you take the offer, and if you refuse it, you don't.
    
    But what are the chances that over a 40-year period of time, you won't
    be asked to compromise your values somehow to preserve your income 
    stream, the income stream that feeds you, sends your kids to college, 
    keeps a roof over your head, etc.  It may be a little, it may be a lot, 
    but sooner or later, it will probably happen.  And you don't really 
    know which values those will be.  The fact is, though, that if you had 
    that large sum of money in your bank account, you wouldn't have to worry 
    about compromising your values to preserve your job; you would have the 
    choice of walking away or taking the risk of refusing.
    
    So the question is, would you rather compromise your values on the
    installment plan, or up-front lump-sum?  For some people, that lump sum
    is much higher than the installment plan could ever be, and that's fair
    enough.  But to pretend that the person who would refuse the offer is
    on a higher moral plane solely by virtue of the refusal is a very
    short-term view.  On this one issue, maybe.  But cumulatively, maybe
    not.  Would it be worth it, never to have to compromise your morals for
    money again?  Isn't that a different question?
    
    	Sharon
    

 That's a pretty tenuous claim, Sharon, that not compromising your morals
on the "indecent proposal" isn't on a higher moral plane than compromising
your morals because of the possibility that over time there may be other issues
on which you may choose to compromise. Not only are we talking about a
situation in the present versus a possible, nebulous situation in the
fuzzy future, but also you seem to be assuming that the magnitude of
the hypothetical "other" compromises somehow adds up over time to be equivalent
(or even exceed) the magnitude of the moral compromise of the indecent proposal.
There's an awful lot of handwaving going on there. I am reminded of the defense
for Stacy Koon telling me that despite the video evidence to the contrary
there was no excessive beating of Rodney King. 

 I am willing to concede the point that one cannot make an assessment of
one's moral character simply on the basis of their reaction to an indecent
proposal, but I really think that saying that a refusal to consider such an 
arrangement is ethically and morally equivalent to compromising your morals
is doublespeak.

 The Doctah

    Hmm, I think you were reading too much into what I said.  My point was
    simply that I don't think that considering the "indecent proposal" is
    the only form of moral compromise in the equation, and that most people
    really don't weigh the alternative in terms of moral compromise (which
    IMHO they should).  The indecent proposal is simply the less socially
    acceptable form of moral compromise, so it gets more attention as such.
    
    I was making no statements as to the relative magnitude of the 2 forms
    of compromise; obviously, that will vary widely from individual to
    individual, and is impossible to estimate.  My point is only that it 
    is nonzero, and that therefore you can't necessarily say that someone 
    who would not consider the indecent proposal is, in the long-term sense, 
    operating on a higher moral plane.  
    
    Moral compromise for money is by no means excluded to "indecent 
    proposals" -- any time you're in a situation where you need the money,
    you'll be vulnerable to moral compromise.
    
    	Sharon
    

What if you Husband/Wife/SO were offered $25,000,000 to have Homosexual sex with
another person ?

Oh yea. And your Husband/Wife/SO were agreeable !


After all it's only for one night and yours and your childrens futures could 
really be secured with such a large sum of money.


Do your morals strech that far ?

    re .107
    
    Your question presumes that homosexual sex is somehow less moral than
    heterosexual sex.

	re. 108

	Yes it does, and I apologise.

	
	My intention was not to imply that one is less moralistic than the other
	but to discover whether the other noters out there who indicated that
	it would be acceptable for their partners to have hetrosexual sex for
	$1,000,000 would view their partner having Homosexual sex in a different
	light.

	After all if one is Hetrosexual the thought having of Homosexual sex 
	is not appealing and (vice versa I'm sure).


	For the record. I wouldn't want the person I love sleeping with anyone
	else at all.

	You'd never know they might get to like it...


	Peter.

>therefore you can't necessarily say that someone 
>    who would not consider the indecent proposal is, in the long-term sense, 
>    operating on a higher moral plane.

 Well, yeah, but I guess I didn't see anyone making that claim.

    re .109
    
    The problem is that you are not, in fact asking the same question.
    
    Assume the couple are heterosexual.  If the proposer is male, and
    offers to pay for the use of the woman for the night, then the question
    is one of fidelity, since the form of the sex is by definition
    acceptable to the woman.
    
    If, on the other hand, the proposer is female, then you are no longer
    just talking about fidelity, because the (married) woman has to ask
    whether the form of the sex is worth the money.  If it isn't then
    questions of fidelity are moot.

    re: .109
    There is also the possibility that it might be more acceptable. If you
    know the form of sex is against your partner's natural inclinations
    then you have less worries that it might develop into something more
    than "just one night".

    RE:111
    
    I do make the condition that the partner has accepted that the act is
    worth the money ! 
    
    The decision now belongs to the non paticipent i.e you.
    
    Along with your qualifications and conditions can we get some straight answers here ?
    
    P.

I would probably walk away from any such proposal, just because a sex for
money deal strikes me as so ugly.

re .107

Changing it to homo sex would make little difference, and that little would
be positive.  Like a lot of het guys, I have this silly prejudice that 
lesbianism is more 'natural' than gay sex.  If I find women attractive, why
shouldn't other women?  Conversely, I'd expect my wife to be *more* upset
if I got the offer, and it was from a guy, except that het women don't seem
to have the opposite of my silly prejudice.

.111> Assume the couple are heterosexual.  If the proposer is male, and
>    offers to pay for the use of the woman for the night, then the question
>    is one of fidelity, since the form of the sex is by definition
>    acceptable to the woman.

Did we specify somewhere that the form is just simple sex?  I'd expect that
anybody passing out the millions is looking for something pretty fancy, and
that is not "by definition acceptable to the woman."

    Did anyone see the lady from NOW complain on CNN the other day that
    this was a movie about female slavery?

Isn't it?

	Steve

    Nah. It's (or so I gather from all the talk) a movie about prostitution
    (of one's values, if not necessarily of one's body). If it were about
    slavery, there'd have been no need for her consent, now would there?
    
    An argument that it's about some peoples' slavery to money might hold a
    little more water...
    
    -b

>Isn't it?

 Viewed by someone with a predisposition for seeing affronts to women in all
things, undoubtedly so. A more objective view would find such a conclusion
unsupportable.

   RE: .109

   .112 raises a very good point. If I had a wife, then if I let her sleep
   with someone else for money, the biggest problem I would have would be
   jealousy. If I knew that my wife could not be attracted to the person
   she slept with, then I would be far less jealous. I wouldn't be worried that
   she would become a lesbian. People just don't work that way.

   - Jim

Not having seen the movie, it's not clear to me to whom the money is paid.
If Demi's character gets the money, it's prostiution.  If Woody's character
gets it, one could make a case for it being slavery though upon second
thought, that would really only apply if Demi had no choice in the matter,
so perhaps it's just pimping.

I haven't seen the quote you refer to nor know the identity or claimed
affiliation of the person, so I can't comment further.   

			Steve

.107> What if you Husband/Wife/SO were offered $25,000,000 to have Homosexual
.107> sex with another person ?

Why did you up the ante in addition to changing the scenario?  Keep it at
a $1,000,000 and change the scenario.  For those men who said they'd sleep
with another woman for $1,000,000 .. would they sleep with another man
for the same $1,000,000?  For the women who said they'd sleep with another
man for $1,000,000 ... would they sleep with another woman for $1,000,000?
(This is directed at heterosexual legally married or previously married
couples consisting of one male and one female.)

Bubba

    re .119, you never know!  People don't usually wear signs saying, "I'm
    a closet bi-sexual!"  :-)
    
    Also, just because you never felt like doing something
    before, that doesn't mean you might not like it if you actually did try
    it!  
    
    
    Lorna
    

    re .120, in the movie, the couple shares the money, and the wife makes
    the choice.  Hope that doesn't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the
    movie.  But, Demi Moore's character in no way comes across as being a
    slave.  Opportunist would be closer to the truth, IMO.  
    
    re .121, I don't think the sex of the person would make a difference to
    my decision.  However, if it was a woman I would be honest enough to
    make it clear she'd be dealing with a novice!  (but what am I supposed
    to *do*???!!!)   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .122
    
    Excellent point!  From my view, you have substantiated the "emotional
    risk" argument that several here have brought up.  Thank you.

Re. 124

If you're sitting pretty, that is you have a job, the money's coming in 
(just sufficient to get by with), you and your wife are happy with one another, 
the kid's are at school and the dog enjoys lazy days knapping on the grassy 
banks of your yard which fronts the 3 bed house you own, who's going to rock 
the boat when somebody offers a million or two for the services of your wife 
for a night. I doubt that there would be many takers. 

However, the film - although I haven't seen it so I'm going on what I've read -
sets the scene as a young couple just getting started who, when the recession 
hits, have no money the debts are piling up and things are looking pretty 
desperate when along comes this great looking guy and offers a million for a few 
hours work. In that situation who's going to say no ? Some might judge the 
emotional risk factor as too high but then the relationship might fall apart 
anyway due to the financial pressures and under the burden of debt. I'd say the 
majority would see it as a way out.

Me ? I'd be flattered if somebody, male or female, offered a million for my
services - I mean can you imagine the morning after. I get quite a shock 
just looking at myself in the mirror - urgh not pretty - can you imagine
somebody else's reaction if they'd paid for it ? 

- Paul.

    I never have been about to figure out why having DESIRE for other women
    (in the case of a straight man) is a sin?  Desire is one thing, ACTION
    is quite another.  I wonder how many of us, straights, gays, bi's etc.
    can honestly say that we NEVER 'look at, desire, lust' (take your
    pick) at another person other than our mate?  I wonder if/that those
    in this string who say they would never take the money, or sell out
    can honestly say that they have NEVER had the slightest sexual feelings
    toward a person other than their mate?  If that is the case then you
    have a remarkable relationship.  i.e. the ability to concentrate
    SOLELY (sexually), in THOUGHTS as well as actions on that person.
    
    I thought that a man who loved a woman 'loved all women', that a gay
    who loves a man 'loved all men' etc.  That is, it tends to be a generic
    love which is concentrated and expressed primarily with one person.
    
    Therefore, for someone to say 'I only love this one women, and never
    have a single thought toward a different women' I find rather hard to
    believe.  I know I don't HAVE to believe it, your out there I am sure,
    (someone will say well thats the way it is with ME, so believe it).
    
    Let me say again.  There is a BIG difference between admiring, and having
    passing sexual thoughts toward another individual other than your mate
    and ACTING on those thoughts and engaging in an active sexual
    relationship with that person who is other than your mate.
    
    For God/Christ to expect humans to be capable of ONLY having sexual
    thoughts toward ones mate seems a bit unrealistic to me.  Perhaps thats
    why He maintains that we are all sinners?
    
    Jeff

    >I never have been about to figure out why having DESIRE for other women
    >(in the case of a straight man) is a sin?  Desire is one thing, ACTION
    >is quite another.
    
    And according to Mosiac Law, both are sinful:
                                 
    	Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    
    	Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
    	
    For those who use the Ten Commandments as a guide to their morality,
    even the desire is a sin.  YMMV.

.127> 	Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

The Bible is politically incorrect.  This should be:

	"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or husband"

The Holy Bible has neglected our gay brothers who may in fact covet their
neighbors husband.

$20 fine.  My terms are "net 30 days".  Where do I send the citation? To
God?

Hauptmann Bubba
PCpolice

    Re "why is it sinful to 'lust in one's heart'":
    
    The idea is (or so it seems to me) that to _harbor_ "lustful thoughts"
    about someone to whom one is not married is to invite trouble. Having
    an impromptu lustful reaction or thought isn't sinful in itself, but
    inviting such thoughts or lingering over them is <considered so in some
    religions>, on the theory that it can be a first step to taking action
    in that direction; one may as well nip things in the bud.
    
    Same idea with "coveting" one's neighbor's goods; it may not be a bad
    thing, or an unnatural one, to want something nifty that one's neighbor
    has just acquired, but to dwell on it, whether in the form of
    discontent with one's own life or as envy of the neighbor, can lead to
    resentment or worse.
    
    Basically, it's not to say that one should never think such thoughts,
    but that such thoughts are more likely to lead to unhappy consequences
    than to happy ones, so it makes sense not to brood over them.
    
    Re .128: Good point, Bubba, but you neglected (or opted not to!)
    mention that the commandment as written also leaves a loophole for
    women who may in fact covet their neighbor's husbands. [I guess that
    means it's OK then, eh?]
    
    -b

    Every time I here the word covert. I think of this thing-ie in the
    ground that goes under a road where water pass's. :) And coverting is
    an active thing vs where it is passively lying there letting water pass
    thru it.:_)

Re: .130

The water-thingie is a culvert.  When I see "covert" I think of a bearded
software engineer who has a cellular phone grafted onto his body and who likes
to rollerskate in the nude (but hates receiving junk cellular phone calls while
he is doing so, or so he says).

				Steve

.129> Re .128: Good point, Bubba, but you neglected (or opted not to!)
.129> mention that the commandment as written also leaves a loophole for
.129> women who may in fact covet their neighbor's husbands. [I guess that
.129> means it's OK then, eh?]

Correct.  Come to think of it I forgot the bi-sexuals.  They can covet
the neighbor's wife *or* husband.

This is getting too complicated.  I think that a simple solution to this
would be for all the men to have their dillywackers surgically removed.
    
That would cure a lot of problems.  Or, should the wimmins wear chastity
belts?  Too complicated.  I think I'll resign my commission in the PCpolice
and stick to selling 'puters.

Bubba

    Steve,

    covert is also someone who has been changed. Right? :) Been covert'ed
    from a Baptist to a Protestant.:) Or vice versa.:)
    
    

 .126> Therefore, for someone to say 'I only love this one women, and never
 .126> have a single thought toward a different women' I find rather hard to
 .126> believe.

       I'll admit, it takes some getting used to, but it can be done and
       Jeff, even _you_ can do it!  The next time you find yourself "lusting"
       after a woman other than your wife, stop and ask yourself why?  After a
       while you may find that you appreciate women for nonsexual reasons and
       then the shields will really come down.  You will then never have to
       worry about ACTING upon any of the thoughts of which you spoke...

 .126> For God/Christ to expect humans to be capable of ONLY having sexual
 .126> thoughts toward ones mate seems a bit unrealistic to me.  Perhaps thats
 .126> why He maintains that we are all sinners?
    
       I will defer to the experts on this one but it sounds like a major
       COP-OUT to me.  Why not try to rise above sin?  

    I find it hard to believe when a heterosexual male, says that they
    are not attracted to  woman other than their wife. There is
    a difference between being attracted and lust. Attracted means you find
    her beautiful, lust means you want to possess her. You must control
    your thoughts, but desire is a feeling, and feelings are neither right 
    nor wrong. Its what you do with feelings that make them right or wrong.

    Jim

    I am reminded of last night's Seinfeld episode for some reason.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    RE:136

    That was funny !


    Jim

    re .131, he rollerskates in the nude?  surely, not on the sidewalks of
    Nashua?  isn't it illegal?  :-)
    
    As far as lusting "in your heart" for someone being a sin, this is what
    I think.  I think that we have to live by so many rules in this world,
    and there are so many times when we can't really do what we'd like to
    do, that, well, when it comes to what I lust after, I'll lust after
    whatever I want, and it's nobody else's business.  
    
    I just don't buy the concept that something that does not actually hurt
    another person is a sin.  Now, someone could argue that if I were to
    lust after someone, that might lead to my seducing some married guy and
    eventually somebody might get hurt.  Yeah, maybe so, but maybe not.  We
    all get hurt sometimes for some reason or another.  Meanwhile, nobody
    can enforce thoughts.  I could say that I think lusting after somebody
    is a sin, and that I would never do it, and all the while I could be
    lusting after some married guy, and nobody would ever know.  the whole
    idea of what goes on in somebody *mind* being a sin is a joke to me. 
    We live in a world where people are brutally murdered, sometimes for
    nothing, on a daily basis, where people starve to death, and live on
    the streets, and people in here are trying to tell me that lusting
    after someone is a sin.  Give me a break, and wake up to the real
    world.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:138
    Lorna,
           lust reduces a person to an "object" to be used for one's own
    wants. When people think of others as objects rather than persons,
    what may seem harmless, carries over into how we treat one another.
    The tailhook incident is an example of this.

    Lust is an extension of one person's ego onto anther, I've heard it
    said.

    Jim
          

    re .139, I don't think lust always has to reduce a person to an object. 
    Didn't you ever lust over your wife?  If you are married?  I know that
    once upon a time I spent quite a bit of time lusting over my
    ex-husband, and I loved him very much for a long time.  I've also
    lusted over people that I genuinely like and respect as people and
    friends.  I think it's possible to lust over people without physically
    assaulting them.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE:140
    Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what lust is ? 

    My definition of lust is when you desire to use a  person for your
    own sexual pleasure, with no regard for that person, other than what
    they can give to you sexually.

     Jim

    re .141, yes, we have different definitions of what lust is.
    
    My definition of lust is when you find someone sexually attractive, and
    daydream about what it would be like to have sex with them.
    
    And, my paperback dictionary says:
    
    "sexual craving, esp. when excessive, any overwhelming craving"
    
    with no mention of using the person with no regard for that person.
    
    Lorna
    

    Amen, Lorna.

    Also, let's define sin:

    Sin is defined by your religion,
    Your religion is defined by your beliefs.
    Therefore, sin is whatever you believe it to be.

    My own personal definition of sin is "anything that I know I'll feel
    guilty about doing, but I do it anyway."

    I don't allow thoughts to make me feel guilty, only actions, so I can think
    anything I want and feel comfortable with myself, and live sin-free for
    weeks or months at a time.

    - Jim

    Also, I'm sure I've probably lusted over more antique rings than I ever
    have men!!  (i always take very good care of my jewelry, too!!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .143, I feel the same.  I don't allow myself to feel guilty because
    of my thoughts, only my actions.  
    
    Inside my head, I can be completely free.  It may be the only place,
    but nobody can enslave my thoughts.
    
    Lorna
    

re:142
    
>    My definition of lust is when you find someone sexually attractive, and
>    daydream about what it would be like to have sex with them.
>    
>    And, my paperback dictionary says:
>    
>    "sexual craving, esp. when excessive, any overwhelming craving"
>    
>    with no mention of using the person with no regard for that person.

    If the only use that person your daydreaming about is sexual, then it
    is lust. You've reduced the value of that person to a sexual object.
    It is the opposite of love, which is giving yourself to the benefit
    of that person. We are called by God, to love one another, when we
    don't, it is sin.


    Jim
     

    re .146, well, you're talking religion now, and I disagree with what
    your religion seem to tell you to believe.  When I form an opinion, it
    is based on my own thoughts, not on what someone else, or some
    religion, organized by other people, has told me to think, but we each
    choose our own course in life.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .146
> You've reduced the value of that person to a sexual object.
    
    	If the sin is regarding people as objects, then I must plead guilty
    with regard to most television personalities and politicians. If all you
    see of them is a carefuly tailored public persona it is difficult to
    regard them as more than glove puppets or cartoon characters.
    
    	If all I know of the president of the U.S. is his formal speeches
    dubbed into French, then he is "the president of the U.S.", and an
    object. If I happen to know him to be a crook or a fool, then he
    becomes a person.
    
    	Or does sex have to be involved before it becomes a sin?
    
    	I've had sexual fantasies about many women, but only ever had sex
    with one. I don't think my wife regards me as particularly sinful in
    that area, though she does have complaints about my gardening
    efforts ;-)
    
    Dave (married for almost 25 years now).

    re:.141
    
    You say it like it's a bad thing.

    
    Lorna ... hang in there ... IMO you're doing a great job.
    
    The rest ... consider this a "ditto" for all of Lorna's notes ... she's
              basically saying evrything I want to about the subject.
    
    Greg
              

    re: 147 
    
    > But we each choose our own course in life
    
    But surely you need some moral guidelines to follow ?
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any specific religion
    but not everybody out there is capable of making an informed decision
    and one Man's perversion can be anothers normality.
    
    We need some consencus on what is right and what is wrong
    because once the moral fabric of society breaks down we are 
    f****d.
     
    P.
    
    
    

    re .151, I think most people agree that murder (not self-defense),
    stealing, rape, and physical assault are wrong.  Beyond that, I've
    noticed there seems to be quite a bit of room for interpretation, and
    I've chosen to form my own opinons rather than blindly follow the creed
    of any particular religion or bandwagon.
    
    Lorna
    

re:152
>    I've chosen to form my own opinons rather than blindly follow the creed
>    of any particular religion or bandwagon.
    
    Do you think your unique in that you live by your own opinions ? Most
    of society does this. Just look around and see how great things have
    become.  


    Jim    

>    Do you think your unique in that you live by your own opinions ? Most
>    of society does this. Just look around and see how great things have
>    become.  

    Wait, are you saying that we should NOT have our own opinions? Who is going
    to be the opinion supplier?

    We have to be at least a little critical of our religions or our
    government. Otherwise, we all end up being mindless servants of politicians
    or clergymen who do not necessarily have our best interests in mind.

    Obvious example: followers of David Koresh.
    
    - Jim    

    re .153, on the other hand, you'll never find me drinking cool aid in
    S. America, or burning up with a bunch of loonies in Waco, Texas
    either!!
    
    Lorna
    

    re: 155
    
    >...or burning up with a bunch of loonies in Waco...
    
    I don't know if that's right. All it takes is a charsismatic leader and
    people will follow. After all your daughter has slept for somthing like
    three days at or outside the same hotel as U2 just to get a look at
    Bono. Now if he were just a little less sane there's no telling how
    many people would follow him to hell and back !
    
    What I'm saying is that people are impressionable. Whether it's society
    /religion/parents/peers etc.. we are all influenced to some extent by
    others and it is better to be influenced by those who have morals than
    those who don't. 
    
    No man is an Island ! and as the song says "If you don't respect
    yourself ain't nobody goin' to give a (somthing somthing) respect yourself
    da da da da da da respect yourself de de de de de de etc...
    
    By the way Bono drinks at my local bar regularly, and I wouldn't follow
    him to the toilet and back ! 
                    

    re .156, wow, you never know what old notes somebody is going to dig
    up!!!  :-)  
    
    Also, I'll have you know my daughter never wasted any time *sleeping*
    outside the hotel, when U2 were there.  They stayed awake the entire
    time.  Otherwise, they might have missed a sighting!  :-)
    
    I don't know how Bono acts when he's drinking at your local pub, if
    indeed that is true, but he was very nice to his fans in Boston.  He
    took the time to look at some drawings Melissa had done of him, asked
    her name, shook hands with her and told her it was nice to meet her,
    posed for a picture with her, drew a picture on the back of her denim
    jacket, and signed several autographs for her.  A lot of stars don't
    even bother to sign autographs for fans after they get that famous. 
    (For example, Eric Clapton rudely refused to sign an autograph for a
    friend of Melissa's, in Rhode Island.)  Heck, The Edge even brought out
    pastries to the fans who had stayed out there all night (about 10
    kids)!!  So, I think Bono would have to be a *lot* less sane in order
    to be compared with the guy in Waco.  However, I don't know how he acts
    when he's at home.  (If I had to follow somebody to the toilet, though,
    Bono could be a top choice.  Afterall, if I was going to follow somebody
    to hell and back it would at least be nice if he was cute!)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Don't get me wrong Bono is a really  nice guy, but it's just that I'm so
    used to seeing him around that I take no notice of him. He's just like
    anybody else ! 
    But as you say he is good to his fans and I have yet to
    see him refuse to sign an autograph etc...
    
    If you are ever in Ireland and want to meet the guy, just go to the
    Killiney Court Hotel (My Local) outside of Dublin and the gents are
    "Go out of the Bar, turn left, left again, turn right and the stairway
    to heaven is on you left !"
    
    I can't promise a close encounter but if it's during the holidays and a
    saturday night there's a good chance !
    
    How about we get back to some Indecent Proposals ?

Good job Lorna.

It doesn't surprise me that for those who strive to rise above the sins of the
flesh lust has negative connotations. But please, being married doesn't mean 
being dead or that the relationship is static.

Not wishing to attack the church or those who hold a firm religious belief but 
I'm of the opinion that there's more hypocrisy and immorality within the church
movement than you'll ever find outside - but then as Lorna rightly says 'each 
to their own'.

Re.158 Any suggestions ....

- Paul.

    
>I'm of the opinion that there's more hypocrisy and immorality within the church
>movement than you'll ever find outside.
    
    I couldn't agree with you more Paul. I'm what you might call a lapsed
    Cathloic i.e I don't go to mass or take part in any other religious
    ceremonies (Other than to watch Ireland playing soccer), but even so I
    do have a set of essentially christian morals which I try to live by.
    
    I don't disagree that we can and should form our own opinions but those
    opinions must have a foundation on which to be based, there must be
    constraints. There can't just be a free for all can there ?
    
    For example in the Rodney King case those policemen formed an opinion
    that Mr. King was a threath to their lives so they beat the shit out of
    him. To each their own ? I think not.
    
    This note is really dealing with sexual morals and how we value
    ourselves and our partners and I've been thinking that, well if you 
    can make a distinction between fucking and making love then your
    decision in regard to the indecent proposal is moot. 
    But then that is why I posted the note concerning Homosexual sex
    because if you can regard sex as a purely animal act then the nature of
    the sex should make little difference and I was interested to see if any
    responses (Of which there were none. I wonder why ?) confirmed this.
    
    By the way Lorna speaking about old notes I have a 23 year old who's
    looking for a baby sitter :-)
    
    Peter

It's my turn to agree with you...

	"There can't just be a free for all can there ?"

No there can't, but to constitute good fiction we need a complication. In the
case of Indecent Proposal the question is 'sex for money' the complication, 
you're in financial trouble, you don't have work and the future isn't looking 
too bright. Along comes a good looking guy (not an unpalatable proposition) and
offers a million (inadvertently the answer to all your financial problems) for 
the services of your wife (the affront to your moral or ethical standard). Each
one of us will begin to weigh up the issues within the context of the complicat-
ion - for ourselves - which is only right. Maybe in the process the views of 
society are challenged and will either change to be more representative of 
the times and pressures within which we live or will hold.

If you're heterosexual then the proposal 'a million for homosexual sex' even 
with this complication will bring you out in a cold sweat and probably give 
you the shivers just the same as if you're homosexual and somebody offers 'a 
million to have sex with a woman'. It's not going to happen.
 
But try this - the question is 'taking the life of another human being'. The 
complication, your wife is being held by a gunman who will rape her within the 
next few minutes. Along comes a man and offers you his rifle. This man also 
shows you how with one shot you can hit the gunman in the only part of his 
body that can be seen from where you stand - his head. Do you shoot ? 

- Paul.

     Yeah I shoot.
    
    The movie is one thing but I don't thing that there are many people 
    contributing to this notes file who are that desperate for money,
    but yet they are prepared to accept the offer.
    
    Someone mentioned earlier about it not being the soul but just the body
    that is been taken by Monsieur Redford. My point is that if is isn't the 
    soul i.e it's purely a physical/animal act (for survival) then what difference does
    the form of sex make. In the same way as I wouldn't have any hesitation
    in pulling the trigger if someone was attacking my wife (No matter who
    they were). It's a question of survival. An animal instinct. 
    
    My conclusion: It's not about survival I'ts about greed ! *Ordinary People* 
    out there have got to the stage where they will sell themselves and
    others for money and It's only a small step before one can rationalize
    the selling of someone without their consent. 
    
    The views of people are distorted because Robert Redford is an attractive
    man. A lot of married women would sleep with him for free on the basis
    that it is only a once off (or maybe twice. He's getting a bit old for
    any more in one night) ! The reality of the proposition  would be more along 
    the lines of John Candy with a flatulance problem :-)
    
    Society stinks !
    
    Peter

    Re .161
    
    I shoot without thinking about it for even a nanosecond; it takes me
    exactly as long as is required to aim and squeeze.  And I hope that the
    rifle is a .44 Magnum loaded with a dumdum - I don't want there to be
    even the remotest possibility that the scum will survive to tell a
    lawyer about it.
    
    But this situation is not at all parallel to the premise of "Indecent
    Proposal."  This is not a moral dilemma, it is pure and simple defense
    of self or family from a visible, imminent threat of grievous harm.

    re .161
    
    I'd say his life expectancy would be about .2 sec.
    
    fred();

    Nope, I wouldn't shoot.  
    
    -- Mike

    Serious question, Mike:
    
    How would you feel afterward, when he had raped and killed your SO?

I didn't mention kill - just rape.

- Paul.

     re:165
    
    Me thinks Mike is looking to be a bit controversial...
    
    Or if not let's have an explanation there Mike...
    
    Peter

    No, I'm not looking to be controversial.  I just stated what I would
    do, just as those who preceded me stated what they would do.
    
    -- Mike

    This conversation is getting interesting.  
    
    I agree with -dick binder (oh, my god, did i really say that?) :-), in
    that if someone were about to rape someone I loved, it would not be a
    moral dilemma for me.  I strongly believe that people have a right to
    protect themselves and their loved ones from physical assault, and I
    would have no problem (except that I've never used a gun!) BUT,
    *morally* I would have no problem shooting someone who was about to
    rape someone I cared about.  As a matter of fact, I don't think I'd
    have a problem shooting someone who was about to rape *anybody*!  
    I have a real problem with people using physical force on others,
    EXCEPT for self-defense or the defense of victims unable to defend
    themselves.
    
    However, I do not see this as comparable to the situation in Indecent
    Proposal.  I think a better question would be - Would you murder
    somebody for a million dollars?  I wouldn't, no matter how much I
    needed the money.  So,  here we have it.  My moral values.  I would
    sleep with somebody for a million dollars, but I would not murder
    somebody for a million dollars.  The reason is that I don't see any
    problem with sex between consenting adults, but I believe that taking a
    life is wrong (except for self-defense).
    
    Peter, I agree that society cannot just be a free-for-all.  But, I
    guess the way I see it, is that there are a few basic guidelines, such
    as:  do not kill, do not steal, do not physically assault other people,
    do not rape.  However, there are many other issues where I have
    questioned the guidelines and rules I was taught in early childhood.  I
    feel that there are a few basic rules that by far the majority of
    people agree on, and then there are all these others in a gray area. 
    Some people seem to be willing to let others (religion, cult leaders,
    who knows?) tell them what to think on every single issue, whereas I
    have always preferred to question, observe, read and decide for myself. 
    Or, as said in the words of my very favorite Irishman, "no guru, no
    method, no teacher."  I can think for myself and have desire to follow
    a messiah.
    
    Also, Peter, I *am* in desperate need of money.  My ex-husband and I
    have a house that is in danger of being repossessed by the bank, since
    my ex got layed off from DEC (after 19 yrs.), last December, and now
    neither of us can afford to pay the mortgage, and in the depressed real
    estate market of N.E. there have been no offers.  So, don't be so
    certain that there aren't people reading this file who would have a
    special need to get their hands on a lot of money fast!!
    
    So, Peter, you think your son might like my daughter (age 19) for a
    babysitter??  She's looking for a summer job, and would love a trip to
    Ireland.  :-)  She's probably spend more time trying to track down Bono
    than babysitting, though!  :-)  (especially now that you've told us
    where to look!)
    
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .166

    I can see where Mike is coming from.

    If it were against my principles to counteract violence with violence, I
    would be incapable of shooting the guy. But does that mean that I wouldn't
    be distraught after it happened?

    We have to make sacrifices to keep our principals intact.

    Hey, let's generalize the "indecent proposal."

    Would you commit any act which you find morally repulsive, if you could
    have any wish, any wish at all, granted?

    So you can reshape this into:
        "Would you allow your partner to have sex with someone else for $1M?"
	"Would you kill another human being if it meant your spouse could live?"

    The fundamental question is:
	"How strictly do you follow your set of morals?"

    By the way, I'd kill the guy. It doesn't go against MY morals.

    - Jim

    Re .167
    
    Right.  You didn't mention killing.  But it is perfectly reasonable to
    believe that killing could likely follow the rape, especially if the
    perp is armed with a gun.  Insofar as the question of "will he or won't
    he?" is concerned, the presumption is that he is already committing a
    violent crime of power and he is therefore not likely to balk at
    another (the ultimate power over another, to take his or her life) to
    cover his identity/tracks - especially if the victim resists his power.
    
    Therefore, in my book, violent rape --> murder.

    Re .171
    
    it's not quite so easy to generalize the question into "would you do
    something you find morally repulsive...?"  Morals are elastic, in that
    there are some truly repulsive things that do not equate to the taking
    of a life - which is clearly, in the context of the rape scenario, not
    repulsive to some percentage of us here.  For example, although I would
    unhesitatingly kill a man who was raping my wife, I would not attempt
    to injure him and then make him suffer.  This latter response is
    intolerably repugnant to me.
    
    It comes down to an ad hoc basis: would you do *this* thing for X
    money, would you do *that* thing for X money?  Each case must be
    considered on its own merits.

    Re the ever-popular situational-ethics example of the gun and the
    rapist: there _are_ other options than killing the guy or standing
    there and watching, you know. [Sure, one could tailor the circumstances
    to exclude those other possibilities; those who enjoy the
    but-what-would-you-do-if game can earn points by doing such, and the
    rest can opt not to play.]
    
    As for the generic "would you sacrifice your principles for money"
    question, there's still a <fairly> clear-cut difference between
    sacrificing "principles that only involve myself" and "principles
    involving other people". Thus, one might be willing to personally
    undergo any treatment, however "immoral" or degrading or painful, for
    sufficient compensation, but one might not be willing to inflict such
    treatment on a non-consenting third party.
    
    Or - here's a grey area. What if the mysterious billionaire with the
    quirky conversational gambits proposes to give you $1 million if you
    and your spouse will agree that one of you will seduce your next-door
    neighbor - WITHOUT telling him/her about the deal. A seduction, not a
    rape, mind you, but the money doesn't get paid if the deed doesn't get
    done. It's still "just sex," but now it involves someone outside of the
    arrangement - an "innocent bystander," if you will.
    
    Some may feel that, if the neighbor is "seducable" at all, what's to
    worry? Consenting adults and all that. Side effects such as hurt
    feelings or broken hearts (or jealous spouses showing up with
    flamethrowers) are all part of the risks one takes as a consenting
    adult, right?
    
    Just wait 'til "Indecent Proposal II" comes out. ;-)
    
    -b

    >[Sure, one could tailor the circumstances to exclude those other
    >possibilities; those who enjoy the but-what-would-you-do-if game can
    >earn points by doing such, and the rest can opt not to play.]
    
    This is true.  With these sorts of hypothetical scenarios, you can
    change the detail at will to try to manipulate the outcome, with the
    intention of boxing in the respondent.  Joan Baez once put together a
    wonderful parody of this phenomenon (in her case, the example involved
    someone pointing a gun at her grandmother.)

    -- Mike

    I despise situational questions of this ilk -- they're geared mostly to
    gain a reaction based upon situations that most of us, thankfully, have
    never encountered.
    
    My response?  I don't know and I hope to hell I'll never find out.
    
    It's all fine and well to *say* how you think you'd react in a crisis. 
    Quite another making an accurate determination when you haven't been
    *through* that crisis.
    
    Daniel

I'd contest that there is a parallel between the two cases - but in a notesfile
it's impossible to argue every point.

In the 'sex for money' the moral issue isn't just prostitution but adultery too.
A clear transgression of one of the 10C's. The couple are destitute - like many
people - and could use the money. Prostitution is wrong and so is adultery. If 
they didn't take the offer they'd still be in the shit but over the long haul 
they'd probably survive - if their relationship was strong enough. If they do 
take the offer they risk the relationship in more insidious ways; jealousy, 
questionable values (pimping, prostitution etc) but again if their relationship
was strong enough they'd survive that too. Some would find taking the offer an 
affront to their values others wouldn't hesitate.

In the 'life for the wife' the issues are different but follow a similar line. 
Taking another life transgresses one of the 10C's. Different folks different
strokes. The couple are in a tight spot but it's not life threatening. If the 
guy doesn't take the offer his wife *might* get raped but over the long haul 
they'd survive it - if their relationship was strong enough and the woman got 
enough support. If the guy shoots then he's taken a life, the wife gets 
splashed in blood and brains - but they'd get over that too wouldn't they.

Convinced now ? I doubt it.

If you're interested I'd shoot the guy too - but then I'd take the million (of
course only if we were destitute).

- Paul.

    
    Personally I find rape to be a more henious crime than murder.
    I would blow away any rapist/child molester without hesitation *period*
    Exterminate the scum !!!
    
    re: 170 
    Lorna I'm sorry to learn of your circumstances and I apologise for
    jumping to conclusions but I still don't agree that sex for money is
    the solution to any situation which could be solved in a different
    manner.
	
    P.S The babysitter I was talking about was the Brandy swilling Pool
    playing one. Remember ? :-)

    Re .177
    
    The "life for the wife" choice does not transgress one of the 10Cs,
    even for those who believe that the 10Cs are actually *rules*.  (Given
    that humans are not perfect, I believe that they are signposts telling
    us the ways we are *going* to fail.)
    
    The C in question is "You shall not murder."  (For those who read it as
    "Thou shalt not kill," I will point out that the King James Version is
    written in a language that is not 20th-century English, and it cannot
    be interpreted as if it were.  The meaning of a passage in the Bible
    must be traced between its original form and *current* language.) 
    Anyway, murder is the killing of a human being unlawfully and with
    intent.  Killing a violent criminal is lawful if *he poses an imminent
    threat of harm to you or your family.  Hence, killing a gun-wielding
    rapist is not unlawful, it is not murder, and it does not violate the
    10Cs.  (I won't go down the rathole of lex talionis, which is also
    supported by Biblical scripture.)

    Well, I'll say one thing right now.  If *I* were the wife getting
    raped, and my husband just stood by and didn't try to fight off my
    attacker, I'd friggin divorce the jerk, if I survived the assault. 
    Why the heck would I want to be married to a guy who wouldn't even be
    willing to lift a finger to help me if I was being attacked?  I would
    consider it a betrayal.
    
    Also, if somebody started to assault my husband, or SO, I would try to
    do something to help.  I'm a small person and I don't know how
    effective I would be, but I would never just stand by while someone I
    loved was being assaulted.  (Twice when I was married my ex-husband
    almost got in fights with other people, and both times I ended up
    screaming at the other guy to leave my ex alone, and the fights were
    averted.  Both times the guys just seemed too shocked by my yelling to
    continue.  I guess I was just lucky.)
    
    Daniel, it's true that nobody knows how they would actually behave, but
    people can speculate at least on how they would *like* to behave in a
    certain situation.  For example, if I did shoot somebody who was raping
    someone else, I'd be at ease morally.  But, in reality, I might just be
    so scared that I'd run away.  I don't know, and don't want to find out,
    like you said.  But, I know I'd have no moral qualms about shooting the
    guy, if I had the guts and ability to carry it out.
    
    Lorna
     

    re .178, re: sex for money, well, not to worry, I've not gotten any
    offers.  :-)  I don't look like Demi Moore and I don't know any
    billionaires.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

     
    
    Sounds to me like we're getting into "Indecent Proposal" meets
    "Thelma & Louise" country...
    
    What type of a person would allow someone to be raped without even
    putting up a fight ?
    
    Peter

    A couple of comments.  First, being unwilling to take one particular
    action does not necessarily imply standing idly by and watching.  As a
    pacifist, I often encounter the myth that pacifism equates to
    passiveness.  This is incorrect.  I don't know what I would do in a
    given terrible situation; I would probably get blown away by the rapist
    myself.  But one thing I can't do is condone killing the rapist.  That
    is my choice, and those are my values.  If we are really going to
    discuss scenarios like this in detail, I have to wonder why a man who
    just happened to walk by with a gun would stop and take the time to
    show me how to shoot someone in such and such a way, hand me the gun,
    and expect me to do the deed, all while the crime is ready to take
    place at any minute,, when he could have made his own moral choice
    about shooting at the guy himself.  Oh well.

    That being said, some of the replies in this topic, with phrases like
    "exterminate the scum", suggest that their goal would not just be to
    stop the crime, but to carry out a vindictive punishment against the
    person perpetrating the crime.  It is one thing to say that killing a
    person in some carefully  constructed hypothetical scenario is a
    necessary evil in order to stop a crime; it is another thing altogether
    to feel vindictive glee over the taking of another human life.  Since
    we are inventing hypothetical scenarios, if we could conceive of one
    where you had two options for preventing the rape--one which involved
    killing the rapist, and one which did not--it sounds like some people
    here would opt for the killing option simply because it would make them
    feel good to kill the guy.  If so, those are most certainly not my
    values, and it would sadden me to hear people talk that way.

    -- Mike

    Re .183
    
    Because I used the word "scum" does not mean that I was, or am,
    thinking in terms of exterminating the scum.  I am, on the other hand,
    only too aware that criminals injured in the act by their victims can,
    and do, sue the victims-turned-police, and win.  It was my intent to
    indicate that while I consider killing a rapist a proper action I do
    not consider it equally proper that said rapist should, if I miss,
    litigate against me.  So I would ensure that he died.

    I was making a general comment; you were not the only one using that
    term.
    
    -- Mike

I'm not a pacifist, but I would still agree with Mike on this one.  Murder
is a very serious thing, and I'm not sure I would really murder someone
to prevent a rape.

While I'm at it, I would also agree with several previous noters, that in
the real world there would always be other alternatives, and anyway I don't
know what I would do until I actually face the situation.

If I were in the situation, and there were no alternative, I don't know what 
I would do.

If I reverse the situation, and I were the one being raped, and there were
no alternative, I would *not* expect my wife to kill the guy.  (Of course
it was a guy!  Being raped by a woman is closer to fantasy than crime.)  I
would expect her to kill to save my life.  Which says, I guess, that I would
take being murdered more seriously than being raped.

When I was taught Catholic ethics, I learned that killing in this situation 
would be a mortal sin, because the death of the rapist was essential to
preventing the rape.  If I could make him incapable of rape, and that 
happened to kill him, it would be OK.  Catholic ethics was strange stuff.
It may have changed since my time.  I hear they say Mass in English now.

The legal position depends on the state (and presumably the country).  I live
in NH, but am writing this in MA.  These two states take very different 
positions on the use of force to prevent crimes.  

    
    Mike thanks for your answer. Now I know where you're comming from and I
    respect your opinion but I as a tax payer resent having to finance the
    incarceration of sexual offenders who are on the whole twisted pepole
    incapable of reforming  their characters.
    
    Yes I used the word *scum* but I would never take sadistic pleasure
    in killing anybody. I simply feel that these people are a threat to
    the wellbeing of my family and friends and as they are unwilling or
    unable to reform are not worthy to live.
    There is high unemployment in this country and the 30,000 pounds it
    takes to keep these people per anum could be better spent ! In addition
    a death penalty for child abuse may deter future potential offenders and 
    thus would reduce the levels of abuse for as studies show the abused tend 
    to be the future abusers.
    
    Peter

    re .186, you say that "murder is a very serious thing, and I'm not sure
    I would really murder someone to prevent a rape."  Wow.  I can tell you
    haven't ever had a talk with anyone who has been violently raped, have you? 
    I almost feel sorry for you when I imagine the first time you might ever 
    make the above statement around certain people.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Peter.  Whew.
    
    I was abused as a child, emotionally and sexually by two different
    people.
    
    It has taken me years to essentially put those events behind me.
    Of the two 'experiences' for ME anyway, the emotional abuse was worse
    because it occured over a period of years and got to the 'core' of my
    self respect.  The sexual abuse occured by a teacher and lasted for a
    relatively short period of time and outright violence wasn't involved.
    
    I have thought about those events alot over the years and with the help
    of therapy have gotten my life back together.
    
    I never felt any real desire to kill/murder either of the offenders.
    Stop them, YES, but not kill them.  Both individuals were/are sick and
    need/needed help.  The sexual offender belonged off the street so he
    couldn't hurt other kids.  
    
    Now as the father of my own son I have to worry about helping HIM avoid
    emotional and sexual and physical abuse.  I being a parent know how
    parents feel about having their kid(s) potentially mistreated.  Also,
    having  experienced abuse myself I know how it feels to BE abused.
    
    Whats my point?  I havn't looked at either of the perputrators as
    'scum'.  I view(ed) them as sick people desperately needing help.
    As worn out as that cliche' 'help' is that IS what they needed.  Not
    to be killed in the name of vengence, gotten off the street, yes,
    locked up, yes, but help too.
    
    The sweeping statements about ALL sex offenders ALWAYS recomitting
    their crimes is simply not true.  I wonder how many don't recommit
    their crimes?  We don't read about them because good news doesn't make
    the papers.
    
    I do believe it appropriate to protect oneself if being attacked and
    for criminals to be punished or locked up as appropriate.
    
    But KILLING another person is a serious thing, IMO more serious than
    rape.  Rape hurts a person but doesn't completely destroy the person.
    Killing a person destroys the person.  Thats why I consider killing
    worse than sex crimes with murder not involved.  If the sex crime
    INCLUDES murder, then, yes, capitol punishment is appropriate I think. 
    If no murder, or intent to murder is involved then IMO a punishement
    LESS than death is  appropriate.  But to kill someone for attempted
    rape is wrong I believe.
    
    However, if a person is killed while attempting rape then thats self
    defense.
    
    Jeff

    
    I didn't mean to imply that all of those abused as children grow to be
    offenders but the *tendency* to do so, seems ,from what I have read on
    the subject, to be a proven fact.
    
    I myself come from a background similar to yours. My father was abused
    as a child by a priest and like you he never turned abuser and like you
    he feels more compassion for sexual offenders than I do.
    
    I don't know why my opinions are so strong, because I have never been
    abused in any form, either physical or sexual. My father can't
    understand my viewpoint either...
    
    So I don't know...but I've given it a lot of thought and I keep comming
    back to the same solution i.e as mentioned previously.
    
    Again I am guilty of straying off the topic at hand
    Maybe I'll just read and learn for a while...
    
    Peter

    re: last few
    
    40% of sexual abusers were abused as children themselves.
    
    This is *not* the same as 40% of abused children become abusers.
    
    Daniel

    Please pardon me while I reply to the last couple,  I know its strayed
    off the base topic.
    
    Phil, and last few replies:  I think 'our' (Societies) biggest mistake
    is in lumping all sex offenses under the same title and assuming that
    the same motives are involved in all cases.  People murder for
    different reasons and with different degrees of premeditation... thus
    the different degrees, 1st, 2nd, 3rd.  It does seem that often sex
    offenses involve murder too.. thus people tend to lump them together in
    their minds.  
    
    Sex offenses are motivated for many different reasons, with different
    degrees of violation of the victims rights... ranging from outright
    murder (the ultimate invasion IMO) to the cases where some guy has
    'touched' a kid inappropriately.  There are of course all sorts of
    variations in between also.  I know that if someone 'touched' my son
    vs. raping him and killing him, I would be FAR angrier in the latter
    case.  Therefore I would not take the position that the 'toucher'
    deserves the SAME punishment as the rapist, which some seem to believe
    is appropriate. (Treat them all the same, hang em all high).
    
    
    The molestation which occured to me as a boy occured with no violence
    involved.  (At least no PHYSICAL violence).  Had I been dragged into
    a ditch and raped I might feel quite differently in the degree of
    animosity I feel toward the perpurtrator.  At the TIME I was Bull
    xxxx over it.  Now, after years have passed, and with the help of
    therapy I have a much better understanding of what motivated him.
    He was a very lonely person who was unable to relate to adults.
    Since he could relate to kids somehow they became sexually attractive
    to him too.  He found a vulnerable kid (me) and there is a set up for
    abuse.  The degree of emotional deprivation involved in SOME of the
    offenders is beyond belief... otherwise what would 'force/turn' a
    person away from normal sexual outlets?  With some of them the desire
    is obviously so powerful they are willing to risk their LIVES, (angry
    Dads' and Moms') to satisfy their emotional and physical needs.  The
    degree of deprivation is beyond my understanding, but obviously it is
    there, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
    
    Violent offenses are driven my a different 'class' of offenders with
    different needs.  Since my 'research' in therapy hasn't involved
    discussions about violent offenders I don't know as much about it and
    will not attempt to explain their motivation.
    
    It is interesting that at least in the case of two people you have
    communicated with who have been sexually abused that they seem to hold
    less animosity than you do who have never 'experienced' it.
    
    Moderator:  If you want to move this to an appropriate string, feel
    free.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jeff

    One more thing I forgot to mention:  If we as a society hope to STOP
    abuse BEFORE it occurs we must gain understanding of what MOTIVATES
    these people to commit it and spot/help the potential offenders BEFORE
    they do it.  That way everybody wins, nobody is molested, no one gets
    locked up, and society doesn't have to pay the emotional and financial
    cost of dealing with abuse AFTER it occurs.  Its like closing the gate
    after the horse is out of the corral.  We need proactive not
    retroactive action... and the best way to accomplish that is via
    knowledge.
    
    Jeff

    
    re:192 & 193
    
    Thanks for the reply. It has given me an understanding of abusers
    and their possible motivation. My language was very strong yesterday
    and my comments were on the whole sweeping generalisations. I still
    feel that when an offender is *unwilling* or *unable* to reform the 
    punishment must fit the crime and IMO (in the case of rape) that is the 
    death penalty.
    
    Maybe it would be more appropriate if this topic of conversation were
    moved to a different string.I think though that it would be benificial for all
    concerned if this discussion were continued.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Peter

I take rape very seriously.  I think we should do a great deal to prevent it, 
and we should punish rapists severely.  I am still not sure I personally 
would murder to prevent a rape.

.188> I can tell you
>     haven't ever had a talk with anyone who has been violently raped, have you? 

No, I haven't.  I've talked to several people who have been assualted, and one
who was raped, semi-violently.  None of them said that they would have killed
to prevent the rape.  I've read accounts by rape victims, and only a few of
them said they would have killed the rapist, before or after.

>    I almost feel sorry for you when I imagine the first time you might ever 
>    make the above statement around certain people.  

Are some of those "certain people" readers of this conference?  So far, your
almost sorrow is almost wasted.

    re .195, no, to my knowledge, they are not readers of this conference.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re the original question:
    
    I would not do it, and I would hate it should my other half (at any
    point in the relationship went out with another woman(in the romantic
    sense) let alone did anything like sleep with them.