Anti-Rape Condom?

[irishgrl]

Your question was in capital letters. That certainly implies a surprised reaction to Lux's opinion.
I was surprised because of the hardline stance she took regarding similar activities of two Presidents. In THAT thread, black was black, there was no grey area. The fact that there seems to be a grey area here IS surprising.

I have no problem with grey areas or mitigating circumstances, as I thought I made clear the other night.

Diss: to correct my previous statement: IN GENERAL, people who cheat have done a wrong to another. Gender is no shield.

[irishgrl]

Er....you serious? No it most certainly is not always the same. Sometimes taking another partner is actually more beneficial for a particular kind of marriage than anything and speaking more in general, men are also capable of being hurt emotionally by women.

I'm confused, what have cheating husbands got to do with bombing Sudan? You can't just equate the two like that.
I said earlier that I know there are mitigating circumstances and grey areas.
Likewise, there are grey areas in the actions of a President. I can excuse Clinton because I believe that HE believed he was acting on legit info. Bush didnt care whether the info was legit or not, he just figured his spin machines would convince enuff sheep that he was doing the right thing, and by gum, he got away with it enuff to sit in that Oval Office a second term. He doesnt give a rats ass about right/wrong or what have you whereas I believe Clinton DOES give a damn. Having said that, I also acknowledge that Clinton is not perfect and has let his "little head" rule his larger one waaaaaay too many times...anyway, my point is that grey areas exist in lots of places.

[irishgrl]

Even more confused now because mass murder still has nothing to do with the fact that cheating husbands should not all be lumped in together. They deserve to be treated on an individual basis which, ironically enough is exactly what I believe we were trying to address in the other thread you speak of. We were attempting to discuss Clinton as his own entity, not in any relation to Bush. Joe Blow down the street never harmed a single person so if we decide to compare Clinton to him then Clinton is a freakin homocidal maniac. I guess so long as Stalin existed then everybody is let off the hook. But we don't compare these people in such a way, their actions are to be taken individually and bombing the infrastructure of a country preventing the existence of those people is still a horrific crime even when not compared to any other crime (plus it's just one particular instance but I'm not interested in discussing this further).

Lux, I am not saying bombing a country is comparable to cheating on your wife.
what I am saying is that though two Presidents engaged in military activity, I am of the opinion that Clinton was acting on the information he was given and Bush created his information so as to act. In that instance and for that reason, I believe there is a hierarchy of blame. Thus the "grey area" comment. In much the same way, I can acknowledge that there are relationships wherein cheating can occur with less repercussion (as in your example) than in others. there is a sliding scale of harm. This is the comparison I am making, that there are DEGREES of culpability.

[irishgrl]

Indeed their are but denying one's guilt because another committed worse is ludicrous.
but I never did that. I never said Clinton is innocent because Bush did worse.
I said Clinton's actions were based on information he was given, and Ive said Bush's actions were based on information he manufactured. or exploited to his own advantage, all the while knowing better.

and I believe, since the intent was different, that there is a difference in culpability. sorry.

[strandinthewind]

Lux, do you have any clue how many rapist I have put behind bars - for life.

I think you do not.