I said it before, and I will say it one more time. Rome burns and I hear a fiddle.

What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?

Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:

What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?

And thus was born Grant's Law.

From wikipedia:

'In the 2006 CBS TV series Love Monkey, the character called Shooter (Larenz Tate) explained the phenomenon of male discontent as "Grant's Law." Referring to Hugh Grant, he said that the star: "had the hottest, sexiest and most beautiful woman waiting for him at home. And what does Hugh do? He picks up a cut-rate whore on Hollywood Boulevard." This, he believed, showed that "We, as men, can never be satisfied."'

>> ^Lithic:

Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:
What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?

If he took the proper health precautions, the only thing morally wrong about it would be lying to his partner.

>> ^Lithic:

Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:
What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

I'm not privileged, but I thought I'd point out that this (like all Daily Show videos) is *blocked.

Invocations (blocked) cannot be called by StimulusMax because StimulusMax is not privileged - sorry.

Noted and flagged. Thanks.

>> ^StimulusMax:

I'm not privileged, but I thought I'd point out that this (like all Daily Show videos) is blocked.

Trust the Daily Show for putting it all in perspective.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I said it before, and I will say it one more time. Rome burns and I hear a fiddle.


There was no such thing as a fiddle that long ago...he probably played the lyre.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^hpqp:

If he took the proper health precautions, the only thing morally wrong about it would be lying to his partner.
>> ^Lithic:
Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:
What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?




And maybe the cheating.

Not imo; my original point was that the whole idea of "cheating" on a partner, i.e. having sex outside of a relationship, is not morally reprehensible in and of itself. It is the (eventual) health risks taken and the lying that make it so.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

And maybe the cheating.

>> ^hpqp:

Not imo; my original point was that the whole idea of "cheating" on a partner, i.e. having sex outside of a relationship, is not morally reprehensible in and of itself. It is the (eventual) health risks taken and the lying that make it so.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
And maybe the cheating.



My guess is that most people would disagree with you. I know if my (hypothetical) wife came home one night and told me that she'd just finished banging some other guy (even with protection), I wouldn't be ok with it just because she was honest.

However I strongly believe that what's acceptable behavior in a relationship should be decided solely by the people in it so, if you and your spouse are ok with the above scenario, enjoy.

I'm not arguing that a relationship will not suffer due to cheating, but that the act itself is not morally reprehensible (as is, for example, beating one's spouse). Before sleeping around when in a relationship one should take into account the partner's feelings and the possible effects of such action on the relationship.

/snooty dissertation

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
Not imo; my original point was that the whole idea of "cheating" on a partner, i.e. having sex outside of a relationship, is not morally reprehensible in and of itself. It is the (eventual) health risks taken and the lying that make it so.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
And maybe the cheating.


My guess is that most people would disagree with you. I know if my (hypothetical) wife came home one night and told me that she'd just finished banging some other guy (even with protection), I wouldn't be ok with it just because she was honest.
However I strongly believe that what's acceptable behavior in a relationship should be decided solely by the people in it so, if you and your spouse are ok with the above scenario, enjoy.

>> ^hpqp:

I'm not arguing that a relationship will not suffer due to cheating, but that the act itself is not morally reprehensible (as is, for example, beating one's spouse). Before sleeping around when in a relationship one should take into account the partner's feelings and the possible effects of such action on the relationship.
/snooty dissertation

I see where you're going now. I do find cheating to be "morally reprehensible" though I would agree that beating your wife would be more so.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
I'm not arguing that a relationship will not suffer due to cheating, but that the act itself is not morally reprehensible (as is, for example, beating one's spouse). Before sleeping around when in a relationship one should take into account the partner's feelings and the possible effects of such action on the relationship.
/snooty dissertation
I see where you're going now. I do find cheating to be "morally reprehensible" though I would agree that beating your wife would be more so.


Wouldn't, on the same token, beating your wife be not morally reprehensible if she liked it?
I think I can get around hpqp's idea of cheating not being generally morally bad, because of the possible impact on the cheated-on partner of not giving a shit, but as said, by that logic, beating her would be morally acceptable if she is into it (fetish...).

So let me say, that when you refer to CHEATING you are referring to the morally inacceptable concept of shitting on your partners emotions.
Ergo "cheating" by definition would be as morally reprehensible as beating her. Sleeping with another man/woman with the consent of your partner is not cheating.

I like hqpc's argument, however if they are in wedlock, the vows they each took probably included something along the lines of being faithful to each other.

"I love you, and will be forever faithful to you my love, except of course when I want to bed a hot woman."

Most marriage vows should include this, divorce lawyers would go bankrupt overnight.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^hpqp:
I'm not arguing that a relationship will not suffer due to cheating, but that the act itself is not morally reprehensible (as is, for example, beating one's spouse). Before sleeping around when in a relationship one should take into account the partner's feelings and the possible effects of such action on the relationship.
/snooty dissertation
I see where you're going now. I do find cheating to be "morally reprehensible" though I would agree that beating your wife would be more so.

Wouldn't, on the same token, beating your wife be not morally reprehensible if she liked it?
I think I can get around hpqp's idea of cheating not being generally morally bad, because of the possible impact on the cheated-on partner of not giving a shit, but as said, by that logic, beating her would be morally acceptable if she is into it (fetish...).
So let me say, that when you refer to CHEATING you are referring to the morally inacceptable concept of shitting on your partners emotions.
Ergo "cheating" by definition would be as morally reprehensible as beating her. Sleeping with another man/woman with the consent of your partner is not cheating.


Sure. That goes back to what I said about what's acceptable in a relationship should be determined by the people who are part of it.