I think that saying means you want something all to yourself and not share with others.
You know it baby.
It’s cake. Anyone that comes between a man and his legitimately-gotten cake should be SHOT.
I think natural selection should select for religious people. As it stands, atheists are consuming the most birth control, and Christian fundamentalists (in this country) are consuming the least; that is, they’re breeding.
All hail the rise of <i>Homo Latterdaysapiens</i>.
Anyway, in response to the whole “having your cake and eating it too” argument, isn’t masturbation just the same? You get sexual gratification without having to worry about or be responsible for offspring? Isn’t birth control, too? I personally consider masturbation <b><i>in men</i></b> as a form of birth control. You gals can push your own buttons with a clear conscience ~_^
…picz plz.
Okay, here is what I ment by “Have your cake and eat it too”
You want to have two things: To be in a relationship, and to have sex with many other people. It is hard to do both of these things at once, most of the time doing these things at the same time would end in disaster or heartbreak.
Having your cake and eating it too is about avoiding consequences.
Relationships WITHOUT monogamy.
Sex WITHOUT pregnancy.
Orgasm WITHOUT a partner.
Well, all of those can actually physically work, whereas retaining the cake in original form cannot.
Pregnancy is a risk, but isn’t necessarily a definite. Orgasms don’t require a parnet, and I don’t think I need to explain this one.
Relationships without physical monogomy are really very workable, I know a lot of couples who do it just fine. Pun not intended. Actually, that’s not true. It was.
Yeah that’s great, but I was just talking about the first thing on the list.
You can jack off and use condoms all you want, but who would you be hurting? If you’re in a relationship and you screw around with other people, you’re going to hurt someone eventualy, even if your partner is cool with it. You’re just splitting hairs here.
The idea, Arac, is that it’s wrong (or at least immature) to avoid those consequences. Debate the validity of that all you like, but the analogy is that you’re trying to have it both ways.
Masturbation just isn’t going to equal sex with a partner (“hands free,” anyone?), sex with a condom isn’t going to feel the same as sex without, and children are, to most accounts, a great source of happiness, although you have to be able to handle the stress that incurs. Same way with marriage, I’m told.
Lettuce doesn’t taste as good as cake; therefore, I conclude that it is morally wrong to eat lettuce.
I’ll tell all the girls I spread AIDs to that I was just being mature.
An orgasm is an orgasm, as far as I’ve been able to tell. Ribbed condoms have always worked just fine for me.
You know what else could be a great source of enjoyment and happiness if you could take the stress? Oh yeah, a non-monogomous relationship.
If you’re considering substituting lettuce for cake, I think you have bigger problems than morality to address. Let’s not take our analogies too literally, okay?
By the way, cake-flavored lettuce would be awesome. But I digress.
The having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too analogy only goes so far. It doesn’t mean that your sexual appetites and dietary appetites are the same or should be treated the same. Its point is that you can’t. Everything you do to sidestep the consequences is a compromise.
With polygamous relationships, you’re trying to have an intimate relationship without committing your sexual attention to that person. This has consequences, which people like to ignore. I’d imagine you don’t get to use sex as an added factor in the intimacy of your “serious” relationship, because you’re not having sex exclusively with your “serious” partner. You’re also more likely to contract and spread certain diseases, be they AIDS, VD or mononucleosis. You’re not likely to run into too many emotionally mature people in your fuckbuddies, and you can kiss off dreams of constancy in your sex life, as your fuckbuddies’ll leave as soon as they get bored of you, leaving you to search for new ones.
If you can handle that, fair play to you. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that having multiple partners is going to be the silver bullet.
If you know you have AIDs and don’t tell your girlfriends, that’s not very mature either. And I’m not talking about hygene. I don’t think washing your hands when you leave the bathroom is “wrong.”
Actually, let me take the time to set this straight; I don’t think polygamous relationships are necessarily “wrong” either. I don’t have any real beef with swingers, nor with homosexuals, nor furries, nor BDSMers, or whoever else someone likes to call “sexually deviant.” So long as it’s consentual and they don’t kill or maim anyone they’re welcome to try, but I’ll just watch for now. My points are a) this isn’t the magical happiness pill, and b) People who say it’s wrong do so for a reason, not just because they’re jealous of how much fun you’re having.
An orgasm is an orgasm, as far as I’ve been able to tell. Ribbed condoms have always worked just fine for me.
I guess it’s a matter of tactile sensitivity.
Or empathy. I mean, having an orgasm just <i>might</i> be more rewarding depending on the context. Think of, say, jacking off in your bathroom as opposed to a port-o-potty.
You know what else could be a great source of enjoyment and happiness if you could take the stress? Oh yeah, a non-monogomous relationship.
Yeah, because seeing your fuckbuddies graduate from college, get a job and then get married is <i>soooooo</i> rewarding. After all, you worked so hard and sacrificed so much to get them there.
Hey Mr. I’m-Going-to-Sex-Up-a-13-Year-Old-When-I’m-21, shaddit. 
And I think the point of have a polygamous relationship (if purely for the sex) is anything but intimate. You’re doing it sheerly out of lust, not love. Even if you keep the original relationship intact (and are in love with the person), then that relationship would also break down eventually because human beings are jealous and possessive beings; we often cannot stand to see others with things that make them happy unless we can have them too. To that end (in this case, at least) we try to keep that person loyal to us only (relationship). But the other doesn’t want it and messes around (polygamy) and thus you are now jealous because s/he can get more than you (jealousy), and it just further spirals downward, into either depression or anger.
To be general, at least.
And remember what happened to the last person who had her cake and ate it too. People should have their cake and share.
No no. She <i>wanted</i> other people to have cake. They got uppity because they ordered bread.
Doesn’t matter. I’ve got cheesecake and it’s all good.
I’m not taking your analogy literally; I’m pointing out that it is based upon utterly absurd premises. For instance, you assert, out of nowhere, that “sex with a condom isn’t going to feel the same as sex without,” and apparently expect everyone to just accept this silly generalization as an axiom. You then assert, also without argument, that there are moral consequences of some sort that automatically follow from this premise alone. As an expression of personal taste, this is perfectly fine. However, as a general argument against non-procreational sex (which looks like your real problem here), it has just about as much value as if you were to make similar assertions about the morality of choosing cake over lettuce.
hey hey hey… hold on a second there, buddy. I rather like lettuce.
What’s silly about the assertion that sex with a latex shield between you and your partner would feel different? If it didn’t, condom companies wouldn’t base their advertising on duplicating a “natural feel.” I didn’t say that it was an axiom, either.
I didn’t say anything with regard to morality. If you do something differently, you’re going to have a different experience. You’re not having your cake and eating it too, you’re having pie instead. Pie isn’t inherently wrong; just don’t complain that this shit don’t taste like cake. That’s a consequence, not a moral punishment.
Some people seem to have inferred that if I can offer an explanation for a position, I must subscribe to it.
Let me refresh your memory:
The rest of the paragraph is important.
I’m not saying that Arac’s moral code should preclude polygamous relationships. I’m not implying that there will be dire consequences if he enters one. What I’m saying is that workability doesn’t invalidate the analogy. When you try to have your cake and eat it too, you usually don’t end up with any cake anyway. Maybe a pie, and that’s plenty tasty. Maybe lettuce, and that’s plenty nutritious. But don’t tell yourself it’s cake.