Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cheating is wrong. Divorces in which the two parties continue to treat each other like garbage and do passive aggressive or abusive crap to each other, especially if they have children, is disgusting. Talking bad about the other parent in front of the children and trying to get the children to take sides is horrendous. Whatever the other adult did, it's between the two adults, and making the children suffer through it is messed up.

He is not crazy wealthy unless he buys every house around her property and and spams his statement.

It's a good start but I question his dedication given his funds.

yeah,
I found a photo of the statue.

...

Panic...

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
I found a photo of the statue.

Spoiler:

...

Panic...

Manchu wrote:
Or ... be a man, move on with your life.

I'm not sure when it became the definition of manliness to calmly accept slights and abuse, but I'm guessing it's at most a hundred years or so. Throughout the vast majority of human history, taking gak from your peers without qualms was called being a coward. I'm not saying it's a smart or better way, but the historical way of 'being a man' about this would be to get a hammer and do some skull bludgeoning.

 Bromsy wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Or ... be a man, move on with your life.

I'm not sure when it became the definition of manliness to calmly accept slights and abuse, but I'm guessing it's at most a hundred years or so. Throughout the vast majority of human history, taking gak from your peers without qualms was called being a coward. I'm not saying it's a smart or better way, but the historical way of 'being a man' about this would be to get a hammer and do some skull bludgeoning.

We need to bring back honor dueling and allow it to apply over the internet!

Also the statue is lit 24/7

 Bromsy wrote:

Manchu wrote:
Or ... be a man, move on with your life.

I'm not sure when it became the definition of manliness to calmly accept slights and abuse, but I'm guessing it's at most a hundred years or so. Throughout the vast majority of human history, taking gak from your peers without qualms was called being a coward. I'm not saying it's a smart or better way, but the historical way of 'being a man' about this would be to get a hammer and do some skull bludgeoning.

eh..."being a man" from manchu's perspective (I'm guessing) is striving to be "chivalrous".

The problem with chivalry today is that most modern women don't respond to this anymore.

And yes, a lighted statue is epic.

Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

It's only as dead as you allow it to be.

 Hordini wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

It's only as dead as you allow it to be.

Takes two to tango.

A few points:

1) The title led me to believe something. . . more obscene than a middle finger was erected.

2) This sounds exactly like the kind of stunt that a slowed meathead that owns a chain of stripclubs would consider clever. It smacks of desperation for attention, not "manliness".

3) Yeah cheating isn't nice, but it happens. People meet other people. It's not right but get the feth over it and move on like a grown person. Wallowing in betrayal and resentment is for children.

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

It's only as dead as you allow it to be.

Takes two to tango.

One of the most important parts of doing the right thing is doing the right thing even if others do not.

 Bromsy wrote:
taking gak from your peers without qualms was called being a coward

Putting aside your bizarre view that men have been troglodytes until the last century, the topic to hand is not "taking gak without qualms" but rather dedicating some part of your life to being nasty about a relationship that's over. That's called being petty, vindictive, pathetic, and creepy among other things. One thing it cannot be called, however, is manly.

 Hordini wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

It's only as dead as you allow it to be.

Takes two to tango.

One of the most important parts of doing the right thing is doing the right thing even if others do not.

Being chivalrous is not "doing the right thing".

The opposite is chivalry is...what? Treating chicks as equals?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
taking gak from your peers without qualms was called being a coward

Putting aside your bizarre view that men have been troglodytes until the last century, the topic to hand is not "taking gak without qualms" but rather dedicating some part of your life to being nasty about a relationship that's over. That's called being petty, vindictive, pathetic, and creepy among other things. One thing it cannot be called, however, is manly.

*sigh*

Okay... how 'bout it's donkey-cave-ish?

You do know that chicks digs donkey-caves... right?

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
Chivalry is dead, unfortunately.

It's only as dead as you allow it to be.

Takes two to tango.

One of the most important parts of doing the right thing is doing the right thing even if others do not.

Being chivalrous is not "doing the right thing".

The opposite is chivalry is...what? Treating chicks as equals?

So behaving like a gentleman, treating others with respect, and helping those in need is not doing the right thing? I would argue that by treating women with respect, you must inherently treat them as equals. To treat them as anything less would not be chivalrous. Unless you're using the most restrictive, medieval definition of chivalry, with dueling and all that crap. But I don't think that's what most people mean when they say something like "chivalry is dead."

I would say the opposite of chivalry, in the modern sense is being rude, boorish, and selfish, and not treating others with respect.

I don't think what you said is the actual meaning of "chivalry".

This guy is clearly five flavours of fethhead and likely deserved this. He's one very small step above a pimp for emperor's sake.

Around here, guys who drop terms like "Man Code" without irony are d-bags of the highest calibre and not to be taken seriously. We leave that behind in high school with fist bumps instead of handshakes and calling everyone "gay".

 Hordini wrote:

So behaving like a gentleman, treating others with respect, and helping those in need is not doing the right thing? I would argue that by treating women with respect, you must inherently treat them as equals. To treat them as anything less would not be chivalrous. Unless you're using the most restrictive, medieval definition of chivalry, with dueling and all that crap. But I don't think that's what most people mean when they say something like "chivalry is dead."

I would say the opposite of chivalry, in the modern sense is being rude, boorish, and selfish, and not treating others with respect.

*sigh* We're getting off topic here as I think we're arguing semantics here.

Treating women with respect and as equal is NOT chivlary. I do that every day to every chick I encounter and I resent that you're insinuating that I treat the opposite sex harshly. But, that ain't chivalry.

When chicks complain about the lack of chivalry or that "chivalry is dead", I want to point out that chivalry was a system, one that imposed obligations of behavior on women and girls as well as on men.

Modern women (mainly feminist?) decided that chivalrous acts by men were merely acts of paternalism to a weaker sex... and hated it.

Case in point: when a man holds open a door for a woman, or carries her heavy bags, he is doing so under the guise of an implicit pact between himself and all of womenkind.

He assumes her relative weakness, modesty and submissiveness, and she assumes his strength and leadership. There is an unspoken agreement that both sides will hold up their end of the bargain.

Also implicit in chivalry is an unspoken awareness that women are reproductively more valuable than men. Which is the whole fething rationale for chivalry in the first place.

The modern men are rational critters... when chivalry isn’t getting the appropriate response from chicks... it's no wonder that it's a dying social construct. Men are asking “What’s in it for me?”, and increasingly the answer is “Not much”.

/rant off

Again... this is NOT me saying that I treat women like gak. My female friends/family, I may do chivalrous acts... but I don't think of it in that way. I do it because I want to... not because I expect something back (the whole fething idea of chivalry).

Chicks that I don't know? I'm a cold mother fether. Which strangely... attracts them.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't think what you said is the actual meaning of "chivalry".

It's a somewhat complex term with a variety of definitions that have shifted over time. What do you think it means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

So behaving like a gentleman, treating others with respect, and helping those in need is not doing the right thing? I would argue that by treating women with respect, you must inherently treat them as equals. To treat them as anything less would not be chivalrous. Unless you're using the most restrictive, medieval definition of chivalry, with dueling and all that crap. But I don't think that's what most people mean when they say something like "chivalry is dead."

I would say the opposite of chivalry, in the modern sense is being rude, boorish, and selfish, and not treating others with respect.

*sigh* We're getting off topic here as I think we're arguing semantics here.

Treating women with respect and as equal is NOT chivlary. I do that every day to every chick I encounter and I resent that you're insinuating that I treat the opposite sex harshly. But, that ain't chivalry.

When chicks complain about the lack of chivalry or that "chivalry is dead", I want to point out that chivalry was a system, one that imposed obligations of behavior on women and girls as well as on men.

Modern women (mainly feminist?) decided that chivalrous acts by men were merely acts of paternalism to a weaker sex... and hated it.

Case in point: when a man holds open a door for a woman, or carries her heavy bags, he is doing so under the guise of an implicit pact between himself and all of womenkind.

He assumes her relative weakness, modesty and submissiveness, and she assumes his strength and leadership. There is an unspoken agreement that both sides will hold up their end of the bargain.

Also implicit in chivalry is an unspoken awareness that women are reproductively more valuable than men. Which is the whole fething rationale for chivalry in the first place.

The modern men are rational critters... when chivalry isn’t getting the appropriate response from chicks... it's no wonder that it's a dying social construct. Men are asking “What’s in it for me?”, and increasingly the answer is “Not much”.

/rant off

Again... this is NOT me saying that I treat women like gak. My female friends/family, I may do chivalrous acts... but I don't think of it in that way. I do it because I want to... not because I expect something back (the whole fething idea of chivalry).

Chicks that I don't know? I'm a cold mother fether. Which strangely... attracts them.

Sorry Whembly, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything about you personally. While medieval chivalry is somewhat complex, I would argue that at leas the ideal version doesn't necessarily hinge on the expectation of getting something back for doing it, but rather the expectation of doing your duty due to your position in society.

While I understand the argument of some feminists in this regard, I would also argue that a man can hold a door open for a woman or assist her in carrying something for its own sake (that is, out of kindness), rather than under the guise of a pact that implies certain expectations. Which is more what I'm referring to, because when I hear complaints of chivalry being dead, it's most commonly linked with some situation involving a man being rude or disrespectful to a woman. But I recognize that use of the word isn't strictly the same thing as the medieval code of honor from which it originates.

 Hordini wrote:


It's a somewhat complex term with a variety of definitions that have shifted over time. What do you think it means?



While I understand the argument of some feminists in this regard, I would also argue that a man can hold a door open for a woman or assist her in carrying something for its own sake (that is, out of kindness), rather than under the guise of a pact that implies certain expectations. Which is more what I'm referring to, because when I hear complaints of chivalry being dead, it's most commonly linked with some situation involving a man being rude or disrespectful to a woman. But I recognize that use of the word isn't strictly the same thing as the medieval code of honor from which it originates.

I think you are looking for the term courtesy. That covers everything you seem to be espousing without getting into all the other unrelated aspects of chivalry like service, military training, challenges, christian faithfulness, and horsemanship.

feeder wrote:
This guy is clearly five flavours of fethhead and likely deserved this. He's one very small step above a pimp for emperor's sake.

Around here, guys who drop terms like "Man Code" without irony are d-bags of the highest calibre and not to be taken seriously. We leave that behind in high school with fist bumps instead of handshakes and calling everyone "gay".

How dare you denigrate the noble profession of strip club ownership. Uncouth, sir.

Having read several people's response to my posts about cheating, I have reevaluated my position and agree with several posters that the responsible thing to do in an unhealthy relationship is to breakup/divorce rather than to cheat, I apologize for any offense I caused.

Sometimes I wonder if my wife or lover cheating on me would even upset me. The bonds I create with women are so thin and superficial that I can't imagine really caring too much if they were broken. The few relationships I've had were all ended with me telling them that I wasn't interested in them anymore, maybe with some cold remarks thrown in for effect.

I don't think cheating is right though. If you really don't want to be with them, just tell them that, before you end up "accidentally" making the decision to frig someone else. I think breaking someone's trust by cheating is one of the worst things you can do.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


It's a somewhat complex term with a variety of definitions that have shifted over time. What do you think it means?



While I understand the argument of some feminists in this regard, I would also argue that a man can hold a door open for a woman or assist her in carrying something for its own sake (that is, out of kindness), rather than under the guise of a pact that implies certain expectations. Which is more what I'm referring to, because when I hear complaints of chivalry being dead, it's most commonly linked with some situation involving a man being rude or disrespectful to a woman. But I recognize that use of the word isn't strictly the same thing as the medieval code of honor from which it originates.

I think you are looking for the term courtesy. That covers everything you seem to be espousing without getting into all the other unrelated aspects of chivalry like service, military training, challenges, christian faithfulness, and horsemanship.

Nah, chivalry is what I was looking for, I was just using a looser, non-medieval definition. If we're tacking all that onto it, then of course it's been dead for centuries and feminists would never have had any cause to complain about it.

I think you should open the door for anyone close behind you regardless of their gender, it's just a kind thing to do.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think you should open the door for anyone close behind you regardless of their gender, it's just a kind thing to do.

It's the polite thing to do.

My thoughts exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If he owns strip joints I'm sure she's not the only one who was cheating.

That's very possible.... But we don't really know eh?

Seriously? I think we do...

No we dont. Stripppers are not the same thing as prostitutes and a stripper isnt automatically easy to get, just like someone that works in that business isnt autoamtically fething around everywhere.

OT:

Whembly, have a highfive. I agree with everything you said. The dude seriously is my hero, and with payback delivered he can move on to date an actually decent human being instead of that cow.

feeder wrote:
This guy is clearly five flavours of fethhead and likely deserved this. He's one very small step above a pimp for emperor's sake.

Around here, guys who drop terms like "Man Code" without irony are d-bags of the highest calibre and not to be taken seriously. We leave that behind in high school with fist bumps instead of handshakes and calling everyone "gay".

My boss is in his mid-thirties and still fist bumps. It's more akin to how he grew up, not how he "couldn't get out of high school". And honestly, if we did all strive to abide by the man-code, things would be a lot better. I do believe in the man-code. I don't steal my friends girls, current or ex, as I feel it's a serious breach of friendship. Got me out of a tight spot in college too-my friend liked a girl, she and I liked each other but I played dumb because he was crazy about her. He never got her and I transferred colleges, found out she was the quiet campus slut (slept with just about anyone) and had STDs. Bullet dodged, due to man-code. You laugh, I feel it's a decent code to live by. Is this guy a saint? Probably not. Almost definitely not. But his wife definitely cheated, and he isn't a guarantee. If he cheated too, he's as bad as she is and I support her building a bronzed statue of a plumber mooning him to stare at all day. I believe in equality. He dun fethed up too? Nail him to the same board. My zero tolerance policy on cheating is just that: zero tolerance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Having read several people's response to my posts about cheating, I have reevaluated my position and agree with several posters that the responsible thing to do in an unhealthy relationship is to breakup/divorce rather than to cheat, I apologize for any offense I caused.

Might sound like tough love, but it sounds like a victory here. It takes a big man to apologize, instead of just telling us all to "feth off". You're one of us, whether you like it or not.

I seriously hope there were other reasons you transferred colleges other than wanting to get away from the village bicycle.

Oh, God, total misunderstanding! Lol. I transferred for classes, had nothing to do with her or my friend. I had used up all the English courses at my first college (was a 2-year) and moved on to the next to get my Bachelors.