Volitional Questionnaire Example: Fill & Download for Free

Free will would be proved by abductive reasoning, a form of logical inference which starts with set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. But it is not.Can morality be ultimately under control of free will? We might think that such control is possible if someone controls morally himself, but then, does the early self control a later self, leading to infinite regress in a finite life?Is free will relevant?What underwrites the lack of freedom or responsibility is the fact that the source of the agent's actions can be traced back in their entirety to originating conditions that were completely beyond his conscious control. An agent acts with free will only if he is the originator or ultimate source of her actions, the agent’s volition cannot be the product of a deterministic causal chain extended beyond the agent. There is no relevant difference of responsibility between the causal determination of our actions by natural factors inside us beyond our conscious control and our actions being causally determined by hidden outside manipulators, therefore compatibilism between free will and determinism is not possible. Even if an agent manipulated by hidden external agents acts in accordance with his apparent own beliefs and desires, this is not sufficient for the existence of moral responsibility, because the true source of the agent's actions is beyond her conscious control. There are only two options for the first event in a causal chain of volitions of the free will agent: they are uncaused, or only caused nondeterministically. However, an agent couldn’t be the originator or ultimate source of volitions if volitions are uncaused. Similarly, an indeterministic causation would undermine an agent’s control over her volitions. Even if it turns out that determinism is false, but events are still caused by prior events according to probabilistic laws, the way that one is caused to act by antecedent circumstances would seem to be equally outside of one's control. To say that a certain event is not predetermined is to say that it is accidental, indeterminism offers no explanation or reasons for our choices. If our choices are caused by reasons ultimately caused by events over which we have no control, then our choices are not free.Would skepticism about moral responsibility undermine attitudes such as moral resentment, indignation, guilt, and gratitude, essential to good personal relationships? The understanding of the lack of moral responsibility modifies the rationality of certain emotional reactions. While moral anger, resentment and indignation don’t disappear if we feel that moral responsibility doesn’t exist, there are alternative attitudes available to us, such as moral concern, disappointment, sorrow, and resolve. Instead of moral guilt feelings, an agent can acknowledge that he has acted immorally and he feels deep sorrow for what he has done, and as a result he is motivated to eradicate her disposition to behave in a bad way. One can be thankful to a young child for some kindness without supposing that he is praiseworthy in the basic desert sense. In certain situations, refraining from resentment or moral anger may be beyond our power and, therefore, even the skeptic of moral responsibility may not be able to adopt alternative attitudes. We might expect to be unable to appreciably reduce immediate emotional reactions of moral anger as an immediate reaction upon being deeply hurt in an intimate personal relationship. However, in a non-immediate rational reflection, moral anger can be diminished or even eliminated, and we can reject any force that is supposed to justify a damaging response to evil.Is it true that because determinism, that of an agent could not avoid acting wrong, and therefore morality and criminal punishment are errors? Are we morally assessable only to the extent that the factors are under our control? Experiments testing ordinary folk moral intuitions about the link between moral evaluations and factors under our control found that judgments about moral obligations are made independently of considerations about the factors under our control. By contrast, judgments of blame are highly sensitive to considerations about the factors under our control. Folk moral intuitions aren’t consistent about the link between moral judgments and factors under our control. (See for example Chituc, Vladimir, Paul Henne, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Felipe De Brigard, 2016, “Blame, Not Ability, Impacts Moral ‘Ought’ Judgments for Impossible Actions: Toward an Empirical Refutation of ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’”, Cognition, 150: 20–25) From the skeptical of responsibility perspective morality is not about backward-looking assessments of blameworthiness and praiseworthiness, rather, morality is forward-looking, functions by invoking recommendation. The denial of moral responsibility is consistent with the principles of moral rationalism. The imposition of sanctions could have purposes other than the punishment of perpetrators: it can also be justified by its role in incapacitating, rehabilitating, and deterring offenders. There are measures for preventing crime more generally, such as providing for adequate education and mental health care, which the moral responsibility skeptic can readily endorse. Juries routinely condemn defendants without empirical evidence that defendants' will is not determined by any antecedent conditions outside them. Even if a criminal is not morally responsible if there is no free will, it may be as legitimate to segregate or control him in defense of others as it is to quarantine or control those who are not responsible for their contagious diseases. We want to prevent the effects of misbehavior just as we want to prevent the effects of disease or hurricanes.If free will is the basis of moral responsibility, why can moral judgment have morally irrelevant reasons of which we are not even aware? Moral psychology experiments show that the moral thought is affected by environmental factors that are completely irrelevant to the moral issues. For example. A- Emotion: viewing a humorous video clip can have a substantial impact on participant’s moral intuitions. Hearing different kinds of audio, stand-up comedy or inspirational stories, has divergent effects on moral intuitions. B- The order in which the moral hypotheses are considered. C- Moral judgments can be affected by the smells in our environment: a whiff of fart spray; spraying the questionnaire with a disinfectant spray; people are more unconsciously generous outside a store from which the smell of freshly baked bread emanates, than outside a hardware store. D - Whether we're in a messy room, or in a dark room. E- Whether we've recently washed our hands, even the proximity of a hand sanitizer dispenser, the presence of dirty pizza boxes, have all been reported to influence moral intuitions. (See for example Sinnott-Armstrong, 2006, “Moral Intuitionism Meets Empirical Psychology”, in Terry Horgan editor, Metaethics After Moore; and “Moral dilemmas and moral rules” - S Nichols, R Mallon - Cognition, 2006)If free will is the basis of moral responsibility, why should accidental facts be the basis of different moral assessments of people and their circumstances, which are equally dangerous and evil?We seem to blame those who have murdered more than we blame those who have merely attempted murder, even if the reason for the lack of success in the second case is that the intended victim unexpectedly tripped and fell to the floor.Imagine that two otherwise conscientious people have forgotten to have their brakes checked recently and experience brake failure, but only one of whom finds a child in the path of his car. Why does the unfortunate driver receive more moral blame and criminal penalty?Gauguin feels some responsibility towards his family and is reasonably happy living with them, but nonetheless abandons them, leaving them in dire straits. Gauguin chooses a life of painting in Tahiti over a life with his family, not knowing whether he will be a great painter. In one scenario, he goes on to become a great painter, and in another, he fails. We will judge Gauguin differently depending on the outcome.Someone must decide whether to instigate a revolution against a brutal regime. He knows that the revolution will be bloody and that, if it fails, those involved will be slaughtered and the regime will become even more brutal. He also knows that if no revolution occurs, the regime will become no less brutal than it currently is. If he succeeds he will be a hero, if he fails he will bear some responsibility for the terrible consequences of that failure. Thus, how the revolution turns out, something which might be almost entirely a matter of resultant luck, seems to have a great deal to do with the moral credit or blame he will receive.Luck undermines moral responsibility since it undermines responsibility control. Our genes, care-givers, peers, and other environmental influences all contribute to making us who we are. We lack control over everything: the results of our actions, our circumstances, our constitution, and our causal history. Where can one draw a principled line between acceptable and unacceptable luck?

First and fore-mostly it is necessary to understand the symbolic interactionism and its different stem-outs. Symbolic interaction is a theoretical perspective that is rooted deeply in pragmatism with stress on activity, behavior, process made and interpreted by human as an actor in society. It is composed of two different streams of social science – social psychology and social organization (society). Symbolic interactionism is an approach in sociology to interpret how society functions in day-to-day life. Society itself is composed of symbols of interactions and people interpret it and derive out a certain meaning and they behave accordingly.Sociological Interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication process—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols— and the way in which people make sense of their social worlds.Mead was the pioneer of this approach and it was well documented and systematically produced by Blumer. The works of G.H. Mead, Herbert Blumer, and Everett Hughes have been foundational. Further, it grew up by the addition of different works by different scholars and currently a well-established perspective in sociology to interpret the social order in the society.The conceptual apparatus builds from joint action and situations to social worlds and social orders. A major strategy of practitioners is to transform structures into processes. Interactionists have studied a range of topics including identity, emotions, gatherings, power, mass media, and social problems. Dramaturgy remains an interest of many interactionists. Recent attention has been given to the body, the senses, sexualities, inequality, time, and space.Edmund Husserl a mathematician and logician and he proposed phnemenology, which is about the nature of consciousness. Basically, phenomenology studies the structure of various types of experience ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, and volition to bodily awareness, embodied action, and social activity, including linguistic activity. The structure of these forms of experience typically involves what Husserl called “intentionality”, that is, the directedness of experience toward things in the world, the property of consciousness that it is a consciousness of or about something. According to classical Husserlian phenomenology, our experience is directed toward—represents or “intends”—things only through particular concepts, thoughts, ideas, images, etc. These make up the meaning or content of a given experience and are distinct from the things they present or mean.Alfred Schutz also is known as a great contributor to the phenomenology as a social milieu. Alfred Schutz (1899 – 1959), like many of the philosophers of his period especially Herbert Blumer, Manford Kuhn, Edmund Husserl, Harold Garfinkel, etc, was also concerned about the nature of man and his social world. He mainly emphasized the problem of order in society and how members of society actively engage in making sense of social life. This became his main preoccupation for most of his professional life. Social actors carry out their day-to-day activities in space and space is physical. The ground where social activities/behavior takes place by individuals or groups. Goffman began studying the spaces separating groups and actors, so he generated some insights on the issue. Garfinkel (1964) noticed regularities in the way people use space when interacting. It was found that there is a relationship between spatial behavior and social order.Ethnomethodology: Originated by Harold Garfinkel sourced in a phenomenological critique of mid-twentieth century theoretical and methodological options in US sociology. Specifically, a critique of (a) Talcott Parsons’ theories and (b) empiricist methodology.How to use in cultural spatial research: It is a study of how social affairs are carried out – made to happen – through participants talking to each other and how do people identify and reproduce the order of everyday affairs?For cultural spatial research, the study may be conducted by empirical practice using observation, participatory and other applicable tools which may anchor the data in a cultural set-up. Every culture is found in a physical space, which is the solid foundation of the culture. For example communication by using language or symbols. Due to differences in cultural spaces, there is diversity among the different cultures. Symbolic interactionism based different parts can be deconstructed into different questions and a proper research tool can be developed and the form of interview schedule or questionnaire can be administered into that specific space on the culture group other than observation and participation. Talk and conversation analysis also can be a suitable approach for research in Symbolic Interactionism for cultural spaces.However, a book I mention might be of your further interest for the research purpose by Howard S. Becker and Michal M.McCall – Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies (1990). In the book, there are different chapters contributed by the different experts such as- Introduction- Symbolic interaction and History-Life History-Religion-Philosophy-Art-Science-The Body-Language. Each chapter is explained in its related context. The book is available online openly can be downloaded using the following link.https://monoskop.org/images/f/fb/Howard_S._Becker%2C_Michal_M._McCall_Symbolic_Interaction_and_Cultural_Studies_1990.pdfSource:Emanuel Schegloff, Sequence Organisation in Interaction: a primer, CUP, 2006Eric Livingston, Ethnographies of Reason, Ashgate, 2008Michael Lynch, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action, CUP, 1997Paul Atkinson: Ethnomethodology: A Critical Review, 1988. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1988. 14:441-65 Copyrigh©t 1988 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reservedWes Sharrock: What is Ethnomethodology?

EDIT/DISCLAIMER:I’m getting a few people who are approaching me in a certain way because of my answer.So I decided an edit was important at the end.¯\_(ツ)_/¯Original answer resumes…You’re going to get a lot of answers being written from people being hurt by cheating, I saw a few when I browsed anyway… they aren’t going to be very nice to you is my guessThing is I urge you not to take their stories to heart when they talk about how bad it is to be cheated on. I’m sure it sucks for them (I know it isn’t pleasant, from personal experience that equates to the same), but humans are sexual beings and we are not as in control as we could be (believe ourselves to be), some of us pressure a perfect onto our partners and trick ourselves via romance into thinking that love triumphs nature and instinct then punish our partners and ourselves when inevitably something human occurs… we don’t like reality and yet we are irrational animals driven by and large through base desires or otherwise heavily influenced by fear and insecurity (and so on)You aren’t making choices. You can’t promise something for tomorrow’s you because you have no clue who they are yet. Getting to a certain age then attempting to break character in any way possible is a very common occurrence and perfectly normal - ‘I played everything by the book, missed a lot of opportunities along the way and I’m still not happy or satisfied so now I’m gonna try shaking things up’.Now I don’t know how old you are etc but this scenario can happen at any age or in numerous ways (that aren’t even all sexual), after any duration or level of commitment, no matter how much you love each other or how satisfying the sex life is, your level of education, your culture etc… there is literally no situation between two people that can’t end badly in some way whether both people technically behaved or not or even if both people literally tried their damnedestBecause even if you spend 99.99% of 20 years monogamous you are damned for the 0.01%, and that’s just ridiculous to me: you’ll lose your house, your family, etc all over this because near everyone seems foolish enough to build into the foundation, and accept the installation of, a kill switch into the relationshipSelf destruct button right there? Next to the mantel, above the fire place? Yes you’re right we need it right by the bedside, it’ll look lovely with the authentic antique bookcase. Mutually assured relationship destruction… just do anything physical I can prove and it is over. I mean you’ve probably been thinking about other people for years during sex and that’s perfectly ok so long as you never dare admit it!I’m getting distracted… the hard answer is, you aren’t getting him back and as you currently are you don’t deserve him back. Also, if they’ve made that decision respect it and swallow the reality, it sucks but that’s how it is. I know it sucks personally and I’ll get into how I developed from that point as your actions have potentially taught you something very valuable even if it’s at a great cost.I did something similar to one of my best friends I ever had (loveliest guy, it was a real shit thing to do) with his girl when I was a teenager. It ruined our friendship even though I’d warned him she was flirting with me and not to leave her at my place when they were angry with each other because it’s such a classic obvious trap. I knew I was impulsive and reckless (and had depression, apathy and was suicidal etc on top of mania so really struggled caring about much let alone controlling myself) and I kind of knew she would act out like that but you can’t exactly tell your mate that when they’re in love can you cos they just can’t hear it… she did it to hurt him as it turns out (cos duh of course she did) and in hindsight I did him a favour by allowing her to expose that mindset early on (I mean it’s certainly not a favour but you get me, time offers context)… and whilst we do still sometimes talk on Facebook and he’s ‘forgiven me’ years ago and he’s happily married now… well that level of friendship is never coming back. I’m ok with that because I’m a whole different person and that distance would’ve happened anyway when I left my hometown and revamped my whole identity as lives diverge under those conditions but it really bothered me at first and I vowed it would not happen again… but how? My nature has not changed, I’m drawn to intense interactions and I’m probably always gonna sexualise destructive behaviours… what can I say, it’s exciting isn’t it?¯\_(ツ)_/¯I took that event to heart though, internalised it, but I did not hate myself over it long term. Instead I worked the issue over and over, faced my true self and sought any narrative going forward that could help me understand why I would allow this to even occur… I eventually realised after numerous other confused blunders in the world of sexuality that to me, to my subconscious, that barrier doesn't exist. At all. Never did and only exists through consideration and tolerance of others, typically until a certain thresholdSo I made new friends and made myself clear… took time to find others like me and I still haven’t quite found another who embodies my exact philosophy and emotional ruleset but I’m accepted and have great friendshipThing is I’m just not monogamous, the entire thing makes no sense after deep introspection because to me, roles reversed, I’d happily have shared more than a few experiences with my friend if they didn’t have that barrier of separation up. I’d have expected and wanted her to seek comfort in any way whatsoever cos to me it’s just the human thing to do isn’t it and would I really want to deny her the counterpoint and context by which she might be exposed to something she then realises she absolutely does not want?It’s easy to say you love someone if they've never made a mistake, try loving them after. Then that wasn't the kind of love you think it was if your whole world of emotion and compassion is tossed out the window for a night or two of pleasure you weren’t involved in. I’d just shrug and laugh, and ask if it helped… perhaps very casually inquire why they didn’t feel safe letting me know then fill out that questionnaire myself since the answers are one of about 5–20 possible and obvious responses in that situation.She wasn’t his girl, she was her own person and he doesn’t realise he created part of the issue too by trapping them both in an agreement that gave her power over him.I suspect they both had fear, low self esteem etc, and all that makes sense because they were teenagersI’m not saying monogamy is always a weaker position but for young people it’s trial by the flame… whilst dodging the fire lighters of hormones and throwing knives of self ignorance that comes with basic youthYou need to gain data somehow, if you play life safe and make no mistakes then you’re seriously at a disadvantage and doing yourself a disservice. Did you make a mistake or did you just have an experience which can highlight who you are and who you might become if left unguided and unknown? Whether that’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ entirely depends how you choose to live hereafter.I practice complete open ethical polyamory, people are told I have no boundaries and experience love through compersion and watching a friend experience life opportunities others might deny them, whether on purpose or by accident. I don’t understand this notion of love that smacks a lot of ownership nor do I understand friendship that you’re not willing to make your friend feel good in any way they might require. I’m also pansexual so hey I’m sure not all of this applies, but I consider these by and large intellectual decisions as much as genetic predispositions. I wasn’t necessarily all that attracted to men initially, then I inoculated myself since I saw the advantages to learning enough about that to figure out what I do and don’t have the capacity to enjoy. It resolved a lot of my insecure feelings regarding other men and myself in comparison for example. It also allows me to get genuinely excited at the idea of doing things that traditionally masculine men don’t dare even consider. Their male friendships are very shallow and competitive and hide fear of emasculation at every turn, I’ve seen it, there’s just a massive wall between them… my male friends aren’t like that, they’re sensitive enough to have feelings and I’m allowed and even jokingly celebrated for the fact I am the one person in the room waiting for something to go down and then I’ll pop out with a ball gag on and a whip like ‘awww you were joking…’ oh well hahaIt usually happens when people discuss people and situations and I don’t understand how or why it would be a problem if you just… oh I see yes I remember now you think weird don’t you? How restrictive, you sure you can’t just dive into some counterpoint? More is the pity.I’m rambling… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯In my view you didn’t do anything wrong (not exactly, it gets messy to break that down). He got a glimpse at an opportunity to get to know you and his best friend better and couldn’t accept or understand human nature enough to see beyond it because his self worth is tied up in a narrative by which he can’t find out about this and get excited by the possibility of all three of you having a rare connection. To me that’s a lack of preparation or understanding of potential human nature.Each person you know may well be, probably is, hiding or supressing something about themselves or otherwise is unaware about some element of themselves from lack of exposure and opportunity. You walk around thinking you know yourself but only on your death bed when time robs you of any further experimentation can you know who you eventually became.I don’t much like the idea of destroying hard earned and rare friendships just because like every other animal ever sex inevitably came into playFrankly in his position I’d have already recognised the attraction and encouraged it. The mistake you made, if any, was a lack of preparation and trapping your mind and body into an agreement it made very clear it didn’t have the capacity for (perhaps yet). Or entering a relationship with clear definitions without maturity and/or self awareness and/or guts enough to mention that your desires were there, overselling on a promise you lacked the ability to cash in when the time was rightYou failed to predict or account for failure, because it felt romantic and because you’ve probably been sold on a fairytale notion that humans are monogamous and so are swans and so are tuxedo penguins and that’s the best way to be for everyone and your parents are like that and you’re therefore automatically the sameI mean, that’s roughly how I see it. I’m probably not being as fair as I usually would be to countering views, but oh well I mean no harm really ;)It’s just, how is anyone honestly ever surprised by this kind of thing… it boggles my mind the level of privileged delusion by which you can convince yourself that love automatically and forever equates to perfect fidelity and command over impulse…(Ō¯¯ō;)Since when has anything about humans been so straightforward? To truly love someone you must ascertain everything they could be and find a way forward that allows them self growth and discovery. Demanding perfection is a sure fire way to repression, regret, disappointment, resentment and numerous other negatives… I’d rather bang my girlfriend with my best mate and learn his moves and celebrate how kinky we are together with our little secret and teach him our moves tooI guarantee they both had a great time leaving me out if they did so… nobody ever chose to leave me out yet though since there’s no reason to and I sort of wish they would so I could get a random text and video saying ‘ha ha you’re trapped in traffic and we are having fun without you ;)’Maybe I’m twisted but that seems a pretty funny, exciting and erotic way of life and it avoids a whole host of obvious pitfalls haha¯\_(ツ)_/¯Additional thoughts in response to being approached by certain people:I wish people wouldn’t assume it is a girl or woman… we don’t have that info. We don’t know the people or the circumstances. We don’t know age, culture or literally any other detail and that stuff is vitally important.¯\_(ツ)_/¯I feel like I gotta say that I am not defending cheating as a behaviour nor minimalising the impact it can have… it doesn’t need defending it needs understanding. You gotta ask why do people cheat and the answer is often muddy as hell and the origin of the action ends up falling somewhere around he said/she said.I know full well cheating totally sucks ass for the person being cheated on… but it’s not exactly the joyride you think it is for the cheaterer either. I have no allegiance and I’m not swayed by either side because I’ve been on all three sides of this and then some murky 4th side too.I had my heart torn out by my first love with my best friend (both were my entire world), it destroyed me as a youth because my family environment truly sucked ass so I lost everything positive I had in one go. I then lost my entire social circle cos they’d rather lose 1 friend than 2. Not good times for me at all.I slept with my best friend’s girlfriend even though I knew she was using me to hurt him (suspected it). Told him not to bring her around cos she was flirting with me and I was a horny teen. They had an argument and she stayed over at mine and it just happened despite my warnings and despite jerking off to ensure I had less pent up tension. I did my best but when you’re suicidally depressed you’ll look for every reason to feel good and/or bad as you can get. Don’t have a reason or viable defence, I was a stupid teen and it cost me greatly and taught me a lot. I’ve carried that for quite some time. Valuable lesson indeed.Whilst not technically cheating so far as I’m concerned (though many will define it otherwise) I was in a long term relationship with a partner who had such a low sex drive that it was driving me mad… so I started online flirting, thinking of other people as we had sex, you name it and it didn’t feel great to be in that situation and I’d even been up front that I’m a very sexual person before we started the relationship… eventually I just straight up said I needed to have sex with other people (after waaay too long cos I knew it wasn’t something she was aligned with, so my compassion was making me try to maintain a monogamous thing despite me knowing I wasn’t suited for it… or maybe I was so lonely I’d have paid any price just to have someone I can’t say for sure but hey same result). She had never offered me the same freedom I had offered her 2 and a bit years before and I had convinced myself she would get around to it when she felt comfortable. That’s foolish, people don’t work like that. She didn’t realise how much it impacted me that she had no interest in sex until it did and she offered no solution and wouldn’t even come to a table once every month to talk it out. That’s cool, I have no interest in having sex with someone who doesn’t wanna have sex with me… but at least let me have the same freedom I gave you when you casually mentioned that you were interested in women but had never had any experience. The second I opened up your options to just go and be who you are and I’ll love you when you come home was the second you were in a privileged state. That’s as much my bad as her selfishness, it’s something I control now before starting a relationship by defining my boundaries, needs and expectations far more effectively. That was my first adult relationship.I have outright lied or omitted information to a partner before that would allow them to make informed decisions or went against what we were ‘trying’ at the time… because at the time they simply couldn’t hear it. Any talk of it sent them into a very odd mood, there was no celebration of my freedom of expression or support of my sexuality… they were allowed to do whatever but I wasn’t allowed the same freedom or given the same support. So I felt it best not to poke the bear since they most certainly knew I wasn’t monogamous and that I don’t enter solid agreements (I make it clear I’ll give it a go but we won’t know until I’m in the moment where I can actively test the restriction or limit)… and they can either support it and earn my openness or they can act jealously and enjoy all the freedoms they don’t want me to have and build a very unstable and unfair double standard. That didn’t last long.So I get it. I dragged that pain around for years. Both the it being done to me and the internal shame and guilt of just needing something I’m not getting but my partner has known who I am and still won’t equalise the field or step up… when people talk about how much cheating hurts them nearly every time it comes up on TV or otherwise they build an idea in your head that makes them ever more impossible to approach. They have a privileged lack of context about your person and aren’t actively thinking compassionately or selfishlessly and actually are failing to consider all the reasons why someone might cheat or feel like they need something external… perhaps to gain perspective.To expect someone to discuss every sensitive issue with you when you’ve trained them not to is absurd. Whether you realise that you do it or not makes no difference.Serial cheaters, who purposefully manipulate and get their own way…. this is not who the significantly vast majority of cheaters are. They are people who can’t talk to their partner because their partner has made it nigh impossible to safely approach these sensitive subjects and they themselves are also too afraid to lose or hurt themselves or their partner. Or they got drunk and acted impulsively… it’s classic stuff. No surprises here.I mean… in my current relationship I have an issue of domination for example, I want to be dominated but she is typically so timid that she doesn’t know how. I can ask, she’ll try to do it… but now I feel like I’m dominating from the sub position and that doesn’t work for me… if I have to tell you to whip me every single time or tie me up and also get you to say every word then that’s not gonna work is it? If you don’t just take charge and start commanding then you might not actually have the drive to do it. So talking to her doesn’t fix my issue… the only thing that fixes the issue is approaching someone who outright treats you a certain way, with confidence… and acts like they are dominant. I don’t need to be dominated very often, but I’m forced into the dom by sheer force of habit and cos of my size.The only other way for someone to dominate me is for them to surprise themselves and overcome their shyness and just try. If you can’t just walk into the living room with a strap on and start barking orders when it is something your partner has hoped for and longed for and they’ve asked every way they know and you’ve asked what they want in every subtle way (instead of just taking action) then that’s why I eventually go and exercise my frustration and pent up desire elsewhere. Then I come home and I can either be treated positively or get hit with the ‘I want to be the one to give that to you’ grump.I went poly because with monogamy I suspect I’ll never find the utilitarian and uninhibited person I need that can switch it up and keep up with me. If there’s anything I can’t give I absolutely want my partner to go get it. Fair is fair.Now a partner might feel cheated on at any time for any number of behaviours subtle and grand… and that’s fine if you’re cool with it or cool with being it… it can happen in poly arrangements easily enough when someone wants to be more, be everything for you. When your interests conflict with your partner’s character in only one or two ways (that end up important without a release) you don’t just throw that human away… it’s callous and wrecklessly wasteful coz you still both love each other.When someone is so concerned about losing you that they freak out when you plan a visit to a dom’s house and feel lesser within themselves, cos they really wanna figure out how to be dominant… well you’re gonna share less willingly and more carefully and even if they aren’t freaking out for the reasons you think or that seem obvious the all important supportive encouragement build up is probably more important than the after care when it’s the only component missing.So I’ve had a lot of varied experiences and they change and inform my views about cheating. Most people I talk to either haven’t been in every scenario yet or they won’t admit that they have.People close their eyes and think of someone else all the time… when was the last time you think they asked their partner to do their accent or if it was ok to moan Hugh Jackman’s name or something? That could easily be cheating to the guy, cause them harm. Why? Cos they didn’t offer you the option or play a game by which you role play… people can and will find a way to express themselves even whilst conforming to the letter of the law.Then later on in my 20s I developed a very strong code of ethics that puts as little demand or expectation onto anyone else as possible because I realised that we all manipulate each other into taking on roles. So I don’t get cheated on because I don’t let people make claims they can’t substantiate. The cold hard reality is anyone can cheat at any time and you would not be able to ever know it… yeah sure some get caught but many never do… so being in a relationship has to be an acknowledgment of that fact. If you aren’t planning for failure and accepting reality then that’s as on you as them. It would be on me too if I were doing it.You’re allowed to disagree, by all means have a million views other than mine but it doesn’t make me ‘wrong’. That’s an absolutist term with no place in a discussion like this. It makes my philosophy my own is all.You both enter a relationship. You know full well that cheating is a possibility, it is in nearly every story about relationships you’ve ever consumed. Now whether you choose to accept that it can possibly happen to you and pre-decide to approach life from a certain angle to make the notion of your partner having sex with someone else something more approachable or not (so your partner can feel safe to freely discuss what they are desiring and therefore lead to them having expressed themselves not held it in until they pretty much can’t help but jump on another) is up to you.It can even exciting, this whole notion of exclusivity just generates the natural excitement and desire to find a workaround and be drawn to the taboo.You always want the illegal fireworks… they’re the good ones.Your standards cease to apply as soon as it isn’t your body anyway. You can only offer exclusivity never take it. Cos it isn’t yours to give yourself and even if someone offers it is possible for them and allowed for them to change their mind without informing you on a whim.Ideally they’d inform you but if you make yourself hard to approach on such things you don’t get to be surprised by the world’s most obvious and prevalent relationship ender. It’s like crossing the road at random with your eyes closed… how are you surprised when you’re flying through the air, groceries going all over the place?If you choose to believe someone when they say that they only have eyes for you and that they would never cheat is up to you, but to so freely giving your trust to the point of demanding them to live up to it is foolish. Trust is earned, built on a foundation of observable verifiable reliability and if someone has never broken your trust then you don’t know that they can be trusted only that they can’t be known. That’s true unshakeable trust…. to know the other person to the point that you can rely on them behaving certain ways and making up for mistakes because they themselves have proven it if their own volition.There is no hard line of fault or blame, that’s my view and I approach life this way because living in obligation to fear of failure doesn’t make you a good person… the fear of god is not a good motivator for morality… making mistakes and learning from them is the only way we grow.Now maybe you never cheated on anyone… yet. You only get to claim ‘yet’ because you can’t guarantee that tomorrow’s you won’t surprise you (even if it’s 15 years down the line).Maybe you never do, and maybe that’s because you’ve been cheated on or maybe you just have a really strong grasp of your actions and ethics. That’s great, it is… but you cease to keep any moral high ground for hating on a total stranger.They aren’t the one who hurt you so maybe deciding that all cheaters are the same person who cheated on you is something you wanna reconsider the impact of.Stop assuming this is a girl cheating on ‘her man’ when the question doesn’t offer that context too for that matter ;)