h a l f b a k e r yRight twice a day.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
My bed-buddy and I have changing schedules but we're both married. So, we need to plan our encounters on short notice, but we don't want to take the risk of our spouses reading our email, getting a phone call from the other person at an inopportune time, etc.
To be clear, this wouldn't be a matchmaking
service (I already have my partner), but I'd like a stealthier way to schedule these trysts/meetups. Seems like there should be some sort of online way to do this? Maybe a type of anonymous/secure online drop box where both parties can leave each other a note about their availability for that day?
Tragedy of the commons
http://en.wikipedia...gedy_of_the_commons
The fundimental driving need for lying to a spouse [MercuryNotMars, Jan 30 2007]
[link]
|
| |
the old towel hanging out of the window used to work well, I believe. |
|
| |
interesting name - was there really an annabanana1? |
|
| |
Just use a free email account, like hotmail. |
|
| |
Any blogging service could serve as a dead drop box. Add a small amount of code about locations and you are good to go. |
|
| |
"Lionel just released a new tanker car and I am heading down to check it out at 4:35!" |
|
| |
"Great! I need some more 45 degree track! See you there!" |
|
| |
//annabanana? You must be a relative of Cockney singing legend Avabanana.
boysparks, Jan 21 2007//
First name is Woof! |
|
| |
There are many obvious and 100% effective ways to communicate secretly with someone. I'm sure these have not escaped you. What you seem to be proposing here is something secret, but by virtue of it's online existance not too secret. Could it be possible that on some level you actually want to be caught? |
|
| |
Codes and ciphers is definitely the way to go. You want to operate on the assumption that you cannot protect the message from surveillance, but have the presence and content of the information sufficiently buried in a routine format and opaque to any other readers. |
|
| |
Hmm, Doesn't this defeat the purpose of getting married? I thought you said "forsaking all others". One hint in infidelity would be to not tell good people about it. Now you must lie to the honest people and only trust liars with the truth. You have probably been choosing your circle of friends closely along these lines for some time now. That is probably where you two met. How convenient to be bound together with a "bed buddy" by a mutual need to deceive everyone. You are probably much more experienced with weeding out the better influnces in your life than I am. To recap, evil is good for keeping this secret and good is bad for keeping this secret. You are on the right track, and yes that is a handbasket you are in. Good luck filling your void black hole. |
|
| |
I thought passing judgement was God's work, not ours? |
|
| |
More to the point though, Mrs Banana2 (if that _is_ your real name), this is a site for posting original, if somewhat loosely conceived, ideas, not a site for asking for solutions. |
|
| |
Besides, you got me all excited thinking this was an idea for some kinky version of orienteering |
|
| |
That is a popular misconception about judging. The goal is for everyone to get it right before judgement is rendered. You don't want to rely on waiting for everyone to be dead before you do anything about it. Judges render judgements simply because people were previously incompetent in their use of judgement. It is a cruel trick for a parent to let the courts handle telling their children that it is wrong when they could have so easily helped them avoid fines, jail time, and criminal records. |
|
| |
I therefore stand firmly by my position that people who want to do evil should and do have to eliminate the better influences in their life. Those people are by definition not able to handle this in a manner congruent with bannana's goals. |
|
| |
Whether or not the bible correctly justifies //passing judgement// is something that I would be happy to tackle but it is not exactly pertainent to this discussion in any other way that I can see. |
|
| |
Damn you, [BunsenHoneydew]! |
|
| |
Took me two days to think of that, but by the time I got back here... *sigh* |
|
| |
Nevertheless [MNM] you're not the parent of Ms. Banana, nor is she your child. Therefore her relationship to your concept of good and evil are not your concern. Log in one's own eye and all that. |
|
| |
Log in one's own eye and all that? I can safely say that I am not engaged in any adultery so I think I am good to go there. I can safely say that it is not impossible to avoid adultery. Your brilliant understanding of Matt 7 is stupifying. I think you should stop quoting things you do not beleive since you have no incentive to make sure you understood it correctly to begin with. Feel free to use it, just expect me to tell you that you do not understand. |
|
| |
//you're not the parent of Ms. Banana, nor is she your child.// That only matters because of her ability to choose. Children do not choose parents, and criminals do not choose governments. I don't think you understand that you are in the midst of makeing my point for me and demonstrating the mechanism of personal dissassociation. The only way you can get close to her is by becoming evil and ignoring her faults because you almost know for certain that you will be rejected by her otherwise. This self reinforcing circle allows a person to drift endlessly toward their own destruction. I know perfectly well that I have no tie to her I am neither her parent or her government but I also have no purpose in her life as a bad influence either.
Being good implies that you keep good people in your life. Individual sins/errors are not to be compared with the importance of the mechanism by which errors are caught and improvements are implimented. Much as the highest order term in a polynomial determines the big O of a function. Your applied understanding of that scripture would also be an error of the highest order in that it encourages error propagation. |
|
| |
Actually, I politely disagree with the crypto-proponents here. There is a real market for this, and I wouldn't know what currently existing technology to adress it with. |
|
| |
Conventional secret messaging technologies don't quite work because you can tell that communication is going on.
For this, you'd want a place that looks very clearly like something else and harmless, but turns into a shared message application when you enter the right sequence of keystrokes. |
|
| |
You *don't* want to just use a free email account, because the records of your visits there are going to show up on the shared family computer - you're going to forget to clear the cache, or clearing the cache will cause hard-to-answer questions. (So, you don't even want to use HTML and fields - ideally, it would be some piece of disconnected technology like Java or Flash that the browsers don't record input for.) |
|
| |
The remaining problem is this: If two spouses in a relationship have parallel affairs going on with other people, how is one spouse not going to see the other spouse visit the same fake site and know what's going on?
One solution would be to make that site actually interesting or fun, so that many people *do* go there regularly, without any clue about the hidden communication channel. |
|
| |
[Browsing from a flash drive would certainly work - but there's room for a cheaper, software-only solution with a lower barrier of entry.] |
|
| |
A hotmail account and browsing from a flash drive don't address this jutta? |
|
| |
Ah ha! I have found the true purpose behind this site. It is all a cover/ruse and you are as we speak coordinating a tryst and using this site as cover. |
|
| |
So "stirling engine" is code for some sort of sex act? |
|
| |
As far as communicating hidden desires this has some history. The communication is and always has been this subtile. People overlook this point and read into a certain bible passage something that is not there. Matt 5 "Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after has commited adultery with her already in his heart." This is not, happens to see and wants, this is a refference to the subtle communication of desire for a publicly unacceptable act. Even if she refuses to explore the invitation of your come hither stare, you have already as much as gone through with the act by commissioning the act. It is that subtle a communication, and always has been. |
|
| |
Considering your re-statement of the problem, [jutta] - I agree. I think that we are looking at a communication problem that could have solutions applicable to other things than fornication (although there would indubitably be that audience). |
|
| |
Try this one: a website whose layout doesn't cater to regular browsers. I'm thinking of something that displays images from a lot of webcams. In order to use it without a lot of annoyance, you would need to access it from a specialized browser. You search through the images, and sign up for feeds from particular cams. I can think of a few ways to make this a very interesting app that anyone might want to have on their desktop. |
|
| |
However, there will be particular installable codecs available that will allow steganographic coding of messages (preferably very low bandwidth - a few bytes per frame) and when you subscribe, you are allocated a certain set of byte positions in the message payload. Then, when activated, you can upload / download messages. Entering the appropriate code from another machine will allow it to access and decode the same bytes, thus completing the message channel. |
|
| |
Honestly, [MercuryNotMars] does sound a bit judgemental, but I do agree that affairs are a bad thing, and with most of the moral issues he brings up (except for the whole judging people thing -- that's best left to God). The best way to lead people out of sin is with love and not hate. Jesus himself forgave a woman of adultery when he could have easily had her executed. It looks like this is a touchy subject to some people. Let's all try to be civil and polite. I'll try myself to let other people have their own opinions. |
|
| |
Morality aside, you probably shouldn't talk about your affair on the 'bakery if you don't want your spouse to find out. |
|
| |
//Morality aside, you probably shouldn't talk about your affair on the 'bakery if you don't want your spouse to find out.// |
|
| |
worst is to trust him with your hb password. |
|
| |
lets get things in perspective - lovers are two a penny but your halfbakery reputation is sacrosanct. |
|
| |
I don't recall using this statement to sit and pass judgement. this is just a side track on communicating. I suppose it would apply to her since the affair had to start somewhere but that is not the purpose of my post. And you also cannot read because I never said this is about drooling over prettier women this passage does not pertain to that at all. I said it was an active expression of a desire to cheat on a spouse. |
|
| |
You can stop reading into my words what is not there. I am only saying the things that I am coherantly saying. If I seem to be saying something that is not supported by what I say then I am probably not trying to support that view at the moment. |
|
| |
I am certainly not trying to tell people that they should not find pretty women attractive. That would be ludacris. Go back and read it again. |
|
| |
I know my bible inside and out. I don't recall using it to back anything up, just working with facts that we should all recognize and then quoting bible for fun on the side. |
|
| |
I did make a claim that contrary to what has been stated the bible does tell us to use judgement. |
|
| |
And now I am going to say that the woman caught in adultery story is also totally missapplied. Right now my flat hand is wooshing over the top of my head. Jesus didn't let her go. That is also idiotic because you and everyone else take as a command something that could not have been a command. His audience was hostile to him. When he says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This is not some grand teaching that followers paid attention to, nor was this embarrasment, this is checkmate. They left one by one because this statement made sence and showed them the vulnerability of their position. This was an invitation to carry out Moses's law. Furthermore his statement makes refference to 3 old testiment laws at once. It shows their specific guilt in her crime and leaves her unable to trust another john. |
|
| |
So no, this passage doesn't say that I can't or shouldn't tell annabanana that she is wrong and headed straight to hell. Next you will be telling me that Jesus condemned himself by telling that woman to "go and sin no more." |
|
| |
I can't imagine why anyone would want this! ["What was that, Honey?"] |
|
| |
But I think Google has something along those lines - you could share your calendar with your paramour. {"Who's that, Honey? Oh, just some admin from work. She books our meetings for us. She's incredibly stupid, you know, always messes things up."] |
|
| |
But I would like something that could automatically schedule meetings between parties with shared calendars. One of the things that makes Outlook so dismal is that it doesn't do this. (Or keep track of geographic locale.) |
|
| |
"Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after has commited adultery with her already in his heart." |
|
| |
another one that can't read.... Are you or they married Nth? if not this does not apply to you at all. He is not changing the definition of adultery. Jesus did not come to change the dictionary, he had a quite different mission statement. The other thing you are probably missing if one of you is married is the communication of desire to sin implied in the "looks on". Eyes do not just perceive they are in turn perceived and reveal your interests, interest that are in this case quite legitimate in marriage. You are also probably missing the context/theme of the chapter which involves sensoraly appreciable phenonmena, light, salt, "that they may SEE your good works and glorify your father in heaven." Everyone is fully aware when they are sending a message that they want to cheat another. Is that what you are engaged in Nth? |
|
| |
I am wholly apolexic at the very notion I cannot read. Surely to answer your questions poses a conundrum? |
|
| |
Am I engaged in adultery? Hardly. I could be so lucky. |
|
| |
Am I sending a message I want to cheat another? See above. |
|
| |
"Are you or they married Nth?"
"if not this does not apply to you at all. "
What if I was married once but no longer? What are the rules then? |
|
| |
Anyway, my comment was just a lighthearted poke at a commonly known social phenomena. |
|
| |
Best of wishes to you and Chip. :) |
|
| |
MNM, I'm not too sure what you're saying, but it doesn't sound exactly right. Since I'm no Bible scholar, I can't tell you exactly what Jesus was trying to say in these situations, but I would take them more or less literally myself. I don't think it's good to find conditional rules that allow you to look at a woman in the wrong way, as long as you don't communicate your intent. That kind of thinking can get you on some shakey moral ground. But don't just listen to what I tell you; go reread those passages and ask God what He thinks. |
|
| |
Poke at common nonsense, I can take that basis and say "carry on". What you articulated is a very very common and wrong interpretation. My statement might be a little hasty but I do like distancing myself from nonsence. I am glad we have each other's.
I still say it comes down to whether you two are married. Your question is a whole new vein called "Am I married" I don't know how to classify that under sneaky tryst planning so open up a half baked marriage detector idea thread and I will gladly comment on the parameters. |
|
| |
Raspberry if no one ever communicates a evil desire how do two people ever manage to cooperate in doing evil? I am not saying that you can stop there though You must also communicate positive desires/expectations. Shaky moral ground? If a person manages to control their desires that would be evil to fulfill what else is there? Talk about "judge not", this is what that is applying to. Never having an evil desire is an impossible task and not something measurable that can be compared to Jesus's example which was 100% physically demonstrated perfection in pleasing God. You would be judging beyond God's law to say that thoughts alone can be called evil. |
|
| |
If there is anything you wish to point out to me feel free. but I am not going to listen to God by reading and then go pray and pretend to ask God to see if he meant what he said in the bible. I have read it and thought about it a lot, and I would encourage you to take personal responsibility for understanding what God wants you to do instead of some "scholar". |
|
| |
Literally the law of moses says that the witnesses cast the first stone. |
|
| |
Literally the law says that Both the Man and the woman both be stoned. Where was he? Was she even married? |
|
| |
Literally the law of Moses says that they are not to allow their daughters to be prostitutes. (personal responsibility for condoning behaviors) |
|
| |
order of events:
1 they looked for a way to tempt Jesus. |
|
| |
2 they magically found a woman caught in adultery and did not bring the man? |
|
| |
fishy fishy. Run through the senarios and tell me how it is possible for someone to do the law of moses and stone the woman. |
|
| |
My take is that this is the essence of sneaky double crossing tryst planning. I know a lot of things that this story is not saying though. Probably not something that AnnaBanana needs to worry about unless her husband is rich and likes the idea of a sting operation on his wife. Undercover poolboy? |
|
| |
I think the annos under this idea would have a different tone if
1. One or other of the cheated spouses were known to be a well-liked half-baker and
2. We hadn't got so deep into biblical exegesis(forest vs. trees). |
|
| |
Mr [NotMars], I have a fairly fundamental theological quarrel with your premises that people (rather than moral choices) can be sorted into good and bad, and that good people should only associate with other good people. However, I think that debate might better be carried on elsewhere (either by email, or in a place called 'overbaked', which gets linked to from time to time, but which I am too lazy to find just now). |
|
| |
Mrs [banana2], I can't help suspecting that the element of transgression here might be more sexy than the sex itself. If you feel a need to transgress, maybe you could transgress in a positive way, by getting into grass-roots politics and civil disobedience, or at least in a harmless way, by dressing unfashionably or cheating at Scrabble. I accept that it's really none of my business, but you might think of this as a lateral-thinking solution to the original problem. |
|
| |
Agreed. It seems we've beat this subject to death and not really gotten anywhere as far as understanding each other (MNM and myself, that is). Let's hold off on this debate for awhile, or maybe move it on to this "overbaked" group. Honestly, I don't really want to join any yahoo groups right now. Maybe at some point when I don't have to study for exams. If you would like to email me, look on my profile page. |
|
| |
Good luck to everyone pondering the ethics and practical issues of coordinating trysts; I'm signing off for now to get some sleep. |
|
| |
One thing that makes that a non workable solution is the fundimental point of marriage. It deals with sex in a manner that accomodates arrival of children into the relationship. This is the classic Tragety of the Commons. Married people can and must hold all things in common and all people are selfishly interested in their kids. Common children are much prefered to help people feel they are not working to take care of other people's kids to the neglect of your own. This is the fundimental step that your solution does not really address. |
|
| |
If this is what New age is then it sounds like a new way to ignore the way things have always been. I don't think we will ever get past the need to cover the fact that people sleep around. |
|
| |