At What Point Are You Using Someone?

[Socrastein]

Pertaining to physical involvement between two people, what constitutes one being used by the other?

I am of the premature and underdeveloped opinion that a relationship that plays out like the "Little Red Hen" story is not a relationship at all, but one person using the other sexually.

For those who don't know the story, the little red hen decides one day to bake some bread. She's gathering up flour and yeast and all the ingredients. She asks the dog if he wants to help carry the flour, but he declines. Asks the duck if he wants to help knead the dough, but he declines. Basically, nobody wants to help make the bread. However, when the bread is finished and comes out of the oven hot and fresh, everybody is more than eager to eat it.

Going on that same thought, of wanting to reap goods without putting anything into them, I think that if someone wants to get physically involved with another person, but refuses to get into a committed relationship with them, they are using that person. Keep in mind, this is NOT a question of whether it is right, or wrong, or natural to use someone for physical pleasure. I'm just trying to get at the act itself, and what constitutes it.

If I want to get involved with someone, "no strings attached", take it to a physical level and yet not committ myself to that person, am I using them? It seems that in doing so I am reducing this person to a means to my selfish ends, pleasure, and not treating them as an end themselves. If anything were to be called usage, surely this would be it, no?

Perhaps I could hear your thoughts on relationships, committment, usage, the intricacies of physical involvement without committing oneself to another, etc.?

 

[psychedelicist]

If they are willing to get involved with you "no strings attached" as well, I don't think that it would be using them.

Or perhaps it is the exact opposite, and any time we impose upon another, with their conent or not, we are using them? I'm not so sure about this myself.

 

[Ellethidhren]

Perhaps you should ask all the children born to people who indulge themselves out of wedlock. Commitment? What's that? The mothers run away, they never see the fathers who split the moment they find out they got the woman pregnant.

WANT SEX? Get MARRIED! Protect the unborn from non-commited sperm and egg doners..

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think using someone is knowingly taking advantage of the willingness of the other to pursue a course of action that you personally know is not best for that individual for that individual's own sake, all for the sake of achieving something that you believe to be of benefit to you. It may involve deception about your true intentions, or taking advantage of the other's lack of self-esteem or self-assertiveness, or the willingness on your part not to enlighten the other about what would actually be the best course of action for him/her. In sum, to use someone is to treat that someone as merely a tool of yours, not someone with his or her happiness and well-being to pursue.

 

[dkara]

I'm of the opinion that he who knows better--must DO better. The fact that you ask the question about 'would you be taking advantage' of another is enough reason not to do so. When in doubt--don't.

You said, "I think that if someone wants to get physically involved with another person, but refuses to get into a committed relationship with them, they are using that person." Then you must never do that to yourself or another person, but don't so quickly judge others. We don't know the fear that fuels their hearts, or the ugly lessons they've learned and are still learning. All we can do is NOT take advantage of them ourselves and let them know we want their best.

I've seen the relationships that are set up only for the physical. In most instances, someone starts to care and someone gets hurt. Then there are the other dangers of that setting--pregnancy, disease, and having our dance card full so we can't see the right person for us even if they show up.

If we weren't human perhaps, a physical only relationship would work. But we are ohsocomplicated.

Blessings.

 

[Quijote]

Pertaining to physical involvement between two people, what constitutes one being used by the other?

I am of the premature and underdeveloped opinion that a relationship that plays out like the "Little Red Hen" story is not a relationship at all, but one person using the other sexually.

For those who don't know the story, the little red hen decides one day to bake some bread. She's gathering up flour and yeast and all the ingredients. She asks the dog if he wants to help carry the flour, but he declines. Asks the duck if he wants to help knead the dough, but he declines. Basically, nobody wants to help make the bread. However, when the bread is finished and comes out of the oven hot and fresh, everybody is more than eager to eat it.

Going on that same thought, of wanting to reap goods without putting anything into them, I think that if someone wants to get physically involved with another person, but refuses to get into a committed relationship with them, they are using that person. Keep in mind, this is NOT a question of whether it is right, or wrong, or natural to use someone for physical pleasure. I'm just trying to get at the act itself, and what constitutes it.

If I want to get involved with someone, "no strings attached", take it to a physical level and yet not committ myself to that person, am I using them? It seems that in doing so I am reducing this person to a means to my selfish ends, pleasure, and not treating them as an end themselves. If anything were to be called usage, surely this would be it, no?

Perhaps I could hear your thoughts on relationships, committment, usage, the intricacies of physical involvement without committing oneself to another, etc.?

hmmmm sure you're not CAtholic??? the above sounds awfully simmilar to Catholic doctrine

cheers

 

[Illuminatus]

hmmmm sure you're not CAtholic??? the above sounds awfully simmilar to Catholic doctrine

From prior evidence, I think we can safely assume that Socrastein is not a Catholic.

 

[lawtonfogle]

my own thought, though based off of religion, even if the religion did not exist, their is still more benefits to it, is to build a relationship up to the point of marriage and then enjoy the physical side. I hear (not speaking form experience) that when 'love' (since I am trying to talk nonreligion) is present, the physical side is much better. Also, after the physical side wears off (you get old) their will be someone their for you.

Basicly, I am told that the more you build a relationship, the more you enjoy physical relations.

I do know from the most smallest of experiences (I will not tell what happened becuase you have to be in my shoes to understand, but it was nothing bad at all, actualy there was no physical contact.) this theory to be true. As for the situation, if their was not relationship, the entire situation (which could not even be called a date) would have been meaningless, but due to the realtionship, it was one of the best times in my life.

 

[Seeking...]

I don't consider sex without committment to be "using" someone, I do consider it somewhat juvenile and a waste of time, but that is besides the point.

I assume that if one is honest about what they are offering (sex) and their expectations (no emotional entanglements) to someone who is like-minded and responsible then it is really just a mutually satisfying transaction. It is only when one is dishonest, manipulative of another's desires/expectations, or engaging with someone who they know to be unlikely/unable to make a clear assessment of the situation that it becomes a "using" issue.

 

[MoonlessNight]

If they are willing to get involved with you "no strings attached" as well, I don't think that it would be using them.

Or perhaps it is the exact opposite, and any time we impose upon another, with their conent or not, we are using them? I'm not so sure about this myself.

In the case of a person getting involved with another with both agreeing that the relationship will be "no strings attached", I think this is more of a case of each person using the other one, rather than a case in which no one is used. Socrastein seems to have defined usage of another person as "treating that person as only a means to an ends" or something along those lines. And certainly in that sort of relationship each person only sees the other as a means to sexual pleasure.

 

[ChrisLockhart]

"using" someone is more in reference to the intent than the acts and circumstances.
To mislead somebody with the intent of getting something out of them, would be using them. This becomes even more true the less one things of that other person as being equal.

 

[Socrastein]

From prior evidence, I think we can safely assume that Socrastein is not a Catholic.

A very safe assumption indeed.

 

[kedaman]

Personally, in the case of using human beings, I use the word use in the normal sense of the word use, i.e. to treat a person as a means to some end. This usage of the word does not thus attach any moral significance.

 

[ChrisLockhart]

Can you explain how does your use of the word 'use' eliminates any moral significance?

 

[kedaman]

When you use something, you rely on/employ it in order to achieving something.
Moral significance is attached to achievements trough the act alone. After all we are only responsible for our own actions. Treating someone as a means is amoral. Treating someone as a means without being an end, is immoral, while treating someone as an end if a means is moral.

 

[Quijote]

From prior evidence, I think we can safely assume that Socrastein is not a Catholic.

lol, don't mean to put his "atheisity" (sp?...is that a word?) in question. Just that, at least in this instance, with his op, he sounds more "Catholic" that some Catholics I know.

I guess this show that Atheism is not devoid of good and that Catholic teachings are not all crazy

cheers

 

[ChrisLockhart]

When you use something, you rely on/employ it in order to achieving something.
Moral significance is attached to achievements trough the act alone. After all we are only responsible for our own actions. Treating someone as a means is amoral. Treating someone as a means without being an end, is immoral, while treating someone as an end if a means is moral.

So, if we use them in a way that is wholly illogical, that is.. if we do not profit from our use of them, then it is immoral?
However, if we use them for our own gain, then it is devoid of moral?
and treating somebody as an object to be gained is perfectly ok?

Either what you've said is poorly worded, I have done a poor job of understanding it, or we wholly disagree.

 

[kedaman]

So, if we use them in a way that is wholly illogical, that is.. if we do not profit from our use of them, then it is immoral?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. The consequences cannot determine whether something is moral or immoral, so I may act moral without profitting.
However, if we use them for our own gain, then it is devoid of moral?
Yep.
and treating somebody as an object to be gained is perfectly ok?
Yes.
Either what you've said is poorly worded, I have done a poor job of understanding it, or we wholly disagree.
I apologise if my words are confusing you. I hope we don't disagree and that you are willing to find out if we are or not, and if we are, how and why.

 

[morningstar2651]

Perhaps you should ask all the children born to people who indulge themselves out of wedlock. Commitment? What's that? The mothers run away, they never see the fathers who split the moment they find out they got the woman pregnant.

WANT SEX? Get MARRIED! Protect the unborn from non-commited sperm and egg doners..

... Yes, marriage will force your spouse to be commited.

That makes logical sense...

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Marriage does not create commitment, rather, commitment should lead to marriage.

However, that says nothing about those who "indulge themselves within wedlock"...a excessively wordy way of saying "cheat on their spouse".