"Man seeks mistress for wife to beat"

Man seeks mistress for wife to beat

A Chinese businessman has advertised on the internet for a stand-in mistress to be beaten up by his wife to vent her anger and to protect his real mistress, Chinese media reported.

“When the woman found out her husband had a mistress, she insisted on beating her up,” the Beijing Youth Daily said, citing the advertisement posted on a popular online jobs forum on sina.com.

More than 10 people had applied for the job, the newspaper said.

The “successful” candidate would be 35 and originallyfrom northeastern China and would be paid 3,000 yuan ($A488) per 10 minutes, it said.

Many Chinese businessmen keep mistresses in second homes.

The practice was banished after the Communists swept to power in 1949 but it has made a comeback with market reforms in recent decades.

wow, this would have saved me a lot of trouble back then…

I love a culture unburdened by theological concerns. It’s all straight lines and practicality.

What’s theology got to do with it? Or did you mean morality? Or do you assume they’re the same?

I thought this was a thread about masturbation.

insert thumbs-up here

How do you banish a practice? Where does it go?

I have that tattooed across my lower back!

One derives from the other. If you’re using “morality” without any grounding in an existing philosphy, you’re really just saying “whatever I think is a good thing.”

It’s quite possible to derive a decent moral code with no theology involved.

Using as your starting points greed, selfishness, enlightened self-interest, and mathematics, you can derive an optimal code of conduct that dictates essentially what everyone considers “good” behavior. See Ayn Rand, “The Virtue of Selfishness”, or Robert Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”, for starters.

To get back to the original post - really, why is this an issue? The man is offering some money to people to get hit. Some people think it’s worth the money. Why do you have a problem with this? Why is it any of your business whether someone somewhere doesn’t find pain as distasteful as you do?

I wouldn’t take that deal, and I wouldn’t want to see anyone forced into it, but this circumstance is about as far away from forced as you can get.

Yes, by picking whatever you think are good things. Your list of good things will be as unique as a fingerprint.

Well, we all know that killing is immoral. Unless it’s in the name of God, that is. Homosexuality is also immoral. Eating seafood is immoral.

Truly, the non-Christians among us reserve the right to rape and pillage on bad hair days.

Doesn’t the Bible say you can kill your wife if she’s not a virgin on her wedding night?

And that means they’re bad things? Because someone else didn’t tell me which are the good one’s and which are the bad one’s?

What if the theology you believe in says that it’s OK to rape and kill others? That means it’s a good thing, doesn’t it?

(Gah!! I have to stop writing questions - I feel like I’m on Jeopardy.)

Just like the list any religious person would make.

I’m so telling my girlfriend this one.

That’s either utter nonsense or you are playing syntax games. If you are only defining “good” to mean “theologically good” in some deistically-approved sense then yes, it’s impossible to make a moral code that is “theologically good” without theology.

However, if one attributes inherent goodness to other more practically measurable things such as being able to live harmoniously with other human beings then it’s quite possible to come up with a theology-free moral code that is pretty darn similar to the moral code preached by many modern religions. Funny how that works out.

Hey, I make up my own behavioral code, too. I just don’t pretend it has universal application.

Edited to use the right word.