In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?

Not at all, the degree of companionship that one can have without monogamy is very little at all, I like the commitment part of a relationship...it makes me feel like I am part of a really great team.

Not at all, the degree of companionship that one can have without monogamy is very little at all, I like the commitment part of a relationship...it makes me feel like I am part of a really great team.

So your commitment is dependent on a monogamous physical relationship?

I'm part of the AIDS generation. I demand fidelity.

So your commitment is dependent on a monogamous physical relationship?

Not just physical, but yes.

Not at all. Sexual jealousy is in fact a major premise in human psychology.

In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?

That should depend on the individuals that are copulating with each other. They should ask this of themselves as to what they should want .

S.A.M. as evidenced by the fact that we invented birth control (hell even the romans had condoms) sex for humans is NOT just about procriation.

Our kids take a very long time to mature even compared to our closest cousins. Chimps mature by about the age of 2, a human child of 2 is DEFINITLY not able to care for itself. So how does nature keep sexual partners together for the time it takes to raise that child? Well nature doesnt have DVD's books, playstations ect to hand out so it uses sex and most specifically the ENJOYMENT of sex to bond couples.

Incidently thats where the 7 year itch came from, 7 years is long enough for a child to be concived and to become semi independndent so that one parent could care for it alone.

In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?

It really depends on the people in the particular relationship. If a couple agrees to have an "open" relationship, good for them. If they have no problem with their partner sleeping around, fine. But this must be a two-sided agreement, and not one partner being selfish at the expense of the other.

Sexual fidelity, as with any type of loyalty, is an indicator of the strength of a relationship. But to be faithful doesn't necessarily mean having no partners except your life partner. For some people, it might just mean being honest about sleeping with other people.

Obviously, though, the proportion of people who are actually able to feel no jealousy, envy or other bad emotions about a sexually "unfaithful" partner are in the minority of the population.

Sexual infidelity, in which one partner has other relationships without the other partner's knowledge, is a sign of dishonesty in the relationship in general. And once trust is gone in a relationship, things become much harder, I think.

basically we saw this scenario develop in that wonderful pocket of time in sixties - advent of birth control and the absence of AIDS and diminishing dominant social paradigms.

Would you describe the hippy movement as successful?

Would you describe the hippy movement as successful?

The baby boomers rule the world these days. I'd call that successful. But how are you measuring success?

The baby boomers rule the world these days. I'd call that successful. But how are you measuring success?
there's a variety of measures
quantity is one
quality is another

BTW baby boomers were more a product of post ww2 than the hippy movement

The baby boomers rule the world these days.

And they have ruled it almost into extinction.

The baby boomers rule the world these days.
”
And they have ruled it almost into extinction. Things could have gone worse. They could have gone as they had for the thousand years prior, for example, in Western civilization.

The free love folks were a minority, and they failed to take over - the organization men took over, the racial bigots and born-again Christians took over - But most everything worth doing was done by the free love folks.

Sexual jealousy has little to do with birth control, and it doesn't matter if it's "inappropriate".

Monogamy is an inspiration not a duty. Now how long that lasts is another story, when one is blinded by seduction from one person one is blind to all others no matter what their merits might be. There isn't anything more anti-seductive than a clingy or insecure partner. Possession kills the spirit, I would prefer a partner to be smitten not committed to some ideal of balls and chains. Problem is few people know how to create that kind of magic and fewer know the art of drawing it out for years at a time. Magic demands spaces between people not enslavement. I totally disagree with the de facto assertion that companionship is diminished in a polyamorous relationship. Infidelity means unfaithful right? Unfaithful to what exactly? Another's loins?

No, their trust.

Trust? I lose confidence in another if they are abusive or careless not because they shagged. Funny, I have never been in a relationship where 'fidelity' was stated as a criteria, if it happened it was natural and if it didn't that was equally natural.

If they're the agreed terms so be it, but most people enter into a relationship with an understanding there will be fidelity between both parties. That's why I say trust. If you want sex with other people that's fair enough but most people sneak around and have sex with other people behind their partner's back. It's similar to withholding informations is the same as lying. Being lied to creates mistrust.

You shouldn't go into a relationship thinking anything is 'understood'. Why would someone sneak sex? Is it because they are not allowed to be honest about who they are and what they desire from the person they are supposedly closest to? Is it natural or even desirable to demand from anyone 100% 'fidelity'? We stray with our minds if not our loins if the desire is there do we not? Fidelity is a social construct not a natural one and in some circumstances an over-rated standard of perfection.

Sexual jealousy comes about when we feel inadequate enough to command the attention of our partner and that's all it is.

I don't agree that fidelity is merely a social constraint. It's a moral one. Why, if you loved someone completely, would you want to have sex with other people? Your points about being honest about who you are in a relationship are valid. If you're closest to your partner then morally you should be exclusive. If you want multiple partners then why enter into a relationship? It's a little idealistic to say we shouldn't enter into a relationship without "understandings". There are many understandings we have in relationships, they aren't about being socially confined to norms, or what is imposed on us by society. They're about what two people do for each other as partners, and what you refrain from because you love them.

Morally? Is it moral to be dishonest with yourself? Why does sexual infidelity necessarily mean 'multiple relationships'? One could be in a committed relationship and then for one reason or another become enticed by another. These supposed closeted understandings are exactly why people are disappointed by their partners. Where do you get the idea that restraint relates to a deeper love for one person? It may not. There are circumstances where an outside relationship can solidify the original partnership. Life, sex and love are more complicated than the neat lines you have listed above...under the name of morality no less.

I'm talking about conventional relationships most, not all, people have. If you're being dishonest with yourself about your feelings in that relationship then maybe it would be best to ask why you feel the need to have sex with others. I don't think fidelity is being dishonest with yourself if you have sexual desires for others. I may have an urge to steal a sweet from the pick-and-mix but if I have a moral obligation to not steal then I restrain myself. We don't always have to follow our feelings, if we did this world would be in a hell of a lot worse place than it is. Although I'm just pointing out the other side to your argument, I'm inclined to agree that relationships are complicated. I'm not judging others for having sex with more than one partner, I'm just saying if you're sleeping with others behind your partner's back then that's lying. Which isn't fair on the other person. I get the idea about love for your partner making you refrain from having sex with more than them because if you love them you think about them, and their needs, not your own. Idealistically altruistic perhaps, I know, but that's how I define love.

I am also referring to conventional relationships. Infidelity doesn't happen to freaks you know, its quite common in fact. Can you imagine that someone person can feel the desire to be with one person, promise fidelity, and then 15years (plus 2 kids later) feel differently yet still love their family and feel committed? Most people tell their partners what they want to hear because truth can be disatisfying to the ears. The question here is why are those 'committed' forced to lie? If you define love by how closely you keep your loins by your loved one...well lets just say that love is much more than that. Why not, by your own standards, question the love of someone who wants to shackle you down with unnecessary insecurities? Is it loving to use guilt as a means to hold a partner in check?

Good point. :)

Here are some very conventional stats:

It's tough to get a handle on how many of us are having affairs, given the inherent secrecy.

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.

14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.

Younger people are more likely candidates; in fact, younger women are as likely as younger men to be unfaithful.

70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.

22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.

90 percent of Americans believe adultery is morally wrong.

50 percent of Americans say President Clinton's adultery makes his moral standard "about the same as the average married man,'' according to a Time-CNN poll.

17 percent of divorces in the United States are caused by infidelity.
Source: Associated Press

Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

Only 46% of men believe that online affairs are adultery. DivorceMag

About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage "Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn

About 24 percent of men and 14 percent of women have had sex outside their marriages, according to a Dec. 21, 1998 report in USA Today on a national study by the University of California, San Francisco.

Affairs affect one of every 2.7 couples, according to counselor Janis Abrahms Spring, author of After the Affair,as reported by the Washington Post on March 30, 1999. Ten percent of extramarital affairs last one day, 10 percent last more than one day but less than a month, 50 percent last more than a month but less than a year, but 40 percent last two or more years. Few extramarital affairs last more than four years.
A lesser known fact is that those who divorce rarely marry the person with whom they are having the affair. For example, Dr. Jan Halper’s study of successful men (executives, entrepreneurs, professionals) found that very few men who have affairs divorce their wife and marry their lovers. Only 3 percent of the 4,100 successful men surveyed eventually married their lovers.

-2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about co-workers.

-86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.

-75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with.

The fact is that human beings are NOT monogamous by nature. That means they cheat.
Experts say that a gut instinct is the most powerful indicator of a cheating lover. Adultery statistics state that 85% of woman who feel their lover is cheating are correct. 50% of men who feel their lover is cheating are right. The first clue is seldom obvious. Typically, it's a "feeling" that something is different.

Cheating spouse statistics confirm that 50 and 70 percent of married men (between 38 and 53 million men) have cheated or will cheat on their wives. One study found that 2/3 of the wives (26 to 36 million women) whose husbands were cheating had no idea their husbands were having an affair - largely because they failed to recognize the telltale signs.

According to Annette Lawson, author of Adultery, published in 1989 by Basic Books. "The various researchers arrive at a general consensus…suggesting that above one-quarter to about one-half of married women have at least one lover after they are married in any given marriage. Married men probably still stray more often than married women—perhaps from 50 percent to 65 percent by the age of forty." According to Maggie Scarf, author of Intimate Partners, first published in 1987 by Random House, re-issued in 1996 by Ballentine.

"Most experts do consider the 'educated guess' that at the present time some 50 to 65 percent of husbands and 45 to 55 percent of wives become extramaritally involved by the age of 40 to be a relatively sound and reasonable one." According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, first published in 1989 by Newmarket Press (third edition published 2003).

Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."

Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.

So what is your point? That we should have sex with others whilst married because it's our nature, or that we should go with our delusions and have sex with other people because we shouldn't feel society pressures us into monogamy? I'm not saying people who have affairs are bad people, I'm saying it's an abuse of trust, regardless of the circumstances. Say if someone was married for 10 years and they've come to a place where they're mostly platonic now. One, or both, parties have sexual desires for another and they go and have sex with them. It's completely understandable. Does that mean they should be open with their partner and tell them what's going on, or should they just leave that relationship the way it is and have sex with another person to satisfy their own desires/needs? Or do you think that it's that partner's failing for believing in the understanding most people have of monogamy. I agree, what society expects and our behaviour are two completely different things, but how do we resolve that realistically? Personally, I'd rather a partner said he wanted to end the relationship and that would leave him free to sleep with whoever he chooses. I think. It's never happened though, so maybe I'd feel differently.

In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

I would suggest that sexual fidelity has a certain purpose among humans that is not necessarily put to rest by the fact that Americans are generally clueless about such things.

I had a chance once to sleep with a friend, and didn't. If I'd known then that theirs was an open marriage ....

Then again, I'm curious if there is any correlation between the open marriage and the fact that her husband is absolutely coming apart at the seams.

Of course, I also never followed through on a suggestion that I should sleep with the husband, either.

Missed opportunities, you know.

Frankly, I don't understand their reason for getting married in the first place. But neither do I claim to understand all the valid reasons.

Really, if I had married the mother of my child, I'd be cheating on her. Or else going crazy. Not only did she sleep around more than I understood during the time we were together, I decided a long time ago that a two-minute dead-weight fuck just isn't satisfying.

I don't think people should disregard sexual fidelity as a general rule; I think they should spend more effort choosing a partner if the long term is what they're after.

I think long term fidelity definitely has a place. I love my wife and would never cheat on her. Not because I am not attracted to any other person, nor because of guilt or some moral obligation. Simply because I see it as an abuse of my partners trust. I care about my partners feelings and they are my best friend and best lover. If you practise contentment you don't need to sleep around. If you respect your partner you have no reason to sleep around. I know my wife feels the same way and is honest and upfront. Sometimes it's tough to tell the truth but if you love the other person it's essential to be open and committed to each other.

fear of losing everything has nothing to do with it?

fear of losing everything has nothing to do with it?

No not for me at least. I am content with my wife being my sole partner. If I wasn't I wouldn't have married her. As for people who end up in a relationship were they are unhappy I think what emmz said is perfect, if someone feels that way then they should end the relationship and THEN have relations with other partners. Even if there is kids involved.

The poll seems to present monogamy and completely open relationships as the only two possibilities... but there are many forms of non-monogamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_nonmonogamy).
What about polyfidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfidelity)?
Or a Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein)-style group marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage)?

Why is it Emmz that you have to go to extremes on this subject? I explain that no matter what people 'say' people are cheating on their spouses or partners, its a suggestion that many people are in reality not monogamous in long term relationships. You go and assume that I am suggesting married people should have affairs. People who are monogamous for whatever reason seem to be in the minority but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be monogamous.

Emmz:...we should go with our delusions and have sex with other people because we shouldn't feel society pressures us into monogamy?

Dude don't you get it! Its not a question of 'delusions' its a matter of desire. Society pressures people to lie about monogamy because they force people to lie about their desires, to feel shame for their desires. Its a puritanical attitude at best. People will shag outside of their base relationships no matter what society or religion has to say on the matter. Its a reality.


Emmz: I'm not saying people who have affairs are bad people, I'm saying it's an abuse of trust, regardless of the circumstances.

It is this attitude which determines that a straying partner will lie, because of the whole 'oh you've abused trust blah blah blah'. Our society has unrealistic expectations and therefore an unsophisticated response to the subject. A sophisticated response it to throw the whole notion of trust out the window so that both partners can come to a realistic understanding of what is going on in the relationship.

Emmz: Say if someone was married for 10 years and they've come to a place where they're mostly platonic now. One, or both, parties have sexual desires for another and they go and have sex with them. It's completely understandable. Does that mean they should be open with their partner and tell them what's going on, or should they just leave that relationship the way it is and have sex with another person to satisfy their own desires/needs?

That would be up to them wouldn't it. I mean you seem to think there is a cookie cutter (a=b=c) response to such situations without acknowledging context. In other words it depends on the people, the relationship, hell sometimes it even breaks down to finances and children. You seem to think that someone just gets up one morning and says 'I'm going to have an affair today because of this that and the other' NO! Sometimes it is something that just happens. Can you imagine a married couple that isn't platonic and then one partner gets blind-sighted by a strong attraction they feel the need to experience? Your thinking seems so black and white.

Emmz: Or do you think that it's that partner's failing for believing in the understanding most people have of monogamy.

No Emmz, its the idea in itself that we are saints and that engaging in our erotic desires is somehow a 'failing'. Monogamy like I said is an inspiration not a duty.

Emmz: I agree, what society expects and our behaviour are two completely different things, but how do we resolve that realistically?

Study the French. Just kidding. If we had mature expectations of the nature of relationships then many would engage in a mature dialogue with their partners, but alas...

Emmz: Personally, I'd rather a partner said he wanted to end the relationship and that would leave him free to sleep with whoever he chooses. I think. It's never happened though, so maybe I'd feel differently.

Black and white thinking again. Why do you assume it means a lack of love for you? Why do you assume that it means the partner would even want to leave? And as for the last statement, you can never be sure its never happened to you. Want to know why? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIE!

Lucysnow your right about the last line and thats the whole point. Most people are conditioned to associate sex with love, biologically as well as sociologically but people are also conditioned to lie (which is actually why so many people forgive cheaters).

as most people chose to associate sexual faithfulness with being faithful to the relationship its important to alot of people that there partner DOESNT cheat.

Creeptology: If you practise contentment you don't need to sleep around. If you respect your partner you have no reason to sleep around.

How do you know that maybe the reason someone has an affair is because of this contentment you speak of? People have affairs because it offers thrill or something else they want to experience. Maybe they genuinely like the new person but still love their spouse. As for respect, I doubt Satre felt a deep disrespect for Smone de Beauvoir. Or that Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo's lifetime relationship was defined by disrespect. It seems you place many judgements on the human heart and its flexible ability towards desire. Don't you find the assumption of disrespect rigid? If you have never felt the charm of another then its safe to assume you know nothing of the 'reason' why someone else would.

Lisa Appignanesi on the relationship between Satre and De Beauvoir wrote:

Late in life, he admitted that he had fantasised a succession of women for himself, each one meaning everything for a given moment. De Beauvoir had astonished him by agreeing to the experiment he had outlined. She accepted the freedom he insisted on and became its custodian.

"What we have," he said early on to De Beauvoir, "is an essential love; but it is a good idea for us also to experience contingent love affairs." Recording Sartre's proposal, De Beauvoir writes: "We were two of a kind, and our relationship would endure as long as we did: but it could not make up entirely for the fleeting riches to be had from encounters with different people."

Asguard: (which is actually why so many people forgive cheaters).

I know I thought its interesting that only 17% of marriages end because of cheating. I think women are more likely to forgive an extra-marital affair.

Asguard:as most people chose to associate sexual faithfulness with being faithful to the relationship its important to alot of people that there partner DOESNT cheat.

Yes and the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Sometimes it does but people should understand that it isn't necessarily the case.

Lucysnow i disagree that a person should sacrifice what makes them feel comfertable in there relationship for the gratification of there partner. Its better to sacrifice the relationship if the two (or more) cant agree on what they each expect from the other. I dont think if you find out your partner has cheated on you, people should expect you to get over it when the other person has betrayed the ground rules of the relationship. The emotions you feel when you find that out are not pleasent

People do for the most part what they are comfortable with. If someone feels too uncomfortable with a situation they they would naturally leave, but that doesn't build a case for or against extra-marital affairs. Obviously there are many people no matter what they say who are willing to 'get over it' otherwise we would see higher stats on people leaving a marriage due to unfaithfullness

Why is it Emmz that you have to go to extremes on this subject?

I don't feel I am. Obviously all my opinions on the subject can't be fully expressed on a discussion forum. If they come across as black and white then perhaps that's not because of my views but the way they're interpreted.

I explain that no matter what people 'say' people are cheating on their spouses or partners, its a suggestion that many people are in reality not monogamous in long term relationships. You go and assume that I am suggesting married people should have affairs. People who are monogamous for whatever reason seem to be in the minority but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be monogamous.

I don't feel like I was assuming anything. The last part of this statement confuses me. This was what my argument all along.

Dude don't you get it! Its not a question of 'delusions' its a matter of desire. Society pressures people to lie about monogamy because they force people to lie about their desires, to feel shame for their desires. Its a puritanical attitude at best. People will shag outside of their base relationships no matter what society or religion has to say on the matter. Its a reality.

I might not get it. Not entirely. But I do think desire, or uncontrolled desire is a delusion. I'm not convinced it's society that moulds us into who we are. I'm not a product of my societal constraints. I also do not think society is a governing factor in the guilt people feel for cheating (outside of nonomic relationships). I posit it is we who feel guilt because we have perhaps gone against our own values, or broken our own moral code. If society's pressures were that endemic we wouldn't have affairs, let alone feel guilty about them.

It is this attitude which determines that a straying partner will lie, because of the whole 'oh you've abused trust blah blah blah'. Our society has unrealistic expectations and therefore an unsophisticated response to the subject. A sophisticated response it to throw the whole notion of trust out the window so that both partners can come to a realistic understanding of what is going on in the relationship.

If one is in a nonomic relationship then no deceit takes place. If one is in a monogamous relationship then a "straying partner" is acting in a deceitful way. It's not the fear of being reprimanded that causes the strayer to lie, it's the nature of deceptive behaviour which makes them lie. Perhaps society does have unrealistic expectations of us, but really, who cares what others think? We certainly don't live our lives by what conformities are set upon us. Perhaps I am unsophisticated, I don't know, that's your opinion. Which you are very well entitled to. I do think agreeing to having an open relationship is good, but we're talking (or at least I am) of cheating in a monogamous relationship.

Emmz: Say if someone was married for 10 years and they've come to a place where they're mostly platonic now. One, or both, parties have sexual desires for another and they go and have sex with them. It's completely understandable. Does that mean they should be open with their partner and tell them what's going on, or should they just leave that relationship the way it is and have sex with another person to satisfy their own desires/needs?

That would be up to them wouldn't it. I mean you seem to think there is a cookie cutter (a=b=c) response to such situations without acknowledging context. In other words it depends on the people, the relationship, hell sometimes it even breaks down to finances and children. You seem to think that someone just gets up one morning and says 'I'm going to have an affair today because of this that and the other' NO! Sometimes it is something that just happens. Can you imagine a married couple that isn't platonic and then one partner gets blind-sighted by a strong attraction they feel the need to experience? Your thinking seems so black and white.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my response, however I do feel I stipulated mitigating circumstances would be a factor. I certainly didn't mean to suggest there was one answer for all circumstances. You use of the words "straying" and "blind-sighted" also suggest to me an inner conflict for said "blind-sighted strayer". But that would be an assumption on my part, for which I apologise for.

Emmz: Or do you think that it's that partner's failing for believing in the understanding most people have of monogamy.

No Emmz, its the idea in itself that we are saints and that engaging in our erotic desires is somehow a 'failing'. Monogamy like I said is an inspiration not a duty.

I do agree with you that people do have affairs. I don't, however, see that as a failing. I'm merely saying if people want sex with other people they shouldn't be in a monogamous relationship. The fact that people suffer from delusions isn't a cause for judgement, it's a cause for compassion. I'm not sure how monogamy is an inspiration, and for whom.

Emmz: I agree, what society expects and our behaviour are two completely different things, but how do we resolve that realistically?

Study the French. Just kidding. If we had mature expectations of the nature of relationships then many would engage in a mature dialogue with their partners, but alas...

And that's my point. We should be honest.

Black and white thinking again. Why do you assume it means a lack of love for you? Why do you assume that it means the partner would even want to leave? And as for the last statement, you can never be sure its never happened to you. Want to know why? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIE!

Maybe I am black and white, I'm not sure. Sometimes I think things have a logical conclusion, perhaps that's black and white. I assume it means lack of love because if I love somebody, I love them. I cherish them, think of their needs, want their happiness, want them to be free from suffering. Cheating on them doesn't fit into that, it's contradictory to my definition of love.

I don't know for sure if I've been cheated on, like you say. But I'm a pretty spot-on judge of character and I can see through people's shit, so if I had been cheated on, I'd have a good idea.

Emmz what part of my argument confuses you?

Emmz: But I do think desire, or uncontrolled desire is a delusion.

The definition of desire is: 'A false belief that persists even when a person has evidence that the belief is not true.' or 'an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary'.

The definiton of desire is: 'the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state' or 'to feel for, want strongly'

Now how can one be delusional about a strong feeling or want for something?

And why should someone necessarily want to control a natural desire as attraction between two consenting adults? As long as people are responsible for their health, emotionally and physically I see no reason to have to deny oneself an experience once the desire is there.


Emmz: I'm not convinced it's society that moulds us into who we are. I'm not a product of my societal constraints.

Sure we are. We are molded by cultural, religious factors. We are molded by our education, our family, hell we are even molded by the media.

Emmz: I also do not think society is a governing factor in the guilt people feel for cheating (outside of nonomic relationships). I posit it is we who feel guilt because we have perhaps gone against our own values, or broken our own moral code. If society's pressures were that endemic we wouldn't have affairs, let alone feel guilty about them.

You may find people are forced to feel guilty about BEING HONEST about their most natural of urges, not the desirable act itself. Its the only reason why we lie. You know if we engage in something we really enjoyed we may feel regret at the outcome if there are negative consequences but not necessarily guilt. Its society that forces the lie. Why do you think Clinton lied over and over again about a behaviour he was willing to commit over and over again.

Emmz: If one is in a nonomic relationship then no deceit takes place. If one is in a monogamous relationship then a "straying partner" is acting in a deceitful way. It's not the fear of being reprimanded that causes the strayer to lie, it's the nature of deceptive behaviour which makes them lie.

And you know this how? I have 'strayed' as you put it, being in a relationship and once with a married man. I didn't regret a thing about either. But I did experience others trying to make me feel guilty for an experience I utterly enjoyed.

Emmz: Perhaps society does have unrealistic expectations of us, but really, who cares what others think?

I'm inclined to agree but many people do. I am not as dependent on society or community as many others are so I can afford to ignore it, this isn't so for many others. Its called scandal. Its the reason why Cathrine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy kept their romance secret for years and years. When a man hides his porn mags in the garage it is because he doesn't want to hear the continuous yip coming from his wife. Otherwise he would just keep them in the draw by the bed...on top of the bible.

E: We certainly don't live our lives by what conformities are set upon us

Yes we do. I would venture to say that 80% of the world does this all the time. You are fooling yourself or simply naive if you believe otherwise. People lie about their desire to cheat because they fear the response from a partner who is naive enough to believe no other desires exist because they are not meant to exist as society dictates once on marries or what-have-you

E: Or do you think that it's that partner's failing for believing in the understanding most people have of monogamy.

I am not sure if most people do have that understanding. There are many societies where it is understood that a man is going to sleep with more than one woman whether he is married or not. In france it is considered quite normal for a married man to have a mistress. But, to answer your question, I think that infidelity is blown out of proportion,the jealousy and hurt is carried by the one who carried the 'ideal'. People change and we should expect that they will change. We cannot assume that a man who loves a woman and only wants to sleep with her will not after some time change. Its life. He may love a woman deeply but still want to experience something different. What's wrong with that?

E: The fact that people suffer from delusions isn't a cause for judgement, it's a cause for compassion

What an arrogant statement. You really need to explain your use of the word delusion in the context of this topic and why you feel the need to have compassion for people who simply want to enjoy themselves.

E: I'm merely saying if people want sex with other people they shouldn't be in a monogamous relationship.

Its not as if people plan out their affairs. You marry one day, pledge monogamy, believe it at the time...and then one day you may feel deeply for another experience, it doesn't mean you want to give up the original relationship.

E: I'm not sure how monogamy is an inspiration, and for whom.

You wouldn't. You don't seem to have experienced such a strong erotic desire...hence being blind-sighted ergo you don't understand being so inspired towards someone that monogamy becomes something outside of duty. Your not thinking duty because all your desire is wrapped up in the one who can keep you...'strung out' on them alone. Very few people are capable of creating that but I am happy I have experienced it on a few occasions.

E: I agree, what society expects and our behaviour are two completely different things, but how do we resolve that realistically?

By growing up.

If I see a guy I like with another girl I want to go rip her eyes out...

If I see a guy I like with another girl I want to go rip her eyes out...

ouch:fright:

lucysnow, I believe you're using quite emotive language in this thread. Calling me arrogant and naive isn't really making your point, it's just shitslingging, so with that I'll thank you wholeheartedly for the conversation but I'll leave it to others to discourse with you if they so choose. Thanks, EmmZ X

visceral_instinct: If I see a guy I like with another girl I want to go rip her eyes out...

Ahh, how healthy, loving and mature. Why not simply tattoo your name on his penis so everyone knows to whom he belongs. Or better yet you can place a chip inside sending out a signal every time he has a hard on when you are not in his presence.

Emmz: Very well if you cannot respond to the post. Being unable to explain your use of language ie delusions or being unable to justify your feelings of compassion where it is unnecessary (a show of arrogance) and simply fleeing the thread when someone points out an opinion as showing naivety is all part and parcel of discourse...get used to it. I suspect you are just too young to really know anything about the subject anyway.

Jealousy can be perceived as inappropriate, but what are you going to do if you're jealous ? You can't just turn it off... :shrug:

Enmos, I agree. Its not so much the feeling of jealousy but what it can make us do or become, yet its a natural response to many situations. Someone can feel jealous of their partners best friends or success or by the attention they receive (jealousy doesnt only present itself because of infidelity) but is it appropriate to allow ones jealousy to rule ones behaviour. Perhaps it would be more interesting to consider the root of this insidious emotion, I believe jealousy reveals more about the person feeling it than the person we believe has stirred, perhaps unwittingly, said emotion. Its a feeling we have to work out for ourselves but usually we try and control or manipulate another thinking it will erase our feelings or we blame the other for having the feeling. Its almost like not taking ownership for our emotions and make someone else responsible for it. I cannot remember a single time that jealousy ever worked out in my favor. Anytime I have ever acted out of jealousy I felt the fool. It makes one terribly undignified, it leaves a bitter taste behind and perverts our actions, jealousy is ugly. Jealousy is a form of envy, its a signal that we are vulnerable, threatened and insecure, filled with self-doubt. Jealousy takes our personal power away and hands it over to outside forces.

Enmos, I agree. Its not so much the feeling of jealousy but what it can make us do or become, yet its a natural response to many situations. Someone can feel jealous of their partners best friends or success or by the attention they receive (jealousy doesnt only present itself because of infidelity) but is it appropriate to allow ones jealousy to rule ones behaviour. Perhaps it would be more interesting to consider the root of this insidious emotion, I believe jealousy reveals more about the person feeling it than the person we believe has stirred, perhaps unwittingly, said emotion. Its a feeling we have to work out for ourselves but usually we try and control or manipulate another thinking it will erase our feelings or we blame the other for having the feeling. Its almost like not taking ownership for our emotions and make someone else responsible for it. I cannot remember a single time that jealousy ever worked out in my favor. Anytime I have ever acted out of jealousy I felt the fool. It makes one terribly undignified, it leaves a bitter taste behind and perverts our actions, jealousy is ugly. Jealousy is a form of envy, its a signal that we are vulnerable, threatened and insecure, filled with self-doubt. Jealousy takes our personal power away and hands it over to outside forces.

Yes, I think the real question is "Is acting on sexual jealousy inappropriate?".
Acting on jealousy will mean engaging in a number of possible inappropriate sorts of behavior, such as sneering, 'looking for a fight' or, worse, killing people.
I think the inappropriateness of the resulting behavior is also, mostly, reversely proportional to the inappropriateness of the cause of jealousy.

Can you change the post please? I edited a good deal of it.

Enmos: I think the inappropriateness of the resulting behavior is reversely proportional to the cause of jealousy.

Not necessarily. Haven't you heard of the guy who hits his girlfriend for talking to someone else?

Can you change the post please? I edited a good deal of it.

Enmos: I think the inappropriateness of the resulting behavior is reversely proportional to the cause of jealousy.

Not necessarily. Haven't you heard of the guy who hits his girlfriend for talking to someone else?

I changed your quote.
I also edited my post ;)

Well, in the example you gave the cause is not inappropriate at all.
So any behavior as a result of jealousy would be inappropriate.

Well what is an appropriate way to show jealousy outside of telling someone you feel jealous and why? I mean if it really really is unacceptable to know that the person you love is having a fling or affair or whatever then there are only two options, leave or try and manipulate them into behaving differently.

Well what is an appropriate way to show jealousy outside of telling someone you feel jealous and why? I mean if it really really is unacceptable to know that the person you love is having a fling or affair or whatever then there are only two options, leave or try and manipulate them into behaving differently.

Well.. hmm..
You agree with what I wrote, right ? I can't explain your post in any other way.

"Emmz: Very well if you cannot respond to the post. Being unable to explain your use of language ie delusions or being unable to justify your feelings of compassion where it is unnecessary (a show of arrogance) and simply fleeing the thread when someone points out an opinion as showing naivety is all part and parcel of discourse...get used to it. I suspect you are just too young to really know anything about the subject anyway." - Lucysnow

I'm sorry but do you even know what you aqre talking about here? As I have seen in other posts EmmZ is Buddhist so most of the references to such as delusions are quite correct. There are five main delusions according to Buddhist belief. Desire is one of the delusions as it is a concept to a being wanting something else. Desire can be said to most things but nowadays we have simpler words for it. A child may want an ice cream or desire an ice cream but it's not a thing over love and lust it's just a concept as to something that can be obtained.

Most people feel that they can be with one person forever, but after a while things start to change. Does that mean they have the right to have an affair? Many feelings can cause problems that just overrule senses. Such as envy, "If I see a guy I like with another girl I want to go rip her eyes out..." - visceral_instinct. This sort of thing is what can drive people to doing something stupid. Thoughts born from emotion can often have disasterous effects, but it is up to the person who has those thoughts to decide how to act upon them.

Enmos: Well if you agree that the only appropriate way of showing ones jealousy is by telling the person you feel jealous and why I guess we do agree, but I disagree that jealousy is always proportionate to whatever action another takes. We have no rights over other's, if they behave in a way we don't like then we should leave or accept it and deal with ourselves. We don't have ownership over anothers desire or body simply because we love them.

Ravosk: I am not a buddhist so her references are meaningless and she fails to describe her use of the word 'delusions' in the context of this argument. This isn't a discussion on buddhism vis a vis jealousy and sexual inappropriatness. If she cannot discuss something outside of her buddhist references then she needs to stay in religion or eastern philosophy forum.

"Most people feel that they can be with one person forever, but after a while things start to change. Does that mean they have the right to have an affair?

If that is what they choose to do, obviously the answer is yes. Are you in the camp of branding the one we love? Is love a form of slavery?


"Many feelings can cause problems that just overrule senses. Such as envy, "If I see a guy I like with another girl I want to go rip her eyes out..." - visceral_instinct. This sort of thing is what can drive people to doing something stupid. Thoughts born from emotion can often have disasterous effects, but it is up to the person who has those thoughts to decide how to act upon them."

Well that's what I answered in my post more or less isn't it.

Well if you agree that the only appropriate way of showing ones jealousy is by telling the person you feel jealous and why I guess we do agree, but I disagree that jealousy is always proportionate to whatever action another takes. We have no rights over other's, if they behave in a way we don't like then we should leave or accept it and deal with ourselves. We don't have ownership over anothers desire or body simply because we love them.

I guess we agree at least for the most part.

What if you're jealous of the neighbor because he bought that car you like so much.
What if you scratch his car because you're so jealous ?

The neighbor didn't do anything inappropriate by buying that car.
You did by scratching it.
Scratching it was disproportional behavior.

If the neighbor purposely bought precisely that car because he knows you like it but cannot buy it, and he constantly lets you know this. Then acting on your jealousy is appropriate to an extent.
You can make some insulting remarks about something he owns or about one of his family members maybe (lol). That would not be disproportional.

Jealousy may be a misquided perception of mal-intention by someone else.

Ravosk: I am not a buddhist so her references are meaningless and she fails to describe her use of the word 'delusions' in the context of this argument. This isn't a discussion on buddhism vis a vis jealousy and sexual inappropriatness. If she cannot discuss something outside of her buddhist references then she needs to stay in religion or eastern philosophy forum.

But strangely enough this isnt just a matter of religion. Obviously a persons religion can effect their actions and how they view others actions. I see Buddhism more as a way of mind than a religion as it is the concepts that one takes into account. Like when I seen the posts here you seemed to be trying to find fault with what EmmZ had said. I don't know if this is the case but, surely not only her beliefs could have caused her to say the things she has.

It's also a matter of accepting what other people have to say regardless of religion. Just because they are a different religion and see things in a slightly different light, a persons feelings may be the same. And it's not outside of buddhist references. It's using her knowledge to add to the whole idea of this arguement. Desire is just a word, many people will see it as a thing close to love as it is seen as a strong word but people can also see it as what it actually means. It is just another word for want.

Enmos: Jealousy may be a misquided perception of mal-intention by someone else.

Or not. You are assuming people have affairs to deliberately hurt their partner.

"What if you're jealous of the neighbor because he bought that car you like so much.
What if you scratch his car because you're so jealous ?"

Well that would be inappropriate wouldn't it and a reflection on you not the neighbor.

"If the neighbor purposely bought precisely that car because he knows you like it but cannot buy it, and he constantly lets you know this. Then acting on your jealousy is appropriate to an extent."

Only if you are a psychotic with a personality disorder. Think about your argument for a moment and see how absolutely insane and narcissistic it sounds. I don't think you really believe that you have the right to aggress someone simply because they chose to do with themselves or their money what free will dictates.

"You can make some insulting remarks about something he owns or about one of his family members maybe (lol). That would not be disproportional"

And who would look like the asshole? Who would look out of control? Who is the one reacting without grace or dignity?

But strangely enough this isnt just a matter of religion. Obviously a persons religion can effect their actions and how they view others actions. I see Buddhism more as a way of mind than a religion as it is the concepts that one takes into account. Like when I seen the posts here you seemed to be trying to find fault with what EmmZ had said. I don't know if this is the case but, surely not only her beliefs could have caused her to say the things she has.

It's also a matter of accepting what other people have to say regardless of religion. Just because they are a different religion and see things in a slightly different light, a persons feelings may be the same. And it's not outside of buddhist references. It's using her knowledge to add to the whole idea of this arguement. Desire is just a word, many people will see it as a thing close to love as it is seen as a strong word but people can also see it as what it actually means. It is just another word for want.

Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want.

I'm not saying whether anyone elses opinions are right or wrong as it's a persons own perceptions that do that. We cannot really say that it is right for someone to have an affair. And I'm not saying that if you are with someone they are your property. But there should be some values based on the realtionship as otherwise why would a couple be together if they could just have sex?

"Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want." - Enmos

Not so. Desire can be percepted to mean as such but it is something that can be obtained. As in a man can desire a job. All that has to be done is to try.

Enmos: Jealousy may be a misquided perception of mal-intention by someone else.

Or not. You are assuming people have affairs to deliberately hurt their partner.

No, I'm saying that's what someone that is jealous may perceive. Misguided perception.

Well that would be inappropriate wouldn't it and a reflection on you not the neighbor.
Of course. That's what jealousy is about, isn't it ? It's about you, not the person or thing you're jealous about.

Only if you are a psychotic with a personality disorder. Think about your argument for a moment and see how absolutely insane and narcissistic it sounds. I don't think you really believe that you have the right to aggress someone simply because they chose to do with themselves or their money what free will dictates.
I think you misread somewhere. The neighbor was being an asshole by playing on your jealousy, which he was well aware of.

And who would look like the asshole? Who would look out of control? Who is the one reacting without grace or dignity?
Both. But that's not the point.
The point is what's proportional.

"Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want." - Enmos

Not so. Desire can be percepted to mean as such but it is something that can be obtained. As in a man can desire a job. All that has to be done is to try.

Ok, maybe I could have worded it better.

'Desire' can mean what I said earlier, and is often used that way.
Desire is often connected to a 'great want'.

Ravosk: But strangely enough this isnt just a matter of religion. Obviously a persons religion can effect their actions and how they view others actions. I see Buddhism more as a way of mind than a religion as it is the concepts that one takes into account. Like when I seen the posts here you seemed to be trying to find fault with what EmmZ had said. I don't know if this is the case but, surely not only her beliefs could have caused her to say the things she has.

I haven't a clue as what forms her views. Buddhism is irrelevant to this topic and yes I do find fault with her point of view as she hasn't really elaborated on points I wanted her to clarify.

"It's also a matter of accepting what other people have to say regardless of religion. Just because they are a different religion and see things in a slightly different light, a persons feelings may be the same. And it's not outside of buddhist references. It's using her knowledge to add to the whole idea of this arguement. Desire is just a word, many people will see it as a thing close to love as it is seen as a strong word but people can also see it as what it actually means. It is just another word for want."

This is a debate-discussion isn't it? We are going to have different views, we are also going to be challenged about our views. You brought up religion she hasn't said anything to make me think she was buddhist or anything else. She didn't discuss it. Desire being equivilant to want...no argument there. I am the one who is saying love is more than sexual fidelity.

ravosk
I was talking about one particular interpretation of 'desire'. And it is the one I most associate it with. So my interpretation may be a bit personal.

Main Entry: desire
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: A strong wanting of what promises enjoyment or pleasure.
Synonyms: appetence, appetency, appetite, craving, hunger, itch, longing, lust, thirst, wish, yearning, yen

---

long·ing
–noun
1. strong, persistent desire or craving, esp. for something unattainable or distant: filled with longing for home.

I'm just saying that peoples wants are effected by many aspects of their life. As one person could easily have multiple relationships and it not feel wrong to them. Others see a relationship as a commitment to the one they are with and wouldn't want to break the trust they had by having an affair. This could be argued all day but ultimately everyone is different and will see things in a different way. As far as my own experience goes there are three conceptual realities in accordance to right and wrong....White Grey and Black as there always has to be a middle ground. And it is a persons choices that define the structure of their ideals

Ravosk: Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want.

Not necessarily. We may desire from afar but if we're sleeping with it it can hardly be judged as out of reach. If the want is unrealistic then there would be no reason for jealousy as their would be no threat.

"But there should be some values based on the realtionship as otherwise why would a couple be together if they could just have sex?"

Now you have my point. Values shared can be more than where one chooses to rub their loins or with whom. When I mentioned Simone and Satre who stayed together some 51yrs in an open relationship it was to illustrate that there can be a bond greater than sexual fidelity. In their case they shared intellectual pursuits together, creative pursuits and were each other's best friends as well as lovers.

Fair enough Enmos, but I was merely stating that a persons desire is not always that far out of reach. It may even be something fairly simple.

Ok Enmos I think we agree on most points here. I thought you were using those examples literally to illustrate how appropriate they were.

Fair enough Enmos, but I was merely stating that a persons desire is not always that far out of reach. It may even be something fairly simple.

Ah yea.. I was getting a bit overboard on definitions :o

Ok Enmos I think we agree on most points here. I thought you were using those examples literally to illustrate how appropriate they were.

Heh.. no just hypotheticals :)

"Ravosk: Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want."

I wasn't the one who said this.

And in answer to the latter statement. If you chose to be in a commited relationship, not a loose relationship, then the idea of infidelity is wrong. As you have both commited yourselves into a relationship with each other.

"Ravosk: Desire implicates the something that is wanted is out of reach of difficult to get though. It's mostly an unrealistic want."

I wasn't the one who said this.

Uhm no, that was me. I was getting a bit overboard on definitions.

o·ver·board
—Idiom
2. go overboard, to go to extremes, esp. in regard to approval or disapproval of a person or thing

;)

Oh right.. you were talking to Lucy. Sorry.

And in answer to the latter statement. If you chose to be in a commited relationship, not a loose relationship, then the idea of infidelity is wrong. As you have both commited yourselves into a relationship with each other.
True.

Ravosk: And in answer to the latter statement. If you chose to be in a commited relationship, not a loose relationship, then the idea of infidelity is wrong. As you have both commited yourselves into a relationship with each other.

So commitment is defined by sexual fidelity and nothing else? If a man is in a committed relationship and sleepa with a hooker for an hour one night then he is no longer committed to the relationship with his wife of 20 years?

Sorry, I'm a primitive animal. It's fidelity or abandonment.

Hey! Darwin's rules, not mine.

If he is looking for a hooker then clearly he is looking to have a brief realtionship that won't effect his relationship with his wife. This can often take a lot more thought than just falling for someone else. Fair enough he doesn't want to get into another relationship but still. And if he feels that he has to go to a hooker then there is clearly something not quite right with the commitment as otherwise would he not be able to talk to his wife? And would there be anything stopping him doing it again aftwerwards? After all he has done it once.

Ravosk: If he is looking for a hooker then clearly he is looking to have a brief realtionship that won't effect his relationship with his wife.

So hookers are ok but having a mistress isn't?

R: This can often take a lot more thought than just falling for someone else.

I agree.

R: Fair enough he doesn't want to get into another relationship but still.

R: And if he feels that he has to go to a hooker then there is clearly something not quite right with the commitment as otherwise would he not be able to talk to his wife?

Why does it mean there is a problem with the commitment? Maybe he likes blowjobs and his wife doesn't like giving them. Maybe he was having a moment he'll soon forget about. What does being able to talk to ones wife have to do with hookers? Granted he doesn't have to talk to the hooker. But why does his desire mean his wife is doing something wrong? Maybe she's sexy, smart, beautiful and an incredible partner...yet he sometimes desires variety. Its not a reflection on her as a partner.

R: And would there be anything stopping him doing it again aftwerwards? After all he has done it once.

No there isn't, that's correct, but it doesn't mean the act directly threatens the relationship.

If he is looking for a hooker then clearly he is looking to have a brief realtionship that won't effect his relationship with his wife. This can often take a lot more thought than just falling for someone else. Fair enough he doesn't want to get into another relationship but still. And if he feels that he has to go to a hooker then there is clearly something not quite right with the commitment as otherwise would he not be able to talk to his wife? And would there be anything stopping him doing it again aftwerwards? After all he has done it once.

I tend to agree with your point about repetitive behaviour. Once a person has engaged in sex outside of a monogamous relationship there is a greater chance of them doing it again. After all our mind is just a collection of habits. We do tend to behave in ways we are familiar with. It's been said many times how we are creatures of habit.

"So hookers are ok but having a mistress isn't?" - Lucy Snow

You clearly do not get the point do you? A long term affair is different to bedding a hooker. And even still its wrong. I was stating that it would be less of a weight on someones conscience, to bed a hooker rather than having a regular mistress.

You seem to have your head so far up your own ass that you don't actually pay attention to what is said.

Spencer and Hepburn; the great romantic love hollywood affair! Does the phrase 'in the closet' sound familiar?

If you want to keep the house, the car, the job and the 2.5 kids better keep quiet about your petite charades. The status quo must be maintained or the whole political edifice/artifice will come crashing down around your shoulders.

ravosk: You clearly do not get the point do you? A long term affair is different to bedding a hooker. And even still its wrong. I was stating that it would be less of a weight on someones conscience, to bed a hooker rather than having a regular mistress.
You seem to have your head so far up your own ass that you don't actually pay attention to what is said.

What makes you think it would bother someone's conscience either way? If infidelity is wrong its wrong right, whether one does so for an hour or for a few years. You say its wrong but its only considered wrong for you. The question is whether sexual jealousy is APPROPRIATE OR NOT! Whether it serves someone given that many people do, have and will continue to go outside a relationship. Perhaps if you had read the opening question you wouldn't have YOUR head stuck so far up MY ass.

Sniffy: Spencer and Hepburn; the great romantic love hollywood affair! Does the phrase 'in the closet' sound familiar?

I'm not sure how much in the closet it was as far as hollywood was concerned but it was definitely kept out of the press. Can you imagine they starred in so many films together his wife must have known, but he was a catholic (as well as his wife) and didn't want to leave nor hurt his family BUT he couldn't live without Cathrine whom towards he had a deeper emotional and intellectual bond.
cathrine loved him with everything she had as she later said and had a really amazing partner...even though he was married.

Sniffy: If you want to keep the house, the car, the job and the 2.5 kids better keep quiet about your petite charades. The status quo must be maintained or the whole political edifice/artifice will come crashing down around your shoulders.

Good point. Isn't it interesting that a partner can be penalized in the courts for havinig an affair? Its the reason why people lie isn't it? People are penalized for their desires. If they choose to divorce to be with another then the courts penalize and if they want to stay their spouse can have that alimony payment hanging over the head.

Lucy: I'm pretty sure that Katherine Hepburn was a lesbian and that Tracy helped keep the lid on this fact in exchange for cover for his lifestyle which didn't fit the Catholic family man image. Hollywood has maintained such charades for years and continues to do so with todays 'stars'. It is interesting to scrape at this veneer and have a good peep at 'what lies beneath' because I believe it reflects society generally. A high shine is easily tarnished.

I have never heard of Hepburn being a lesbian. You will have to offer a little proof there. Why would Tracy need to enter into an affair with a woman who is a lesbian? Doesn't make any sense. It was the affair that was kept silent not sexual orientation. Even back then Hollywood was quite liberal about bisexuality and homosexuality within its circles, only keeping things out of the press for obvious reasons. Dietrich, Crawford, and Flynn were bisexual and it wasn't a secret in Hollywood.

Whats the role of co-dependency in such relationships?

Cole and Linda Porter come to mind.

Huh? You should elaborate on what you mean by co-dependency

Huh? You should elaborate on what you mean by co-dependency

From wiki

A "codependent" is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A "codependent" is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The "codependent" party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.

SAM thats a very black view of how sexual relationships generally work

I know the definition but co-dependency in terms of what

SAM thats a very black view of how sexual relationships generally work

Its not specific to sexual relationships and its pop psy in many cases, but I found it an interesting consideration while watching De-lovely; did Linda Porter really love Cole Porter? Is that why she looked away from his predilection for young men? Or was it because she had previously been in a physically abusive relationship and was conditioned to abuse, hence reconciled herself to her husbands growing lack of attraction towards herself as Well, nobody's perfect.

Maybe she just didn't care, maybe she didn't want the scandal of divorce, maybe she liked the money....who knows

Yup, who knows? Its hard to know what motivates the people to look the other way.

Well why say 'look away'? Maybe they are looking directly at it and there are other aspects of the relationship which over-ride the sexual predilictions. Again its the assumption that sexual fidelity is the most important aspect of a relationship when clearly in many marriages its not.

Katherine Hepburn reference:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/13/earlyshow/leisure/books/main2087474.shtml

"Absolutely," Mann answered. "But at the same time, sex itself was never a real defining aspect of any relationship in her life, whether with men or with women. It was really about, for her, she found she preferred the companionship of women and the nurturance of women, but her great passions, even if they didn't include sex, were always reserved for men."

This doesn't prove her to be a lesbian, the most you can say is she was open to bisexuality, it takes nothing away from what turned out to be a life long relationship with Tracy, the most important love relationship in her life.

The article also says:

"You are reluctant to call her a lesbian," Storm pointed out, "but is it possible these relationships were sexual in nature?"

"It's certainly possible," Mann responded, "but contemporary labels just don't — they're not helpful in understanding historical figures, and certainly not someone as individual as Katharine Hepburn."

Possible! This means he isn't quite certain.

I think the idea of exclusive sexual preferences is more a Puritan concept than an actual one.

The article also says:

"You are reluctant to call her a lesbian," Storm pointed out, "but is it possible these relationships were sexual in nature?"

"It's certainly possible," Mann responded, "but contemporary labels just don't — they're not helpful in understanding historical figures, and certainly not someone as individual as Katharine Hepburn."

Possible! This means he isn't quite certain.

Litigation, litigation!

Doesn't matter now...anyway it only makes her more 'wildly famous'

In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?

So when was this 'age' when people were not having casual sex? Lets not kid ourselves here!

"What makes you think it would bother someone's conscience either way? If infidelity is wrong its wrong right, whether one does so for an hour or for a few years. You say its wrong but its only considered wrong for you. The question is whether sexual jealousy is APPROPRIATE OR NOT! Whether it serves someone given that many people do, have and will continue to go outside a relationship." - lucysnow

What are you talking about? Clearly the whole point of this post kind of relies on morals. And morals are what guide people. Whether it is appropriate or not also relies on a persons morals. They would consider it wrong if they have morals and wouldn't if they were immoral.

"Perhaps if you had read the opening question you wouldn't have YOUR head stuck so far up MY ass." - lucysnow

This makes no sense! If this was true then wouldn't I be agreeing with you as I would be a brown-noser? Think before you type you Jack of Clubs.

Ravosk: This makes no sense! If this was true then wouldn't I be agreeing with you as I would be a brown-noser?

No it would make you a little shit.

Now look here doodoo why don't you go and read Casanova's memoirs it would do you good. Better yet go educate yourself at www.sexualfables.com


"What are you talking about? Clearly the whole point of this post kind of relies on morals. And morals are what guide people. Whether it is appropriate or not also relies on a persons morals. They would consider it wrong if they have morals and wouldn't if they were"

What a boring simpleton you are. You and your infantile idealistic morals would suck the scent from a rose and rob the ocean of its breeze. Puritans like yourself despise sensuality, romance but most of all seduction. It bothers you that others can fullfill their desires doesn't it? You sound fearful. You would shackle the loins if you could wouldn't you? Wild hot passionate desire would leave you impotent. I hope you take your morals with you next time you jack off, the next time you look upon a naked body but most importantly the next time so and so pulls that dildo from your ass.

Infantile idealistic morals? Everyone has some sort of morals as towhich they base their life around. And besides, I'm not saying that I am perfect and always right. Just that in order to say whether sexual jealousy is appropriate or not depends on the person considering it. Is this not why it is in the philosophy section? Everyone abides by their own sense of right and wrong. Maybe for some it is OK to have multiple partners, or have an affair or whatever. I've just stated my opinion.

"Puritans like yourself despise sensuality, romance but most of all seduction. It bothers you that others can fullfill their desires doesn't it?" - LS

As for that load of bollocks. How can you judge what a person is like by what they say on a forum? As for your opinion on my sex life, who gives a crap? Maybe I'm a 36 yr old who has never made it with a woman, maybe I lost my virginity at 14. What difference does any of that stuff make?

I seem to be trying to piss you off. I'm not its just a natural occurance.

Ravosk: This makes no sense! If this was true then wouldn't I be agreeing with you as I would be a brown-noser?

No it would make you a little shit.

Now look here doodoo why don't you go and read Casanova's memoirs it would do you good. Better yet go educate yourself at www.sexualfables.com


"What are you talking about? Clearly the whole point of this post kind of relies on morals. And morals are what guide people. Whether it is appropriate or not also relies on a persons morals. They would consider it wrong if they have morals and wouldn't if they were"

What a boring simpleton you are. You and your infantile idealistic morals would suck the scent from a rose and rob the ocean of its breeze. Puritans like yourself despise sensuality, romance but most of all seduction. It bothers you that others can fullfill their desires doesn't it? You sound fearful. You would shackle the loins if you could wouldn't you? Wild hot passionate desire would leave you impotent. I hope you take your morals with you next time you jack off, the next time you look upon a naked body but most importantly the next time so and so pulls that dildo from your ass.


Do you think people who do not feel a desire to explore their sexuality with several people are lacking?

Is any kind of jealousy inappropriate?

Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....

So one can be sexually jealous even if one knows better...

Is any kind of jealousy inappropriate?

Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....

So one can be sexually jealous even if one knows better...

Profound enough for no-one else to have realised. That makes a lot of sense.

Sam: Do you think people who do not feel a desire to explore their sexuality with several people are lacking?

If you had read my posts you would see that the answer is obviously not.

Syzygys: Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....

This can be said true for every feeling known to man

Ravosk: As for that load of bollocks. How can you judge what a person is like by what they say on a forum? As for your opinion on my sex life, who gives a crap? Maybe I'm a 36 yr old who has never made it with a woman, maybe I lost my virginity at 14. What difference does any of that stuff make? I seem to be trying to piss you off. I'm not its just a natural occurance.

Whatever

This can be said true for every feeling known to man

That's why I said silly question...

BTW baby boomers were more a product of post ww2 than the hippy movement
*************
M*W: Being a boomer myself, I can tell you that boomers and hippies are of the same generation.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"Every dogma has its day." ~ Israel Zangwill

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"We must always change, renew, rejuvenate ourselves; otherwise we harden." ~ Johann von Goethe, 1749-1832, German Poet and Writer

Syzygys: That's why I said silly question...

But Sam's question doesn't negate investigation and thought, your response does. Pointing out the obvious doesn't make the statement profound as Ravosk deems it to be but simply prosaic at best.

Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy? Where is the exploration of ideas? To simply say to do this is immoral not to do this is moral, if one does that it's because they have no morals, if they refrain they do, shows no philosophy nor investigation of the topic at all. To think all matters of humanity can be shoved into neat little packages or categories as right or wrong, black and white, good and bad is to completely miss the multifarious nuances of human experience with its many shades of grey. Its to completely overlook the dyanmics of ephemeral passion, commitment, love, seduction and sexual adventure. Not to mention to underestimate the power of sex and longing. This is why I told the turd to read Casanova's memoirs as he philosohpically explores these issues and more.

An example of a philosophical approach: Is jealousy a sign of love or simply egoism? Is jealousy a form of resentment? How does jealousy serve us? If so how? What is a marriage anyway? Does marriage imply ownership of ones partner? Why is infidelity wrong? Is it because it hurts? Many things hurt. etc.

Or

Are human beings designed towards monogamous relationships? Is it natural or a function of religion and culture? Is man more fulfilled through monogamy? Does it serve society at large while negating the needs of the individual? Is it possible that one can love one and still desire another? etc.

Left to the 'wisdom' of a few of you here Somerset Maugham's 'Painted Veil' and Edith Wharton's 'Age of Innocence' would amount to nothing more than two pages of she was married, she had an affair, he was good, he was hurt, therefore she was immoral, it was wrong. He was married, he desired another woman, he'd be bad save he didn't leave. They desired, I have compassion for them and other such mundane, dull inanities. Really all that out-of-a-box of cereal wisdom sounds like Dr. Phil or Oprah and god how it dulls the mind.

And then one asks why I find these utterances of morality unsophisticated and infantile.

I never said that there was only right or wrong. This argument is spurred on by each person's point of view. There are always shades of grey, and when we a forced to make decisions we can find ourselves in a difficult position as an action can have consequences.

"Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy?" - Lucy Snow
If this wasn't a philosophical question then why the hell is it in the philosophy section?

Its the responses that made the discussion unphilosophical. An unwillingness to ask questions beyond this is right and this is wrong. If you go back and check your posts you will find you did write at one point cheating is wrong, its a matter of morality, if the person was moral they wouldn't do it etc.

There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement.

"Its the responses that made the discussion unphilosophical. An unwillingness to ask questions beyond this is right and this is wrong. If you go back and check your posts you will find you did write at one point cheating is wrong, its a matter of morality, if the person was moral they wouldn't do it etc.

There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement." - Lucysnow

Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed.

Ravosk:
Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed

Are morals something rigid, concrete and something everyone agrees on? Can people hold a different criteria for what is considered moral? For some people it is immoral to kill a killer or a thief, to others it may be justice. To some it may be that having an affair is immoral, for others it would be immoral to deny yourself as life is short. In the way you express yourself there is a de facto response, for example you imply the man who stole to feed his family is still 'immoral' because you add this " The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out". He could steal and still be moral. It assumes that the act of stealing is de facto immoral, and that he would therefore feel badly about stealing and if he didn't he would be immoral (its in the language you use). Maybe he feels justified. Why is it not that the system which keeps him impoverished is immoral? Why is it not that societies expectations of marriage or fidelity isn't to blame and simply designed to stifle someone's sexual freedom? You still though, give no basis for you ideas of morality? How was it formed? Where does it come from? You speak of morality as if it were contained in a book of law.

In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?

Sam, are you going to vote? Where do you fall in all of this?

Sam, are you going to vote? Where do you fall in all of this?

I'm a serial monogamist. I just wanted to know if I'm still in the fold. :D

I think most of the sexual jealousy I've ever had is being jealous of those getting some while I'm not. ;)
Seriously, I think I would be more jealous of a platonic emotional affair than a sexual who cares one. I would be angry both ways, but I would be more upset over him loving someone.

"Are morals something rigid, concrete and something everyone agrees on? Can people hold a different criteria for what is considered moral? For some people it is immoral to kill a killer or a thief, to others it may be justice. To some it may be that having an affair is immoral, for others it would be immoral to deny yourself as life is short. In the way you express yourself there is a de facto response, for example you imply the man who stole to feed his family is still 'immoral' because you add this " The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out". He could steal and still be moral. It assumes that the act of stealing is de facto immoral, and that he would therefore feel badly about stealing and if he didn't he would be immoral (its in the language you use). Maybe he feels justified. Why is it not that the system which keeps him impoverished is immoral? Why is it not that societies expectations of marriage or fidelity isn't to blame and simply designed to stifle someone's sexual freedom? You still though, give no basis for you ideas of morality? How was it formed? Where does it come from? You speak of morality as if it were contained in a book of law." - Lucysnow

As I've said, I think that morals can change according to circumstances. I don't think that morals are fixed otherwise no one would ever change. There are many events that can change people for better or worse.

And the bit where I said the guy could have been moral but has resorted to stealing I meant that at one point he may have considered it immoral, but as his role is reversed, it could be a grey area or hes in the right as there is no other way.

Ravosk: Okay but where does your idea of morality stem from? What's the basis of the convictions you hold?

Really, I don't know how my brain works. (May seem stupid but I have different influences) I was raised to see right and wrong, and taught not to do wrong. I guess that my idea of morality was influenced by my parents, but I also see things in a different light to them in some cases. I don't know where some of the ideas I have come from or how I even thought them up.

I think that for me a situation has to occur and then I'll decide how I should act. Not based on morals but based on whatever feeling I get there and then.

A very honest answer.

Hey when I'm asked a question I'll answer as honestly as I can. I've had time to think over this anyway.

I've been bored since I finished Uni. And I believe I owed you a proper answer.

Well thanks. This place is more interesting when dialogue includes the investigation of our own ideas as well as those of others. I think your answer is quite typical and I myself could have listed those same influences. Experience is the test though, I mean we can all say to ourselves 'oh I would never do this or that, its outside of my moral compass' na-ni-na-na but life can offer us some pretty difficult or enticing moments. I am not sure if any one of us can be 100% sure how we will react in a number of given situations. We mentally decide what our moral compass is and pretty much stay within those limits but maybe we do so because we are not presented with situations that challenge them. For example I say I will never kill anyone because its wrong, senseless even, but I also have never ever been in a situation where I was faced with that desire or decision; its almost as if its not one of my choices because life has not presented me that particular situation.

Very true. How can a person know how they will react in a situation? They may say that they would do something but there is no telling if they could carry it through.

For me it would be like saying that I'd take a bullet for any of my family. But if they were shot at would I be able to act in that instance. I really don't know. I would hope that I would be able to throw myself in the way. Then again I usually try and defend people and stick up for them, (depending on circumstance obviously).