Exactly what is the moral basis behind sexual fidelity? Almost every human culture advocates the stance that promiscuity by the female is deplorable, immoral. To wit, the male has historically been allowed his natural fevor of wanting to spread his semen around whilst historically the female has been discouraged or even punished from like behaviour. It is only in modern times and with the advent of Christian morality in the subscription of marriage to divinity that the male's promiscuity has been looked at as immoral. So again, what is the moral basis of sexual fidelity, of ascribing immorality to sexual promiscuity? I can just as practically explain the advantagies of one sexual partner at a time as I can multiple sexual partners. Besides, practically is not morality.

It is easy to simplify the issue as having a Christian basis. That the law of chastisty stems from Christianity and that Christianity shaped the notion of sexual infidelity by both partners as being immoral. Now while that is true to an extent in the west, adultery has always been seen as immoral in most societies that had a definition of adultery. Perhaps we ought to look at the issue from a male perspective. What exactly makes us desire to have multiple partners and yet have the female have only one partner in us. One can certainly suggest that our genetic want to ensure maximum genetic passing leads. But is that a basis for morality? Were sex not enjoyable, then perhaps; were sex not representative of more than the simple act of reproduction then perhaps such an argument could be made.

The defenders of categorizing sexual promiscuity as immoral seemingly always argue from the stance that marital infidelity especially costs society. That it costs in human suffering, that it costs in financial suffering. Clearly such a viewpoint is myopic. What of the destruction of the whole notion that sleeping with multiple partners is not immoral? What of the gains in recognizing that the human animal is fundamnetally promiscuous? Sexual fidelity is an invention that strains on the genetic makeup of man. It is by this very reason why safeguards exist in place to advocate such an unnatural standpoint. I can find no reason to not sleep with multiple sexual partners if that is one's desire and even to financially profit from said act if possible. In my judgement, a sexually free society can cure a lot of the ills of now.

Well, all I can see is that your merely redefining things so that morality is an individual issue and therefore there is no moral basis that anyone need heed in order to be restricted to only one partner, or within lawful marriage etc.
Why not tell us why you can find no reason not to sleep with many partners, then tell us why you dont care what other people think.
Then tell us why youd rather go for sexual than personal freedom.(in this case personal freedom is defined as nobody else having the right to tell you what to do and why, except for the usual restrictions on not physically assaulting people.) If one is personally free, surely you can make good decisions about who to sleep with and have sex with whomever you wish. But without the personal freedom, why have a sexually free society?

It is possibly true to say that men in general are better at seeing sex and love in different perspectives whereas females tend to get a liitel more "involved" with their partners.

I think if any one actually lives the promiscuous life he will find as I did in my younger years that life looses it's value in general. A depth of dispair associated with not having real friends and real people in my wardrobe of assests. To bed hop all the way to a state of emotional destitution.

Ahhh but this was my experience, and most men would superficially look at my past with envy until they realise how sad and miserable a life with out fidelity, ( to one self ) can be. Becasue as ones acts with infidelity to others one achieves a reflected state of inner infidelity to one self. And if one has lovers that one does not act unfaithfully towards then are they true lovers in the first instance. The word infidelity implyng a state of betrayal of ones trust.
I don't think fidelity is a moral issue but more as an issue of teh need to discover true values in life. The values of real friendship, respect and trust and most of these applying to oneself.

If you as a man finds the value of your love relegated to the cesspool of rampant promiscurity is it no wonder you find yourself having little value to yourself or others. After all it is your love and the quality of that love that defines you as a person and naught much else.

Just my opinion......

i would think that it has to do with the energy it takes to raise a human child. Parents spend most of there lives raising a child so the family is more important for humans than most species

still cheating is atractive because it increases chances of passing on gens and forgiving a cheating partner actually does the same.

Never look at religion for reasoning for morality, it doesnt work. Religion is the DEVICE used to DELIVER morality, its hardly ever its root cause

Exactly what is the moral basis behind sexual fidelity? Almost every human culture advocates the stance that promiscuity by the female is deplorable, immoral. To wit, the male has historically been allowed his natural fevor of wanting to spread his semen around whilst historically the female has been discouraged or even punished from like behaviour. It is only in modern times and with the advent of Christian morality in the subscription of marriage to divinity that the male's promiscuity has been looked at as immoral. So again, what is the moral basis of sexual fidelity, of ascribing immorality to sexual promiscuity?


Women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children. There is a concern that if the society is to be healthy, women have to be healthy too, as they are the ones bearing children. Promiscuity is a threat to health and social stability, and in women, it has more consequences than in men.
Men are far more "replaceable" than women; there are much much fewer eggs as there are seeds, so eggs have a higher value and must be more protected. This, by protecting the carrier of the eggs, the woman.

Sure, this ancient mechanism seems outdated once birth control is introduced. But in this vein, we could relativitze just about anything.
But as it is, humans *need* standards, or the society collapses. These standards may not have a "rational" basis, yet they have their importance of simply being there.

RosaMagika: You know its probably the OPOSITE of that. Origionally we probably lived in groups like a lion pride

one male and a small group of females because that would offer the greatest chance of everyone passing on there gens

the females would all help raise the young of the group, might even have been a very small group of men to a larger group of women because then the group would have more protection from preditors and more hunters to gather pray

"One can certainly suggest that our genetic want to ensure maximum genetic passing leads. But is that a basis for morality?"

I suggest that all of morality is in fact based (originally) in biology.

Morality is the code we instituted to protect our collective personal and reproductive well-being.

Sexual conservatism works well for women because it ensures that the heavy investment they will make in their children is worthwhile (i.e., they've chosen a high-quality genetic package to get it started). It is less important for men because they can choose the level of their investment in the offspring. They have the option to exercise the scattershot approach, while women do not.

It is important for men to keep their women chaste because this ensures that whatever investment *they* make will go to their own genetic offspring, and not that of some other male.

So we set up a code of sexual ethics to reinforce this strategy.

Of course, our brains have evolved to the point that many of us can choose individually to reject the reproductive imperative. In which case, there is no reason at all for these individuals *not* to sleep around, except insofar as such behavior does them psychological harm.

I believe that for many women - men less so - sexual promiscuity *does* do psychic harm. Women been programmed to seek out men who will invest in them, emotionally and materially. Giving the goods away to men who aren't invested in them causes many women to devalue themselves. I do not personally know any sexually promiscuous women who have high self-esteem (although some of them must exist). All of the ones I know have a desperate air about them, which they try to remedy by sleeping around, which of course has the opposite effect of what was intended. They use sex to get love, which doesn't work of course, because for men the two aren't necessarily connected.

On the other hand, promiscuity seems positively to feed the male ego, if anything.

maybe it's worth spending a little time on the distinction between "Having sex" and "making love"

Both of course have their place in life and both have their repective values.

havng sex like one has a dinner of burger and fries and making love like sharing the beauty of a sunrise......

Is it possible that there is a moral imperative to learn and appreciate the difference?

a bit like comparing a love story like the film "Ghost" and a cheap porn flick like Lucinda Does Dallas.

I'm sure that people attract to their opposite by the same reason that magnets do.

I think before you can start talking about what religious doctrine imposes what on whom we can start like Rosa and Asguard did...taking into consideration how we may have evovle pre-religion.

Rosa has a good point. Keeping the females safe from disease by not allowing or inhibiting promiscuity does have a significant role in a community. Going by Asguard's take...if we started out as a pride of lions does with several females and one or two males of course you want to limit the interaction of the females to only those of the pride to ensure the legacy of the species assuming the males of the pride are of good breeding stock (the fittest).

I would have to say that all of this makes sense and the evolution of thought and carry through to religious doctrine/law/what have you makes perfect sense. To protect the females from disease and also to alow the males to roam the plains for other qualified females.

Now we are inside a society of thought, emotions, and reason (well hopefully). The general populace has the reasoning whether inspired by religion or not that cheating on your mate is not cool. I am assuming this is because we are supposed to be "above" the urges that animals have to mate with the one who seems the fittest at the time.

So irregardless of whether or not it is looked down upon by a majority of society because it is against any religious ideal, I believe there is a pattern of survival that it all comes from.

It is easy to simplify the issue as having a Christian basis.

I think it is even easier, fountainhead, to simplify the issue as having a deep seated survival basis.

Cheating is not "cool" because it is betrayal.

The problem with modern society is that it tolerates betrayal of any kind.

Forgiveness is regarded as something one can demand, not as a gift anymore.

Lie, steal, kill, cheat, throw an atom bomb -- whatever, you can say "I'm sorry" afterwards and the other person has to accept your apology and act as if things were restored into their original state before the harmful action. -- This is what we are taught.

Sure, one *can* do many things, but whether one *should* do them -- this is a matter of ethics. As it is, modern consumer society teaches us "YOU MUST DO IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT", with the addition "AND YOU MUST ENJOY IT".

How ethical is that stance?
Will we really be happy if we tell ourselves that we must be happy?

Well, all I can see is that your merely redefining things so that morality is an individual issue and therefore there is no moral basis that anyone need heed in order to be restricted to only one partner, or within lawful marriage etc.
But morality is an individual issue; morality is relativistic. And even if you assume a universal morality whereby one has to have one partner, and where sex is limited to single partners, on what basis does such a morality lie? The fact of the matter is people do want to be promiscous, to not have society deem their desires and actions immoral. If it is one's decision to have multiple partners and said partners are concenting, who exactly is being faulted? Where is the basis upon which one can assign immoral to such decisions?

Why not tell us why you can find no reason not to sleep with many partners, then tell us why you dont care what other people think.
I cannot find any reason because they only reason I can think of not to sleep with multiple sexual partners if the act is safe and concenting is simply because society attaches immorality to the act. I do care what others "think" if their judgement is reasonable.

Then tell us why youd rather go for sexual than personal freedom.(in this case personal freedom is defined as nobody else having the right to tell you what to do and why, except for the usual restrictions on not physically assaulting people.)
When did I assert that I'd rather have sexual freedom rather than personal freedom? Besides, sexual freedom is a step towards personal freedom.

If one is personally free, surely you can make good decisions about who to sleep with and have sex with whomever you wish. But without the personal freedom, why have a sexually free society?
Because a sexually free society instills the notion of freedom in the sexual act. On such a basis, I cannot see how society won't ultimately lead to personal freedom as you have defined.

It is possibly true to say that men in general are better at seeing sex and love in different perspectives whereas females tend to get a liitel more "involved" with their partners.
I think that is simply a reflection of the female's sexually repressed past.

I think if any one actually lives the promiscuous life he will find as I did in my younger years that life looses it's value in general. A depth of dispair associated with not having real friends and real people in my wardrobe of assests. To bed hop all the way to a state of emotional destitution.
I disagree. Where does it say that you cannot have multiple partners and still be emotionally attached? Why can't you seek friendship and "real people" outside those with whom you sleep? There is sex, and then there is freindship. YOu can mix the two if you so desire and you can have one partner with whom you have a monogamous relationship. The issue however rermains that if it is your choice-- male and female, to be promiscous, then you should be able to be thus, without society's negative judgement of your actions.

Ahhh but this was my experience, and most men would superficially look at my past with envy until they realise how sad and miserable a life with out fidelity, ( to one self ) can be. Becasue as ones acts with infidelity to others one achieves a reflected state of inner infidelity to one self. And if one has lovers that one does not act unfaithfully towards then are they true lovers in the first instance. The word infidelity implyng a state of betrayal of ones trust.
Here, I think you do not grasp my point. I am in no way advocating betraying one's partner if said partner assumes the sexual relationship to be monogamous. I am not suggesting that people go aroudn cheating on their partners. I am saying that even in marriage or in a relationship, the assumption needn't be that the other partner shall remain monogamous. It ought to be a decision both partners make. And partners who decide to have other sexual partners ought to be able to practise their desires without the tag of immorality being placed upon them. Being sexually promiscuous does not indicate that life will be "sad and miserable". I am unsure of your experience, but clearly it is out of wack. Perhaps you betrayed your partners? YOu led them into believing lies you told them, and thus reflected on you? This is not what I am advocating.

I don't think fidelity is a moral issue but more as an issue of teh need to discover true values in life. The values of real friendship, respect and trust and most of these applying to oneself.
No, fidelity is a moral issue. The notion of adultery is a moral issue. Again, you can have freindships respect, and trust and still have multiple partners.

If you as a man finds the value of your love relegated to the cesspool of rampant promiscurity is it no wonder you find yourself having little value to yourself or others. After all it is your love and the quality of that love that defines you as a person and naught much else.
Just my opinion......
It is a stupid opinion because you do not know what value I hold of myself or of others. I suggest next time you carefully read a thread before allowing your past experiences to pollute your understanding of it.


Asguard
i would think that it has to do with the energy it takes to raise a human child. Parents spend most of there lives raising a child so the family is more important for humans than most species
Perhaps, but why can't both parents still have other sexual partners if they so decide? I suppose the male needs to be certain that the child there are rearing and taking personal responsibility for is theirs. I think this need to have an emotional attachment to the child who you raise is what promoted the notion of family groups. The father had to be around the female and children to help in the rearing of the child, and he had to be sure it was his. Modern society however has the tools to eliminate this uncertainty.

still cheating is atractive because it increases chances of passing on gens and forgiving a cheating partner actually does the same.
I am not suggesting "cheating". But yes, sleeping with multiple partners does indeed increase your chances as said.

Never look at religion for reasoning for morality, it doesnt work. Religion is the DEVICE used to DELIVER morality, its hardly ever its root cause
I think at times that the device itself creates and morphes a moral issue. Religion changed marriage by attaching its basis to the supernatural being. Marriage therefore in the Western world becomes more than the practicality of having a controlled group to raise children. The man has to have one wife. This is justified as a request of a God.

"Modern society however has the tools to eliminate this uncertainty. "

that is my very point, Go back to proto humans and look at where our morality REALLY came from. Most things are hard wired into us so deep that we cant understand them wether they come in isolation or wether through culture its the same thing. Things are passed down

"Religion changed marriage by attaching its basis to the supernatural being"

your still looking at religion as a thing, compleate as it is now and now where RELIGION actually came from. Religion is the tribes way of passing on the consepts that were best suited to advancing the tribe (because if they wernt then there IS no tribe now having been out done by those that were)

take this as an example

man eats cirtan berry and dies
next man eats berry from same tree and dies
tribe learns that eatting that berry means death
eventually that becomes a comandment in the tribes religion that eating the berry is forbiden by god and he will strike you down if you do

science comes along and finds out berry is deadly nightshade (i am making this up)

so im MODEN sociaty the story that is told is a scientific one but 1 000 000s of years ago (or however long it is back to proto humans) it would have been a tribal religiouse one to advace the tribe (ie if all our tribe eats these our tribe dies out)

But morality is an individual issue; morality is relativistic. And even if you assume a universal morality whereby one has to have one partner, and where sex is limited to single partners, on what basis does such a morality lie? The fact of the matter is people do want to be promiscous, to not have society deem their desires and actions immoral. If it is one's decision to have multiple partners and said partners are concenting, who exactly is being faulted? Where is the basis upon which one can assign immoral to such decisions?
The fact is that some people want to be promiscuous, and some do not. I think also that part of the morality comes from the breaking of promises and vows, which is partly a social utility thing, and also the need for morality in each persons life. The problem is that different people want different morality. Hey, I'm kind of on your side in this, but your original post seemed a little wooly. And to answer your quesiton, the basis upon which immorality can be assigned is upon that persons personal judgement.


I cannot find any reason because they only reason I can think of not to sleep with multiple sexual partners if the act is safe and concenting is simply because society attaches immorality to the act. I do care what others "think" if their judgement is reasonable.
I'd quibble that you judging how others judgement is reasonable also swings it nicely back to yourself, but cant be bothered.


When did I assert that I'd rather have sexual freedom rather than personal freedom? Besides, sexual freedom is a step towards personal freedom. Nowhere, I merely assumed it as a possibility since it wasnt stated explicitly.


Because a sexually free society instills the notion of freedom in the sexual act. On such a basis, I cannot see how society won't ultimately lead to personal freedom as you have defined.
Maybe. Sexual freedom is one way to start, but its best not to make too much of a point about it or it goes like Rosa says, becomes another point about beign immoral because its not moral.

I suggest that all of morality is in fact based (originally) in biology.

Morality is the code we instituted to protect our collective personal and reproductive well-being.
That's a very far reaching statement to make. What of theft and the like?

Sexual conservatism works well for women because it ensures that the heavy investment they will make in their children is worthwhile (i.e., they've chosen a high-quality genetic package to get it started). It is less important for men because they can choose the level of their investment in the offspring. They have the option to exercise the scattershot approach, while women do not.
I agree, but then morality as is now demands that the man marry one partner and remain faithful to her.

It is important for men to keep their women chaste because this ensures that whatever investment *they* make will go to their own genetic offspring, and not that of some other male.
I agree with that sentiment. I can see how this could've been a basis.

Of course, our brains have evolved to the point that many of us can choose individually to reject the reproductive imperative. In which case, there is no reason at all for these individuals *not* to sleep around, except insofar as such behavior does them psychological harm.
Of course society as a whole still deems the act immoral so psychological damage to many is not hard to escape.

I believe that for many women - men less so - sexual promiscuity *does* do psychic harm. Women been programmed to seek out men who will invest in them, emotionally and materially. Giving the goods away to men who aren't invested in them causes many women to devalue themselves. I do not personally know any sexually promiscuous women who have high self-esteem (although some of them must exist). All of the ones I know have a desperate air about them, which they try to remedy by sleeping around, which of course has the opposite effect of what was intended. They use sex to get love, which doesn't work of course, because for men the two aren't necessarily connected.
Yes there a lot of women who do in fact devalue themselves as a result of being promiscuous. However, I am unsure if most of the devauling is as a result of prior emotional or mental problems. I think that some of course do attempt to use sex as a way to love, but many simply want sex but without the responsibilities, etc that comes with a relationship. Unfortunately for said group, society's branding of their want as immoral and society's devauling of women who are promiscuous causes these women to think less of themselves. If people were allowed to simply have sex for the pleasure it indices without all the crap that comes with it, you'd see these women much more healthy.

On the other hand, promiscuity seems positively to feed the male ego, if anything.
I think it does indeed.


MagiAwen
Rosa has a good point. Keeping the females safe from disease by not allowing or inhibiting promiscuity does have a significant role in a community. Going by Asguard's take...if we started out as a pride of lions does with several females and one or two males of course you want to limit the interaction of the females to only those of the pride to ensure the legacy of the species assuming the males of the pride are of good breeding stock (the fittest).
Yes, except of course that now, the male is also limited.

I would have to say that all of this makes sense and the evolution of thought and carry through to religious doctrine/law/what have you makes perfect sense. To protect the females from disease and also to alow the males to roam the plains for other qualified females.
I think it was more than just disease, but my point though is that now both partners are expected to not have other sex partners.

Now we are inside a society of thought, emotions, and reason (well hopefully). The general populace has the reasoning whether inspired by religion or not that cheating on your mate is not cool. I am assuming this is because we are supposed to be "above" the urges that animals have to mate with the one who seems the fittest at the time.
You base your initial progression on the assumption that we evolved as animals, and thus throughout our history, it was socially accepted for the male to have multiple partners-- wives, mistresses, etc. The notion of one wife and one husband is a deviation from the past you suggested we evolved from. If our evolution works to ensure our survival then this rationalization to not have multiple partners is then false? No I'm certain that the law of chastity is religion-based.

So irregardless of whether or not it is looked down upon by a majority of society because it is against any religious ideal, I believe there is a pattern of survival that it all comes from.
Where is the positive? Partners can choose to sleep with others or remain monogamous. Either way, immorality needn't apply.

I think it is even easier, fountainhead, to simplify the issue as having a deep seated survival basis.
A basis no longer correct. The current world is very much different from what we evolved from; our morality should relect our times.


Rosa,
I have not mentioned cheating

Maybe thefountainhed, the words you have chosen to use in the thread title need to be amended. You use the word fidelity, and this word is often associated with trust and honesty, also loyalty.

What I think you are really wanting to discuss is simply promiscurity, or polygamy or just simply sexual fun and delight free of inhibitions. But this is not an issue of fidelity.

Rosa,
I have not mentioned cheating

if not then what does the word fidelity mean to you?

you still lump religion as a thing and ignore that it is an aspect of culture no different from any other, religions evolve to benifite the tribe and forbid anything which may hurt the tribe (altho in true trible thinking anything that is not manditory is forbiden so new thoughts arnt really enouraged)

Foutainhed, one of your original questions was Exactly what is the moral basis behind sexual fidelity?

In my way I was trying to provide a way of explaining that. I usually choose to not get too long winded and obviously I am failing at communicating what I intended. I will try now to convey what I was trying to get across.

Fountainhed said You base your initial progression on the assumption that we evolved as animals, and thus throughout our history, it was socially accepted for the male to have multiple partners-- wives, mistresses, etc.

Yes. That is pretty much what I was saying. That it SHOULD be socially acceptable for at least women to stay home with the kids and the men to go looking for more women to spread their genes with.

The notion of one wife and one husband is a deviation from the past you suggested we evolved from.

Yes and no.
Yes it is a deviation from what I think could be a natural instinct of sorts.

No because as the word evolve suggests, it is possible as man developed he felt more emotions. Some men possibly did not want to roam the plains looking for more women. Or possibly he/she started feeling love and started to deviate from what may have been a natural instinct or desire to copulate freely. Then...one day in that evolution, man decided he needed a set of laws or possibly needed to explain things that he could not so he created religion. And again down the timeline things started getting eskewed again...I hope you can see where I am trying to go with this since I am starting to get long post phobia again. If not, say so and I'll continue.

I am using the term evolve as in developed. I mean it as our thought, our mind, our logic, reasoning, and whatever else you would like to throw in there has evolved.

further to my last repsonse:
If we remove the issue of fidelity and both partners enjoy sexual freedoms as they conscent to do so ( as some contemporary couples are choosing to do) There is no moral basis for sexual monogamy. As a single man of woman like wise applies however sexual relationships normally involve at least two persons and one can not guarantee that the other is as free in thought and action as you are. TO find this out takes a certain amount of devoted time to finding out about that person and well then do we not enter into a monogamous relationship to do so.

So to be free one must have a degree of monaogamy but by the same tokem monogamy suggests a contra.

Mind you monogamy doesn't necessarilly imply a loss of freedom. To some people monogamy it self is liberating. IN that it liberates the person from that endless quest to find imediate gratification, frees a person from the number of bars and clubs one has to visist every week in the pursuit of their persuasion.

Marriage or monogamy is not in itself a prison but for some who have their eyes wide open it can be a pasture of infinite delights.

I posted earlier about emotional destitution derived from the lack of any emotional substance in my fleeting relationships with women when I was younger.

Marriage or monogamy has the potential to free one self from this poverty of expression and commitment.

A truely open marriage where by both parties are a sexual partnership and take delight in others as an addition to their marriage are even more blessed. In that their relationship is strong enough and secure enough to allow other persons to share their sexual moments.
This is not infidelity but actually fidelity to the desire to enhance each partners sexual and emotional fulfilments. A happy "swinging " couple are being faithful to their desire to help each other achieve their desires, with out compromising their relationship.

But this is fidelity and not infidelity, fidelity or faithfulness to each others pursuits for pleasure and most importantly growth.

Maybe this is what you wanted to discuss?

No because as the word evolve suggests, it is possible as man developed he felt more emotions. Some men possibly did not want to roam the plains looking for more women. Or possibly he/she started feeling love and started to deviate from what may have been a natural instinct or desire to copulate freely.

I would futher add to this and state that love is also instinctive and probably more so than that of sex.

WE some times look at ourselves as having evolved from basic animal instincts and this may or not relative because through out recorded history love is always present and most often mused about not sex.

For mankind, love has always been the primary motivator. We think that sexual propagation was but I ask where is there evidence to show that sex or genetic propagation is OUR primary motivator. I would suggest that it is the love of self and the love of the community of man that pushes the need to propogate and not the other way round.

Asguard
you still lump religion as a thing and ignore that it is an aspect of culture no different from any other, religions evolve to benifite the tribe and forbid anything which may hurt the tribe (altho in true trible thinking anything that is not manditory is forbiden so new thoughts arnt really enouraged)
Yes, except that it gives morality a more concrete basis. It is much easier to challenge a moral not associated with a deity than it is to challenge that which simply is. This is why I attempt to distinguish it.

Yes. That is pretty much what I was saying. That it SHOULD be socially acceptable for at least women to stay home with the kids and the men to go looking for more women to spread their genes with.

Which therefore makes the basis of the notion that sex outside marriage or a relationship being immoral nonexistent, yes?

No because as the word evolve suggests, it is possible as man developed he felt more emotions. Some men possibly did not want to roam the plains looking for more women. Or possibly he/she started feeling love and started to deviate from what may have been a natural instinct or desire to copulate freely. Then...one day in that evolution, man decided he needed a set of laws or possibly needed to explain things that he could not so he created religion. And again down the timeline things started getting eskewed again...I hope you can see where I am trying to go with this since I am starting to get long post phobia again. If not, say so and I'll continue.
I can see what you are getting at, but I still disagree on it being a moral basis. Even if assuming that man did in fact start to love his woman and decided that he wanted to stay at home with her and not copulate freely with other women, the decision would have no basis in morality. Besides, I think that love(the chemical reaction) on the male side in itself is nature's response to a need for the husband to develop an attachment to the wife, so he has even more reason to stay at home. Simply having a child may not be enough reason. Afterall, the supposed responsibility of the father to the child is essentially taught and not innate.

I am using the term evolve as in developed. I mean it as our thought, our mind, our logic, reasoning, and whatever else you would like to throw in there has evolved.
And this is why I'm always bringing up religion, in opposition to Asguard's stance, because I think it was through religion that he developed this notion of chastity. It was perhaps benefitial to the "church".

are you trying to study them or destroy someone elses morals?

i know for a fact that i could never have an open relationship, not because of god or religion but because my mind isnt wired that way. I just couldnt do it, sit at home while my GF was screwing someone else and chearfully watch TV or even have a 3some with another guy, i would be to jelouse no mater what my GF was doing

you cant say that morals come from religion because thats only one way that humans have devised to pass them on. Another is sociaty itself but MOSTLY our morality and thinking comes from stories we are told as children which lead us to the "right" way of acting. Once those are inbuilt its hard if not impossable to break and really why should i be told that because i want one partner and that partner only sleeping with me im wrong

Fountainhed:
Which therefore makes the basis of the notion that sex outside marriage or a relationship being immoral nonexistent, yes?
Yah, that's what I was saying.
However, I am presuming those are the roots in which we started from. It is only our minds that make something immoral...er...actually it should be someone at sometime in their mind thought something was wrong and created the notion of morality...what is acceptable and what is not.

At some point in our history I am more than sure free range copulation was widely accepted and considered correct, hence moral.

Whether religion is the stem of today's morals or if it was a societal evolution before religion existed seems a little irrelevant to me. To me it is blaming those that wish to organize into belief systems for what we as a society accept. Although it is a fact that many religions dominated their citizens and forced them to accept their ideals or be killed so... yeah.

Like Quantum posed, it is a persons decision whether or not to be committed entirely to one partner or not but yes it still does not answer your question.

It is possible that there is no answer to your question as there are so many variables to take into account...people and the way they think, religions, trends, what have you. It is also possible that a better question might be...what would it take to change society's attitude or perception of what is moral and immoral regarding sexual correctness.

I think we are missing the main point of confusion here. That being what the word fidelity implies. If both partners agree and not just with their heads on being "poly sexual" then fidelity is not in question. But if both partners don't agree then the issue fidelity does come to the fore.

It's a bit like asking is there a moral perogative in trusting someone......and I would think this is the heart of the issue.

Trust and morals that support that trust.

If trust is no longer a question then fidelity is also no longer an issue.

I might add the ideal of sexual polygamy is a greta fantasy but certainly a lot more difficult in practice. ( usually becasue of chronic insecurity )

further to my last repsonse:
If we remove the issue of fidelity and both partners enjoy sexual freedoms as they conscent to do so ( as some contemporary couples are choosing to do) There is no moral basis for sexual monogamy. As a single man of woman like wise applies however sexual relationships normally involve at least two persons and one can not guarantee that the other is as free in thought and action as you are. TO find this out takes a certain amount of devoted time to finding out about that person and well then do we not enter into a monogamous relationship to do so.
But you see, I argue that were there no immorality attached to the want, it would be a whole lot easier for them to divulge said wants. Presently, man is restricted because he already accepts promiscuity as immoral.

Mind you monogamy doesn't necessarilly imply a loss of freedom. To some people monogamy it self is liberating. IN that it liberates the person from that endless quest to find imediate gratification, frees a person from the number of bars and clubs one has to visist every week in the pursuit of their persuasion.
Clearly in an environment whereby sexual freedom is not deemed immoral, it could be the choice of some to be monogamous. Essentially what you have is those promoting monogamy essentially having a monopoly on thought. Their desire is the moral.

Marriage or monogamy is not in itself a prison but for some who have their eyes wide open it can be a pasture of infinite delights.
I do not disagree.

I posted earlier about emotional destitution derived from the lack of any emotional substance in my fleeting relationships with women when I was younger.Marriage or monogamy has the potential to free one self from this poverty of expression and commitment.
Yes, but I think in an evironment whereby one's sexual freedom is not repressed by society's moral judgement, one could have an emotional relationship with another of the opposite sex for instance, without having to have sex or the relationship being dependant on sex.

A truely open marriage where by both parties are a sexual partnership and take delight in others as an addition to their marriage are even more blessed. In that their relationship is strong enough and secure enough to allow other persons to share their sexual moments.
This is not infidelity but actually fidelity to the desire to enhance each partners sexual and emotional fulfilments. A happy "swinging " couple are being faithful to their desire to help each other achieve their desires, with out compromising their relationship.
Of course in today's society, I would probably suggest that a "swinging" couple is probably being ruled by psychology and not principle or rationalization.

Maybe this is what you wanted to discuss?
To an extent, yes. The moral basis of having one sexual partner.


I would futher add to this and state that love is also instinctive and probably more so than that of sex.

WE some times look at ourselves as having evolved from basic animal instincts and this may or not relative because through out recorded history love is always present and most often mused about not sex.

For mankind, love has always been the primary motivator. We think that sexual propagation was but I ask where is there evidence to show that sex or genetic propagation is OUR primary motivator. I would suggest that it is the love of self and the love of the community of man that pushes the need to propogate and not the other way round.
Interesting point, I gotta think about it.

I think we are agreeing in everything without realising it, thefountainhed,

When I discuss this subject with my partner whom I intend to marry later this month, we talk of only our own morality and not that which belongs to others. It is not indoctrination of ideology and dogma that causes us to make our decisions. It is true that when we look at other people we draw from this experience but always we make our philosophies our own with critical assessments.

Sure it is also true that most persons allow other peoples philosophy to enter their belief systems with out "morally" being critical of said philosophies. Blindly following societal dictates with out comment of any analysis or introspection.

My morality is my own as it is yours. If you requires moral justification from others then you enter a mirky world of subjective inputs, but if you have a clear vision of your own self applied morality ( unto your self ) then you are free. The biggest problem of it all is that yo may end up as an isolated island of individualism, where others can not understand nor support your moral position due to their own lack of introspection and self analysis and personal growth and maturity.

Many persons just simply don't take the time to understand what it is they fear about their sexuality and teh sexuality of their partners, nut I can suugest that it is teh fear of loss that drives most people into a moralistic obstructionism.

Why is that a husband can not tolerate the thougth of his wife having sex with some one else? What is the fear that drives his jealousy? What is the fear that creates the moralism that you are discussing?

What is the nature of jealousy?Why do we fear losing something we never owned in the first place? or does this question provide it's own answer?

Losing a delusion or illusion of possession? Fear of being fairly judged entirely on your own merit and not an illusion of merit?

Okay, I'll put it simply:

In terms of empiricism:
Go screw around, as much as you want, whomever, however, whenever, wherever.
See if it will make you happy. See if you will feel alright.

are you trying to study them or destroy someone elses morals?
I find it unlikely that a thread on sciforoms.com that is receiving as lpaltry a viewership as this is would somehow destroy another's morals. I am attempting a discussion.

i know for a fact that i could never have an open relationship, not because of god or religion but because my mind isnt wired that way. I just couldnt do it, sit at home while my GF was screwing someone else and chearfully watch TV or even have a 3some with another guy, i would be to jelouse no mater what my GF was doing
I disagree that the feeling of jealousy as you describe is instinctive. In cultures where the male for instance was allowed multiple partners, the various wives did not feel jealousy in that their husband was sleeping with another wife, jealousy when evident was in instances whereby the wive felt that another was being preferred--that is, her children for instance were getting more favours. Also, in socities that practise polyandry, studies have shown that jealousy is not apparent. I think the jealousy as you describe is culturally driven, therefore it is a product of society. If other individuals are able to accept the notion of their sexual partners being intimate with other couples, then I suggest that were such a mindset prevalent in society, the jealousy you describe would be absent.

you cant say that morals come from religion because thats only one way that humans have devised to pass them on. Another is sociaty itself but MOSTLY our morality and thinking comes from stories we are told as children which lead us to the "right" way of acting. Once those are inbuilt its hard if not impossable to break and really why should i be told that because i want one partner and that partner only sleeping with me im wrong
I am not saying that our morals come from religion. I am saying that the specific moral of chastity, only being intimate with your wife, her being intimate with only you, this is an evolution of marriage. I am attributing this evolution in western conception of marriage to religion. Also these stories, or mythologies as you describe them always have a beginning, and when they are fed through the process of religion, changes do take place. These stories also reflect the nature or ideological pinpoint of the society in question, and religion has always played a mjor role in directing the society's ideology.

Magi,
I"ll put it another way. The issue is not the origins or the basis of morality as a whole. I can probably trace the immorality of murder or theft and be convinced of the basis as in survival of the individual/group, and therefore having a viable basis. The basis for not being promiscuous seems to me, questionable at best.

Quantum
If trust is no longer a question then fidelity is also no longer an issue.

I might add the ideal of sexual polygamy is a greta fantasy but certainly a lot more difficult in practice.
Firstly fidelity implies faithfullness, and in this instance faithfullness to your partner, in that you remain intimate with only them. That you would assume trust or mistrust in the mention of fidelity is a reflection of the moral bias that governs this society. There is honesty, trust, integrity in acquiesing to our sexual wants for different partners and not being restrained by society's misjudgements.

When I discuss this subject with my partner whom I intend to marry later this month, we talk of only our own morality and not that which belongs to others. It is not indoctrination of ideology and dogma that causes us to make our decisions. It is true that when we look at other people we draw from this experience but always we make our philosophies our own with critical assessments.
I don't think it is that simple. It is impossible to escape indoctrination of ideology from the society in which you reside; it is impossible to fully escape the morality of the society in which you reside. Society's values and morals are taught to you and you must possess them to live within the society or risk being labelled a deviant and thus bearing the hardships that ultimately come with such a label. Even more important, the ability to ultimately think and decide on a moral path that is very different from the norm of society is marginalized by your social education, so to speak.

My morality is my own as it is yours. If you requires moral justification from others then you enter a mirky world of subjective inputs, but if you have a clear vision of your own self applied morality ( unto your self ) then you are free. The biggest problem of it all is that yo may end up as an isolated island of individualism, where others can not understand nor support your moral position due to their own lack of introspection and self analysis and personal growth and maturity.
We like to think that our morality is distinctly our own and the product of careful analysis, but it is not. It is shaped and dictated by our experiences as they fit within the limiting confines of society. And even for the few who do manage to escape society's boundaries, how many do you think are bold enough to want existence on the isolated island you describe?

Rosa
I think if I did indeed screw around with whomever I wanted, whenever I wanted, however I wanted, and said partner(s) didn't have to endure mischaracterization by a hypocritical society, I'd be happy, as would they.

Well ok. Seems like we are going round in circles.

Anyway at the last I will say this. Whatever you intended to talk about apparently is not obvious to me. But in any case I do not see people who "screw around" or who are promiscuous being stoned to death in the streets or anything. In fact I think it is more accepted now than it was just a few years ago [read: 20+].

Ok I'll leave you all to go in circles :)

Firstly fidelity implies faithfullness, and in this instance faithfullness to your partner, in that you remain intimate with only them. That you would assume trust or mistrust in the mention of fidelity is a reflection of the moral bias that governs this society. There is honesty, trust, integrity in acquiesing to our sexual wants for different partners and not being restrained by society's misjudgements.
Whilst I don;t agree with your definition I can accept that it is your definition.

Unfortunately word's like faithfulness and fidelity all have the implication of some sort of agreement and commitment to such. For example how can you be faithful to a girl who has never agreed to a realtionship apart from the occasional sex at whim.