Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by BrianHarwarespecialist, Oct 11, 2015.
No. I will, though. Thanks!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Thanks for this post however I find it primitively oversimplified, it lends a lot of credit to my idea.
She said 95 % I say 99 % of relationships are frauds and that's because the manipulation of the human race has run so deep, creative, and invasive, human biengs have literally become slave masters inslaving themselves, of course they must accept the program freewill and all. In short humans are not even humans they are subhuman automatons, programs to do the biddin of oligarchs basically slaves.
Facades, misinformation absorbed from social programming since they were born as a baby. The humans never had a chance. Self betrayal and death is the king ruling...but they can't know this they are not sopposed to.
I don't blame humans I know they are weak and may not recognize that they are humans and not animals. Some of us may even understand the distinction.
So many replies and so few answers.
People just can't help but add thier own angle to questions.
Imo, based on the information you have given its never acceptable. But I wouldn't be completely unsympathetic towards the cheater. But it would still be wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
No. The above relationship is not built on communication. It is in deep trouble. And having an affair will make it far worse.
The key is always always communication. It's the only way to come to a mutual agreement (whether that agreement be to repair the relationship, open the relationship or end the relationship).
Weak schmeak. Humans, being humans, can communicate with their mates.
And what's the philosophy behind that?
I mean, sure, there are plenty who will offer up some sympathy, but unless that's completely arbitrary it will be based on a combination of available information and presuppositions.
To wit, it's easy enough for me to offer some sympathy to the cheater, but in that case the cheater shouldn't have entered the relationship, and people tend to cling to the proposition a priori that hindsight is the more accurate perspective, thereby mitigating the initial error of having undertaken the relationship.
Whatever sympathy I offer a cheater in these cases only points to a structural problem, which is how we arrange and justify these relationships in the first place.
Another solution is to change the roles in sexuality. The new role will be the wife playing the role of the worker in the sex. While the male can have the head aches and/or just play there. If you got to just lay there, it can be easy and fun.
As an analogy, say you meet someone you like, and as a way to begin intimacy, you give your friend a back rub. At first, the touch is enjoyable, for you, even though it takes work. The person getting the bad rub has it easy. All they had to so is lay down and enjoy the stimulation. The person doing all the work will eventually get tired as the novelty wears off. But the bottom person, may never get tired. Why should they?
If they switch roles, so the original masseur now gets to just lay there, massages become fun again for them. The other person, who only had to lay there, but now has to work, will get tired quicker, Then it time to reverse again.
The sex scenario may not be too different from a woman trying to please her mate, by cooking all types of special meals each day. The cooking includes all the cleaning and shopping. Somedays she will get tired and will like to go out to a restaurant and be catered to; reversal. Then she is renewed. If she never got to go, but always has to cook 24/7, she would start to get tired of cooking, even if her food is alway excellent to eat for her. She may just start making simple and basic things, and then begin to fear you will look for another chef.
When it comes to sex, the male is usually the chef. He may need to be catered too, to help restore his desire to cook.
My post was in response to the information he supplied and shouldnt require any further clarification.
In fact, Homo sapiens is one of a very small number of species in which it is, indeed, the norm.
It's common in endothermic vertebrates ("warm-blooded," i.e. mammals and birds) for females to be physically capable of performing copulation only when in estrus (capable of producing offspring). A female dog, for instance, is physically incapable of accepting a male dog's penis when not in estrus, and in return she does not broadcast the pheromones that cause the male to have an erection.
Humans, dolphins, and a very small number of mammalian species are the exceptions to this rule. Human females are capable of copulating at almost any time, and their hormones even make the activity pleasant.
The evolutionary reason for this, of course, is that human children have the slowest maturation period of any mammal: a decade and a half, in contrast to five years for elephants and only two for whales. This requires the fathers to stick around and help with the childrearing. If they can continue to have sex with a mother who is nursing and otherwise putting a lot of effort into raising children, it's a tremendous advantage for the species.
A little off-topic, we also have another advantage: humans generally survive long after their childbearing years. This provides us with a population of grandparents who can help out too!
There's never a reason for infidelity. If someone wishes to have an open relationship, clue the other person in. lol Don't cheat. There's never a 'good' reason to lie, and cheat behind someone's back. Give the person the option to opt out of being with you, if you want to sleep around.
What "norm" would that be, Fraggle?
A social one, or an instinctual one?
Pair bonding is not the norm among humans, it has been imposed as one.
Artificial social constraint. Or a band aid. whichever you prefer.
Of course there are reasons for infidelity; if there were not, it wouldn't happen.
When someone cheats on you, revert to your post here. And comfort yourself with it. lol
That isnt even factual. Its been pointed out that its not about whether one is monogamous or polygamous, its about honesty.
In that if you are polygamous, its dishonest to pretend to be monogamous to decieve another person who is wanting a monogamous relationship and cheat behind their back.
If people were honest a lot of misunderstandings and damage could be avoided.
Also, if someone is no longer abiding by the 'contract' of an agreement, they should let the other party know and not take advantage using deception. Because relationships essentially are a form of contract between parties whether monogamous or polygamous. If you are not on the same page in understanding or honest in communication, then it will deteriorate
That destroys trust and even where you could have even parted as friends or civilly.
There are reasons for everything. No one is forcing anyone to be monogamous or polygamous. There are plenty of polygamous people who are honest about it and get together with other polygamous people. Or in some cases and times in a persons life, they may want to be unattached, date many people etc until they settle with one later but you can do this without deception just as easily. The problems come when one creates expectations by falsehood one cant or wont meet. This is why its called 'cheat' as in pulling the wool over, getting over, you are recieving something from another under false pretenses which you wouldnt otherwise which is anothers investment (trust, time, heart, body, work, money, help etc). People shouldnt falsely advertise themselves and use that as an excuse because that aint one of the 'reasons'. Its just called lying. Just as this applies to other areas of life, it does in relationships too to be healthy. People have a right to know what they are getting into and be updated regularly by the one who they are supposed to trust if there are changes that could be detrimental to them besides just a broken heart, bank account etc. You know, like a greater risk of std's, some which can kill you???
There is a just and unjust way of handling any situation.
Also, no one said anyone should stay in a relationship where they are unhappy or unfulfilled no matter the sexual preference/lifestyle even if initially promises were made that cant or wont be kept. But its decent to be upfront so you arent decieving because thats betrayal. That way you give consideration to another person and they can make the decision thats best for them and you.
If pair bonding was not evolutionary efficient, and most importantly, beneficial, it's safe to say you probably would not be here right now. The human species would have died out while they still roamed the plains. There is a brilliant paper by a scientist called Sergey Gavrilets, who delves into the many variables that drove our male and female ancestors to becoming monogamous. The paper is called "Human Origins and the Transition from Promiscuity to Pair-Bonding". As such, those choices made by our ancestors, to become monogamous, drove human evolution. Without these beneficial choices, we would not be here today. So it was not imposed. It was vital for our ancestor's survival and was vital for our existence.
The argument that it is an imposition pretty much ignores evolution altogether. If you are a bible thumper who believes in Adam and Eve, then sure, your argument that it was "imposed as one" may sound great for you. The idea that it was "imposed as one" is not supported by evolutionary science, however.
Pair bonding and monogamy are not the same thing.
Monogamy is not natural human behaviour. We aren't monogamous at all, and we never have been.
Even those species other than humans heretofore regarded as being "mated for life" have been found to cheat quite regularly, with only one or two exceptions.
Pair bonding is performed for reasons other than procreation, and those reasons are fast becoming redundant in modern human society.
The gradual unshackling of women over the last century or so has begun to make it unnecessary. Hence the higher divorce rates and lower incidence of marriage, and people waiting longer to get married than they ever have.
Even in the supposedly strict 19th century, marriage was primarily an economic function, among the wealthy at least.
Hence the higher divorce rates and lower incidence of marriage in the last fifty odd years, and people waiting longer to get married than they ever have.
Because they don't need to as much anymore. Women are becoming more independent.
There's also the point that, due partly to greatly increased life expectancy rates as well as the above, marriage and monogamy are a more heinous consideration than they have ever been before.
I'd imagine Romeo and Juliet might have thought twice if rather than being together for thirty odd years, they would be for 60.
Sounds like you're trying to convince me that because an appendix had a function once, we shouldn't remove them anymore.
... Why on earth would a bible thumper prefer to believe that monogamy was imposed???
Why do you believe it is not natural human behaviour? There is clear evidence that monogamy played a vital role in human evolution. In fact, the evidence points to the evolutionary benefit of males to be in a monogamous relationship for various reasons.
Are you looking at this from a scientific perspective, or a social perspective?
Yes and no. Even in today's age, both parents are required to care for their offspring, even when separated.
The belief that pair bonding has performed it's role and can now fall to the wayside is not exactly realistic. Children will always do well in two parent households. This is a fact. In that sense, for the protection and survival of the children, two parent households that are monogamous, has evolutionary advantages.
Women may be more independent, but that does not mean that monogamy is no longer viable when one looks at evolution.
You appear to be approaching this from a personal perspective. In other words, perhaps you are repulsed by the idea of spending the rest of your life with one person.
If we are approaching this from the perspective of evolution, you know, being a science forum and all, there are benefits to remaining with one partner and caring for one's offspring and then helping raise one's grandchildren. The belief that men should be spreading the seed around, does not really have many benefits from an evolutionary perspective. The offspring have a better chance of survival with both parents caring for them. Be it mother and father, mother and mother, father and father. Two parents will always be more beneficial than one.
So no, it isn't beneficial for one to be spreading the seed or eggs around without sticking around to care for that offspring. Even in today's world of female independence. Couples with children who separate are usually required to allow the other parent access to help care for the child for a reason. They may no longer be together, but there is a reason why both parents are legally required to care for their kids.
Why on earth do you believe that the appendix has no function now?
The function of the appendix is to store good bacteria to help safeguard your intestine. Certainly, if it becomes inflamed or cancerous, it should be removed. But it does serve a very important function in your body.
Take it you've never read the Bible?
Random, but important points.
There is a difference between monogamy and serial monogamy. Serial monogamy is becoming more commonplace in the West.
Cheating is advantageous to males from an evolutionary perspective.
Pair bonding is advantageous to both male and female.
If we were genuinely monogamous for life, males and females would be the same size. (Work it out yourself. It's not that difficult.)
Separate names with a comma.