How far would you go?
Offline So if you were married or in a serious relationship (Monogamous,but if you are in a serious non-monogamous relationship speak up too!), how far would you go with someone outside of that relationship before your guilt meter kicked in? Talking, dancing, groping, kissing, sex acts, intercourse?
How do you justify your sexual morality in cases with a minimal level of potential repercussions? The golden rule? Marriage contract? Honesty and open dialog? Fear of being caught?
This is a tough question for me. From a rational standpoint, I can't think of many rational reasons to avoid doing any particular act outside of marriage, as long as it is just a 'fling'. However, I have a great deal of cultural guilt about sex. I have a hard time seperating my logical my logical morality from my cultural morality.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
The furthest I would go would be verbal flirting. Teasing, if you will. While I do think that even that much is disrespectful to whatever partner I'm with (I certainly would not do it in front of them), I know that I have no intention to act on it, and that in many ways it's a form of friendliness. Even when I'm single I'll make flirty comments to most of my female friends, even if I would never consider dating them or otherwise. I see it as a common element in male-female relationships. It's a way of complimenting a friend. So if I'm in a relationship and I make a flirty pass at one of my lady friends, I don't exactly see it as a sin as long as I'm not genuinely trying to start anything up with her. As long as it's just meant as a, "Hey, I dig you" and nothing more, it's totally cool. But still, I'd have a hard time convincing a jealous woman that that's all I meant, so I would not do any such thing in front of her.
Which gets to the reason why I don't go elsewhere for action. Just plain respect for the person I'm with. Maybe it's my ego, but I like the girls I'm dating to be all about me and only me--the lone member of an obsessive fan club. Since that's what I like to have, I think it's only appropriate and fair that I should offer the same in return.
But that shoe doesn't fit everyone. Swingers, for example. If you're cool with her having all the fun she wants with other dudes, then you should get to have all the fun you want with other ladies.
Fairness, expectations, and respect. I think that's what it comes down to. But maybe I'll see what others have to say.
Also, hi everyone. Long time no see.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
From a rational standpoint, it is not rational to enter a relationship where "love" or whatever is exclusive and then proceed to be inclusive of other people.
I think that it is cultural to expect mature relationships to be exclusive. It is deceptive to provide someone the illusion of exclusivity when that exclusivity does not exist. Ideally, each partner in the relationship should be comfortable with discussing the boundaries of the relationship, but the cultural pressure for exclusivity makes this a difficult conversation for many people.
How far would I go? I would have discussed that with my partner.
Welcome back Archeopteryx.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
I have a hard time with it too. But, you mean instinctual morality, not "logical" morality, don't you? Ultimately, I think logic only applies in morality to the extent that you should be consistent with your values. Although, that could be a moral judgment as well; what's to say that you can't like one flavor of ice cream today and another once tomorrow?....
Anyways, with regard to relationships, human beings are not naturally monogamous. Surely, we spread our genes around more if we have intercourse with multiple partners. Furthermore, monogamy is also in opposition to sexual freedom, which I feel like I value to an extent. But, I don't want to completely discount monogamy even if it's only cultural morality; if I value it, I value it. And, it doesn't hurt anyone and isn't incoherent in any way........my thoughts on this aren't really sorted out.
It's easier for me if I think of it in terms of honesty and liberty, so maybe that would help you as well. If the two partners in a relationship both consent to having extramarital affairs, I have nothing wrong with it. They should have the liberty to do what they want. However, if they agree to a monogamous relationship, but one of them cheats on the other, then I don't like it. So, what really bothers me is deceit, not extramarital relationships.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Arch: Are you talking about serious relationships, or just whomever you are dating at the time? I think there is a fairly major difference between the two types of relationships. It is easy, morally, (in my experience) to be totally exclusive towards someone you do not have a long term commitment to.
@Mr: I'm not sure it is possible for 'love' to be exclusive. I love my wife, but I can't make any promises that I will never love someone else. How could you?
Could you elaborate on: "I think that it is cultural to expect mature relationships to be exclusive."? I don't understand what that means.
@Butter: By logical morality I mean thinking morality. To me, on this issue, there are two types of morality. One is the instinctual, simply the way I feel. The other is the rational part of me that tries to understand why I feel in a given way and then see if that feeling matches the intellectual moral system that I have built. There are lots of things that I've felt were morally wrong on an instinctual level but have gradually talked myself out of, and now I am OK with them. It often works the other way as well, where I don't feel that something is wrong but I avoid it anyway because I have a conscious, rational reason.
So from your overall perspective, the answer is, "Whatever my partner lets me do." That is sort of where I am as well. I don't have any particularly strong moral hurdles (either instinctual or intellectual) about sexuality outside of marriage, but I have lots of guilt about betrayal in a sexual context, which is instinctual and cultural more than rational.
I just think it is a fascinating question because, at least for me as a man, my instincts are at war with themselves. One part is concerned with monogamy, the other part just wants to party. When moral conflicts of this type pop up, it makes me think about the rationality (or lack thereof) behind our moral systems. From a pure ethics standpoint the question (probably) isn't that hard, it is a clear case of...I dunno, social contract if you will. But I'm interested to hear how other people work through those dilemmas.
I'm also curious about how the two sexes approach the problem differently, if at all. With modern birth control I can't think of any reason for a woman to value monogamy more than a man outside of a relationship where a couple wants to raise a child, but anecdotally men are more interested in straying than women. That might be a purely physical difference or it might be cultural, or both, but I have not heard anyone explain whether or not there is a different approach to the issue ethically.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
My wife and I negotiate our non monogamy... I have never lied to her... Ever... and I never act in a way without her there that i wouldnt act of she were standing right next to me...Its amazing how Honesty about our proclivities can accord honesty in the rest of a relationship
I will maintain that sex isnt immoral (between consenting adults)... rather the lies and the accompanying betrayal is
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Hmmm, I know what you mean, but I don't distinguish between "thinking morality" and "instinctual morality" because "thinking" is a tool to help me organize my morality rather than a morality itself. Ultimately, I think we always have to appeal to our instincts to reach a moral decision; reason can only organize these instincts in our heads and decide which ones are more important. Although, I suppose that's often about as important as the instincts themselves. So, with regard to what you wrote, "It often works the other way as well, where I don't feel that something is wrong but I avoid it anyway because I have a conscious, rational reason." I don't think of it as a "rational reason" as much as appealing to some "stronger" instinct.
For example, when I was younger, I was uncomfortable when I first heard about homosexuality, but when I heard about gay rights, I quickly decided that they should have the same legal rights as everyone else. Although logic was important, it wasn't really the reason why I thought homosexuals should still have the same rights. It was because fairness/human rights >> uncomfortable feeling.
Anyways, on a completely different topic, I want to be faithful to my girlfriend. But, at the same time, nature wants me to spread my genes as much as possible, so my instincts are at war with themselves. Just thinking about it, I feel like I value my integrity and my relationship with my girlfriend more. But, the funny part is, I'm not 100% certain that I would use all of my effort to get away if some really hot chick tried to have sex with me. That darn evolution!
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I put love in quotes to suggest that I am using a euphemism and not the literal meaning of the word. Substitute sex or passionate/intimate relationships in place of that word for some of the meaning that I was suggesting.
If a couple is together for 10 years, people perceive, through cultural norms, that there is an exclusive relationship, regardless of if exclusivity exists.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
Totally agree.
Personally I prefer a non-monogamous relationship, and I'm only likely to get upset about being lied to about this shit. My guilt-o-meter kicks in if I start to exceed whatever I've agreed with my partner is acceptable. Right now I get to leave to damn thing at home: I'm free!
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"