Subject:
|
Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:29:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2852 times
|
| |
|
|
You have so completely oversimplified the possibilities in your analysis that a
complete evaluation would be quite lengthy.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Stephen Hurn writes:
> This is why hypothetical situations fail, particularly when in relation to
> members of the opposite sex :). Thus far all that has been discussed is
> based upon a series of hypothetical people who all think that sex is
> something that is based purely around physical enjoyment. But is this truly
> so?
No one thinks this. At least not any more than every feeling-complex is purely
physical because our brain contains our psyche and thus our entire psychology
is physical. But I assume that you're seperating mental, physical, emotional,
and social phenomena (for better or worse) from one another.
> Let me take a look at a case study. Male A wants to screw Male B's wife.
> Male A, B and their wives agree. Male A is not in love with Male B's wife,
> and she is not in love with him. The only people who love each other in
> this case study are Male A and his wife, and Male B and his wife. So Male A
> has sex with female B.
Love, or a seed of love, _could_ develop from the sexual encounter in one or
more of the participants.
> Three things can happen in this intercourse. (1)
> Male A finds Female B more enjoyable than his wife, (2) Male A finds Female
> B less enjoyable than his wife, and (3) Male A finds Female B equally as
> enjoyable as his wife.
[big honkin' ker-snip]
I think the biggest problem I have with your analysis is that you overlook the
basic desire for variety. People (and other animals) seek novel experiences.
The very experience of doing something new -- even when a source of anxiety, is
fun or thrilling or pleasing or rewarding. People seek out novelty.
When you say things like:
> In the best possible scenario (1), both males have effectively
> swapped wives, their wives being excluded from what should be their closest
> moments, and greatest times of joy. Ultimately this will lead to an unhappy
> marriage.
and
> Even if Male A and Female B are not
> allowed by their spouses to have sex again, there will be a jealousy in the
> two marriages
and
> there was no practical benefit to the sexual encounter.
It shows how much we think differently. Sex is good for you. It's fun. It is
a social bond. It teaches you a whole new way to love. Jealousy stems from a
fear of inequity or abandonment. It is wildly more prevalent in subcultures
where competition and monogamy are the norm (i.e. ours) than where cooperation
and shared love are normal. The picture isn't dismal the way you want to paint
it. It's only like that if you make it so. I know lots of people who prove
you wrong.
I don't know how it works for you, but I'm not married to my wife for sex.
That would really make the saying that marriage is just legalized prostitution
correct. I'm married to my wife because our interested and abilities are
remarkable complementary and we enjoy our time together (sexual and not). I
have no fear whatsoever that some guy with a bigger tool or better skill are
going to snatch her away from me. And frankly, if that could/did happen, then
isn't it what's best?
> In the case of sex outside of marriage, ignorance truly is bliss.
Whatever makes you happy. But I'd hate to live with the kind of shallow fear
that you must experience daily.
> I'd also
> like to add that if one found anothers wife more attractive/better in bed
> than his own, I'd begin to ask what was wrong with the marriage. After
> years of being together, one would think that each partner knew exactly what
> "turned the other on" so to speak.
After years of practice, you can't provide variety in partner. There are only
so many tricks in any one person's bag. And it's not all about figuring out
the perfect equation. Sometimes it's great to be with a new person just
because of the unpredictability. Spontaneous variety is fun.
Weren't you ever in college? Most of the guys I know got as much variety as
they could during that part of their life.
> I very much doubt that there are many women who would let their husbands
> sleep with somebody else and not feel any jealousy.
Many? I know many all by myself. There must be many manys that I don't know.
And even if the average woman on the street would answer in agreement with
you, that doesn't mean that they couldn't learn a better way. I've seen it
happen.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
