A secular debate about adultery

[Svartalf]

Adultery is not a matter of religion, the interests behind its repression have always been entirely secular, and religion was just enlisted to make it a sin to ensure better compliance.

While I don't know if the original interests in ensuring that a woman's children should indeed be her husband's too, so that family wealth should not pass into the hands of cuckoo birds, there's still the fact that nowadays, a marriage, or committed relationship usually entails fidelity, and adultery is a breach of that contract. Contract breakers show themselves as unreliable, and ultimately contemptible perssons.

[Svartalf]

I've commented on RD's article some time ago at RDF .. Must see if I can find it ...

gah ... like that's going to happen .. fuck Timonen.

That would be adultery of some sort, and also

Are you anthropomorphising Josh again? Awfully generous of you...

Yep, there's nothing in the babble about fucking a tool.

If you need a tool, you may wonder why your husband is not enough for you. maybe time to break with him and find a more satisfying partner?

[Svartalf]

To me adultery is just an attempt to turn 'cheating' into something more vile and unethical. Now if we were to bring up committed monogamy that would be another matter. I see cheating, and by that light adultery, as violating boundaries of an established trust. If you agree to be able to fuck other people, then no harm done. For instance if my girlfriend were to fuck another person that boundary would be violated and as such the relationship would be over.

In general I care little for the word adultery and would prefer to substitute cheating for any such discussion.

That's a different discussion altogether.

Adultery doesn't exist outside the socio/religio/polito contract of marriage and the belief in people as property.

Betrayal is a big topic and the emphasis that people put on sexual fidelity is a hang over from religion.

From my own experience and from talking with friends sexual betrayal is the least of all betrayals.

The worst betrayal is being a bad parent to the children.

It does not have to have anything to do with religion or treating people as property. Ultimately, it's an agreement (that does not have to be legally formalised) between the partners, and cheating on that is just as contemptible as the traditional view tried to make it out

[.Morticia.]

Of course it's all about mutual agreement between partners about what the particular expectations that relationship entails.


That agreement involves far more than just agreements on sexual behaviour, yet that is what our society focuses on.

re , 'control freaks', I'm talking about the sense of ownership of the other and the abuse of boundaries.

[Svartalf]

control freaks are not what adultery is about, they are what divorce is about.

[lordpasternack]

I've commented on RD's article some time ago at RDF .. Must see if I can find it ...

gah ... like that's going to happen .. fuck Timonen.

I iz liek magic: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 31#p548031

Having just read the article by Richard Dawkins, linked to in the OP, I have to say I very much agree with what he is saying, having come to the same philosophy on relationships, jealousy and autonomy myself in recent years. Not for the first time I am reading Richard articulate an idea or view which I myself have recently realised in my own journey of enlightenment.

I recently read Richard Dawkins' article Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

The article covered several related topics; the over-all theme being a criticism of jealousy as expressed through monogamy.

Many of the points I'd like to raise were raised in the responses to the article, but I'd like to debate them in the forum.

I felt that there was an implicit criticism of monogamy in general, with the idea that people should not strive for such an irrational goal (it being against human nature to restrict ones love/lust to one individual).*

*my bolding

Actually, Richard did not say this in the linked article. Quite the contrary. He said jealousy was likely to be within human nature, but that it was a natural tendency, a vice, which we perhaps could and should strive to rise above.

Describing jealousy as a vice seems appropriate to me when I consider a few of the vices I have overcome (risen above), be they natural, instilled by nurture, or acquired through psychological addiction.

Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are two psychological addictions I felt enslaved by and then overcame by a change of mindset. Guilt and an unnecessary sense of obligation and subordination to the emotional whims of others at my own expense are examples of vices where encultured behaviour, and perhaps my natural altruism, played a part in my bondage.

Possessive jealousy remains a vice I have, and which I acknowledge as being selfish and inappropriate from a perspective of my respect for the rights and autonomy of others. Giving in to jealousy, when it can be overcome, lends hypocrisy to my accepted philosophy.

I have made the effort to analyse my feelings and behaviour and pinpointed the source of my jealousy and possessiveness and I believe they stem mainly from fear. Fear that my partner will compare me to the other people with whom he might have an intimate relationship, and that he may prefer their company to mine, perhaps eventually choosing not to remain intimate with me at all. I know, logically, that he is within his rights to be intimate with whoever reciprocates his desires, and if that leads to an emotional break in our bond then I have no proprietary rights over him and must accept his right to his autonomy in this regard. Of course, this works both ways, and I should be able to expect the same respect for my autonomy and right to share intimacy with anyone who reciprocates my interest in them. As it stands now, one or both of us might like to explore intimacy and intimate relationships with other people, but we are restrained by not wanting to hurt or offend the other and by not wanting to risk that affecting our intimate relationship with each other. We are bound by our own and each other's sense of fear of the consequences.

When I think about the source of our jealousy and how we might overcome our fear, I find myself thinking that if we were not socially obliged to feel guilt, shame or remorse for our actions in this regard, we would be more likely to have our cake and eat it too. In other words we would not be driven to choose between one relationship and another by any manipulation on each other's part or the part of society. Cultural and personal acceptance could mean we might feel reasonably safe from being discarded in favour of someone else, or at least no more at risk of losing our partner's interest and affection than we are now, and possibly less so. I think it's the unnecessary negative emotions of guilt shame and remorse, in addition to the possessive jealousy, accusation and the disrespect of our right to autonomy which accelerate the demise of our relationships when there are other relationships involved. These emotions and our encultured social conventions are probably responsible for making it damn difficult to move on if/when a relationship does end too. Another good reason to rise above them.


On overcoming natural tendencies, my thinking has even taken me to the point where I can envisage myself abandoning my tendency to exclude intimate partners based on my innate sexual preference, and enjoy a person regardless of their gender - once again an opportunity to rise above nature.


...of course, as difficult as this is to think about objectively, it is still far easier said than done...

And another post:

Richard Dawkins strident?



It's too often the problem of the brief interview that there's little to no follow up of potentially interesting trains of thought, and one glaring example for me in Denton's interview of RD was when Denton asked Richard how he deals with anger, giving the Ted Haggard interview as an example for Richard to comment on ... Richard's humanitarian compassion was evident: he's sorry for the man, having been 'caught with his pants down' ** - right there was a missed opportunity to delve into how Richard ticks as a thinking, feeling humanitarian. Most disappointing to (yet again) see this failure to recognise/acknowledge the humanitarian concern that underscores Richard's drive to promote reason and science, and disappointing to see Denton opt for tabloid style superficiality dressed up as 'probing' questions.





**Another example of Dawkins's pragmatic and lucid compassion running counter to popular moral outrage can be found in an article he wrote about social morality regarding sexual behaviour, where he discussed sanctimonious attitudes towards people who have sexual encounters outside the social constraints of monogamy (mentioning the example of Clinton and Lewinski): Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster - (RDnet Philosophy forum thread here)

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 5#p2572875

[hadespussercats]

I think the issue should be resolved by honesty between sexual partners, and a willingness to come to an agreement one way or another about whether a relationship is open or not. I wouldn't have gotten married if I wanted to keep having sex with strangers, and my husband feels the same way. And we made promises to each other based on that understanding, so it would certainly be a betrayal of that trust if either of us were to have sex with someone else. But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

And none of it would be anyone's business but ours.

[Thinking Aloud]

But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

Talking is the key. It's still such a taboo to discuss sex for many people, even with their partner/husband/wife. As soon as that wall is broken down, and conversations can be had, everyone involved gets a better understanding.

It's when things happen behind backs that the problems start.

[Bella Fortuna]

And none of it would be anyone's business but ours.

Yup, that's it.

[hadespussercats]

But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

Talking is the key. It's still such a taboo to discuss sex for many people, even with their partner/husband/wife. As soon as that wall is broken down, and conversations can be had, everyone involved gets a better understanding.

It's when things happen behind backs that the problems start.

Word.

[.Morticia.]

I think the issue should be resolved by honesty between sexual partners, and a willingness to come to an agreement one way or another about whether a relationship is open or not. I wouldn't have gotten married if I wanted to keep having sex with strangers, and my husband feels the same way. And we made promises to each other based on that understanding, so it would certainly be a betrayal of that trust if either of us were to have sex with someone else. But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

And none of it would be anyone's business but ours.

What would you think of simultaneous loving relationships?

[hadespussercats]

I think the issue should be resolved by honesty between sexual partners, and a willingness to come to an agreement one way or another about whether a relationship is open or not. I wouldn't have gotten married if I wanted to keep having sex with strangers, and my husband feels the same way. And we made promises to each other based on that understanding, so it would certainly be a betrayal of that trust if either of us were to have sex with someone else. But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

And none of it would be anyone's business but ours.

What would you think of simultaneous loving relationships?

Eh. Stressful. I'm not cut out for that. But if you want to, go for it.

Edited to add:I assume you were referring to romantic love relationships-- otherwise, we already have that kind of relationship.

[Thinking Aloud]

What would you think of simultaneous loving relationships?

It happens.

[Bella Fortuna]

What would you think of simultaneous loving relationships?

It happens.

[hadespussercats]

I think the issue should be resolved by honesty between sexual partners, and a willingness to come to an agreement one way or another about whether a relationship is open or not. I wouldn't have gotten married if I wanted to keep having sex with strangers, and my husband feels the same way. And we made promises to each other based on that understanding, so it would certainly be a betrayal of that trust if either of us were to have sex with someone else. But maybe someday we'll feel differently. If so, we need to be able to talk about it and come to a new agreement.

And none of it would be anyone's business but ours.

What would you think of simultaneous loving relationships?

Eh. Stressful. I'm not cut out for that. But if you want to, go for it.

Edited to add:I assume you were referring to romantic love relationships-- otherwise, we already have that kind of relationship.

Edited again to add: I don't think people can control whether or not they fall in love with someone else, and I definitely think it's possible to be in love with more than one person at once. But that situation can be painful. And being in love with someone doesn't excuse hurting someone else.