Raising viable children to adulthood requires a smallish “tribe” of people who each care in some way for the child until it reaches maturity. There’s not a specific format of relationship or partnership that is required to accomplish this, from a historical or evolutionary perspective. A set of parents living alone with their children actually is NOT the best option, going purely from the standpoint of child-rearing. Extra adults in the household (historically speaking either grandparents or secondary wives/older unmarried children) share the burden and make the care-giving more stable.
I’m just saying, you’re putting a lot on sex that doesn’t HAVE to be there.
Is it good for it to be there? Maybe.
Does it work in a majority of cases? Yeah, it seems to.
Does it HAVE to be that way? Nope.
And a lot of people are threatened by extra people in a relationship because our entire culture tells us that we should be threatened. But why? In cultures where plural marriages are the norm, do you think that the first relationship is always harmed by the addition of another person?
Unless your husband is God, he’s going to need more to this argument than his say-so.
Really, any argument beyond that would just be opening the chance for him to ignore this fallacy and attack your arguments instead. At the moment, he is not making an argument at all. He’s done the equivalent of saying, “Well, she’s a poopyhead and I won’t have it.”
I’m sure that there is an argument to be made to support his side, but he has not made it.
I’m not convinced that any of us bases right vs. wrong on reasoned consideration. We feel it in our guts, we rationalize it after the fact. I can’t change the fact that he thinks it’s wrong any more than I can change the fact that I don’t.
I do not believe that is true. I have, over my life, changed my opinion on the morality of things. Ask me in 2007 or so and I would have said that homosexuality was sinful and that abortion made you a murderer. It wasn’t that my feelings changed–I got more information, and realized I was wrong.
And I still to this day wind up changing what I believe on things, after realizing that something I believed in my gut is inconsistent with the morals I claim to hold. Exactly how it seems for your husband–he has a belief that seems inconsistent, so he rationalized it to fit into his belief system.
I would have thought you’d have experienced this difference yourself, having grown up fundamentalist. (Right?) Didn’t what you thought was moral change when you were given access to more information?
I do think that feelings play some general role, but they aren’t overriding. As rational beings, we learn to have our feelings serve us, not the other way around. Lots of things push that “icky” feeling that I know are morally fine. Just like a lot of things make me feel afraid despite being perfectly fine.
Nah, my morality is basically unchanged from when I was religious. That’s why I left the church. I didn’t believe any of the bullshit they were spoon-feeding me about homosexuality being wrong or any of that. I’ve always been a peace-loving, liberal goody-goody, and I may express it differently now but I’m mostly the same.
I don’t really feel like getting into the science, but the general gist of how people make ethical decisions, based on neuropscyhological research, is this, in this order:
They judge that a thing is wrong.
They have feelings that a thing is wrong - emotional investment.
They create a rational framework to justify their judgment and feeling.
The rational framework is post-facto justification for the initial judgment.
You may have changed your mind about certain issues over time, as have I, but ‘‘changing one’s mind’’ is largely an emotionally driven response. Perhaps the influx of new information triggers new emotional responses, who knows?
Rationality is the biggest delusion humans maintain, but I guess it’s not unlike free will in that whether we are capable of being truly rational is beside the point - we act like we are, we feel like we are, therefore for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t really matter. Being aware of that does make me more accepting, though, of people who operate with a different moral framework.
I don’t think it matters whether the explicit rationalization takes place before or after the instinctive, emotional reaction. The two can serve to test each other. If your gut feeling requires contorted or broken logic to explicate, or if your clean reasoning leads to conclusions that feel terrible–a re-examination is in order.
And what purpose does your second category serve? Is it any different from those of us who say the action is not immoral, and thus we should not interfere? You’ve just created this whole argument, when, ultimately, you agree with everyone else from above that it’s wrong to interfere with two consenting adults.
If that was it, I’d just leave it alone. It would just be a semantic issue. But it’s not. Sr. Weasel is a psychiatrist. And he’s just declared certain people to have a mental illness because of actions he believes are immoral. A psychiatrist’s job is to treat mental illness. If the person doesn’t think it is a mental illness, their job is to convince them that it is. So put in that position, where his ethics as a psychiatrist say to try and stop it, you think he won’t act at all?
Do you see the cognitive dissonance? Is it not easier to just hold as an ethic “What they consent to do is their business” and not bother judging it? Rather than having two different ethics in contradiction?
But, if that’s not enough, what about the other direction? You’ve created a secondary classification of wrong. So what’s to prevent you from seeing something wrong, say it’s wrong, but then not do anything about it? You claim there are some situations where you think you should act (a moral statement) and situations where you should not act (also a moral statement). But we humans tend to want to avoid acting if it’s inconvenient. So you’re going to shift something into that second category.
In short, that’s why we have all the Internet slacktivists. It makes them feel good to say something is wrong, but they don’t do anything about it. They get the good feeling of calling something wrong, but don’t do anything. That extra category gives them an out. THAT is dangerous, as it allows evil to triumph because “good” people do nothing.
If, however, you say “if you really believe it’s wrong, you will try to stop it,” that problem goes away. Sure, it means admitting to yourself that there are a lot of things you don’t really think are wrong. Like you don’t really think objectification is wrong.
Which will also make it easier for you to look at porn without feeling guilty. You do realize that porn is consensual objectification, right? Hell, even having sex with someone involves some degree of consensual sexual* objectification.
It’s okay, because it’s consensual. It is not wrong.
*And, of course, you non-sexually objectify everyone not in your “monkeysphere,” as they are not full people to you.
Only if you’re being lazy about it mentally and saying that something’s not wrong ONLY because you aren’t doing anything about it, which I don’t *think *is his argument.
So, here’s an example. I think that the way modern factory farming treats animals is inhumane, dirty, and cruel. It is, to me, WRONG to treat animals that way. However, I don’t have the mental energy to do much of anything about it, so I mostly don’t think about it. It isn’t “not wrong” - I’m just choosing to focus on something else. I’m honest about that, and it is uncomfortable at times when I’m forced to think about it, but I’ve only got so much attention and time to spend, and that issue is not gonna be it for me.
The argument seems to be that lots of people say “That’s not for me, therefore it’s wrong” when really, they should just stop at “that’s not for me” and stop worrying about other people’s behavior or beliefs so much.
Apologies if I’m misunderstanding either of you, but the above is, I think, an example of the “second category” that BigT says shouldn’t exist – he is actually saying that either you’re doing something about it, or you really do not believe it’s wrong. You’re supposed to “admit to yourself” that you don’t think factory farming is wrong.
Maybe it’s me who’s misunderstanding. I thought he was being purposefully hyperbolic in his explanation, to make his point about people mouthing off about what’s “wrong” without having anything behind it but spleen and internet fury, but if his post is taken at absolute face value, then yes, you are correct.
And IMO, that’s a silly extreme theory for several reasons; firstly, because there is a fuck-ton wrong with this modern world and individuals literally cannot act on everything we know about, secondly, being able to hold conflicting thoughts in our heads is one of the really amazing tricks that makes us function as humans, and thirdly, it doesn’t take into account the varying shades and imports of “wrong” that the limitations implicit in my first point make absolutely necessary to deal with these sorts of things on an individual basis.
Exactly this. BigT is creating a false dichotomy that makes no sense in terms of human psychology or the practicality of everyday life. Also, wrongness can totally exist on a spectrum… I think genocide is more wrong than spanking children, for example. What we invest our energy into depends entirely on how hard something hits us on that spectrum of wrongness and exactly what resources/time/energy we have on our hands to do something about it.
So to sum up the broader point, there not only needs to be consent, there also needs to be:
agency, including a lack of coercion (physical or emotional);
the ability to fully understand what is being consented too (which excludes those suffering from various types of impairment or incapacitation);
full information on what is being consented to (to pick an example, one might be reluctant to have sex with someone with AIDS and would not give consent if such a condition was known about); and
the ability to withdraw consent at any time.
This “sex” thing sounds complicated.
And on the subject of the OP, I accept that such arrangements can work out well but (at least in reality) to initiate such a “transaction” without the consent of one of the parties has the potential to blow up in all sorts of ways, and not just for Beth. I could easily see Kale being emotionally traumatized by having Beth suddenly turn up on his doorstep in slave mode. Mind you, your average romcom has protagonists engaging in wacky behavior that in reality would result in arrest or at least a restraining order, so literary license might as well apply depending on how you want to play it.
Spice Weasel - on a tangent, have you or your other half seen Billions? One of the main couples have a dom/sub relationship which is portrayed (to my untrained eye) in a very sensitive manner. I’m curious how those more familiar with the scene see it.
Of course consent does not mean ethical. The street walking prostitute addicted to drugs and needing her next fix may consent to me paying her $20 for a blowjob in a dark alley. Certainly my mother would not believe that was very ethical of me to do.
Interesting you use this example. In my novel (in no way related to the short story) my male protagonist, Fel, has a friend who is a prostitute. She was kidnapped at a young age and forced into prostitution but has been slowly trying to make her own way, within the realm of what she knows, which is being a whore.
Fel definitely pays his friend for sex at least on a weekly basis. Because of the nature of her job he also pays her for any time she’s not with some other john, even if they aren’t having sex. There is a bit of a blowup between Fel and the female protagonist later in the story because she accuses him of being exploitative of the prostitutes he sleeps with, knowing they have no other choice. He is infuriated by the implication because he is so far down the social ladder himself he views himself as utterly equal to the whores he sleeps with. That is, he also feels he was forced into a lifestyle that others view as immoral, therefore he doesn’t see a power differential between himself and the women he pays for sex.
Whether he’s rationalizing or not is an interesting question. I leave it open for the reader to decide.
If we go down that road, though, we must agree that most employment contracts are not voluntary. Let’s say that I only work because I need the money to pay the bills and put a roof over my head. If I was otherwise wealthy, I would tell my boss to take his job and shove it up his ass.
Does that mean I am being exploited and that the work is not voluntary?
I mean, we all have external influences that shape our decisions. To say that my hypothetical prostitution “contract” is invalid for lack of consent calls into question the voluntariness of pretty much anything.
I mean, I want to take your $100k, but I really hate giving up my house. Did you exploit me?
