To paraphrase an old joke, doubtless misremembered:
Man1: “It’s the mark of a real man, who upon finding another man with his wife, politely apologizes, begs them to continue, and leaves.”
Man2: “I say it’s the mark of a real man, who can continue.”
–
Anyway, I don’t think “jealous rage” ought to be an affirmative defense or justification for assault or murder, but it’s a dandy foundation for [hijack]jury nullification[/hijack] 
AmbushBug
Enderw24, I haven’t participated in this thread so far in part because I haven’t really had the time and in part because it’s lee’s thread, not mine. lee and I are separate, independent people with independent interests and beliefs. Trying to drag me into her thread, or suggesting that she started the thread to cover for any perceived “cowardice” on my part is both ludicrous and insulting. lee is not my sock puppet any more than I am hers.
The suggestion I made in that abomination of a thread to start a thread in Great Debates was made to Maeglin, who has (as far as I know) not exercised it (although he and I did discuss the issue at some length on IRC on Friday). It was not made to lee, and in fact I did not read this thread until she mentioned that you had posted something (presumably your “bullshit” post) that she was seriously irritated about. And as I read the OP in this thread, it is not intended to discuss the legal issues that Maeglin rose, despite your attempt to hijack it (an attempt which appears to have been ignored by everyone in the thread but you).
After having read this thread, I see no point to add anything to the topic raised in the OP, as what I would say is basically duplicative of that which has already been said. I will not be baited into aiding and abetting a hijack, which is what I think you’re doing.
Hmm…
I would tend to agree that “jealousy” qua jealousy is an emotional reaction that one person may not be able to “turn on and off” at will. OTOH we expect persons to not always act upon their emotional impulses without thought.
While I’m at it, let’s remember that the OP refers to consensual activity. Can we say, if someone is inflicting unwanted attention upon your partner, and is unwilling to back off when told “enough alrerady”, it may be necessary to take steps to correct the situation: the easiest one being, “Honey, let’s leave for a place with a better-quality crowd”; but if the other person is being threatening or actually assaultive, compulsion or outright force may be required to remove the threat.
OTOH, if it’s consensual activity then you may have to confront the other person about what exactly is going on. You and the other person may be witnessing the same event and seeing two different things.
Now, if in the context of what has been understood by both parties to be a committed monogamous couple, it is clearly outright infidelity, I can see how the betrayed side may may be justified in just saying “that’s it, it’s over.” And if it’s the aggreved’s house, adding: “get out, now.” However… if you catch the missus in bed with another man, and your reaction is "shoot the btch", all you gain is 10 years being someone’s btch at the State Pen. Not worth it.
OTOH, with behavior short of that… well, that’s where communication has to be brought to bear. No need to use violence in such a case, just make it known that you’re uncomfortable. It may be that they think they are having fun and playing a game and neglected to consider what your feelings would be, OR it may be that they knew full well what your feelings would be and did not care. If the former, well, it happens some times. If the latter, well, it’s up to you to decide if you wish to accept getting hurt for sport.
lee, sorry to hear about your fall. I will await your response when you feel better.
KellyM, I’m not hijacking this thread at all. The OP made the statement “Using force to stop or prevent consensual contact between adults is wrong.”
I then responded “What if you don’t know that the contact is consensual? What if you walk in and believe your spouse is being raped?”
The OP said “There is no excuse for this conduct and should it break the law Police should take it seriously.”
To which I asked why someone would ever go to the police when they are guilty of committing a crime themselves?
Further, by invoking police and crime in the OP, lee has made this somewhat of a legal debate. The concepts of assault and battery have been passed around and yet no one has come forth with any defintions of what they are, let alone how they are defined for the jurisdiction that they’re in.
While battery is (and this is still a non-legal definition) any form of intentional contact that is unwanted, the police won’t do ANYTHING if there’s been no harm caused. Why? It’s simply not worth the policeman’s time to stop every single unwanted touch everywhere in the city. People need to learn to solve their own problems.
And for the record, KellyM, you said in the other thread “If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in Great Debates or something.”
Well, a new thread’s been started. It’s in Great Debates. I haven’t hijacked a thing.
So the ball’s in your court. What do you want to do?
Marriage vows do not make another person your property, and each person has exactly the same rights after marriage as before it. You can whine about it all you want but your spouse has every legal right to cheat on you (so called “adultery” laws are anachronistic and are not enforced in any state). The only legal justification for a use of force is self-defense. The mailman boinking your wife is not threatening you physically so you have absolutely no legal right to attack anybody. You CERTAINLY have no right to attack your wife. If your wife is being ASSAULTED, then of course you have the right to defend her, but if she’s enjoying herself, oh well, life sucks. Oh, does it hurt your little feelings to see your wife entertaining the troops? TOO BAD LOSER it’s probably your fault anyway.
Lee, I am happy that you and KellyM and your husband are happily ensconced in a loving polyamorous relationship. While this somewhat complex polyamorous relationship structure works for you, it requires a certain degree of flexibility on the part of all parties that is not normally seen (or quite frankly desired) in more standard male female western marriages.
Physical action may not be the most appropriate answer from a modern legal perspective, but it is wired into both male and female humans when it comes to defending the social and physical territorial limits of relationships and the potential violation of agreed upon boundaries. In looking at the big picture I can see more practical evolutionary reasons for a physical response to infidelity (however construed) being a more effective strategy over time than a “turn the other cheek” response in terms of keeping your gene pool in the running with desired mates. It may well be a frightening and potentially destructive part of our genetic wiring, but from biological perspective of being successful primates it is also a logical and evolutionarily useful part of our human psychological makeup to date.
In most healthy male-female exclusive relationships there is an expected (and quite frankly desired by women in many cases) level of proprietariness about the boundaries of the relationship. Obviously this level of proprietariness can reach unhealthy levels in some cases, but many people are quite happy within the boundaries of exclusive relationships where there is a strong and exclusive expectation of mutual fidelity. Despite not being fans of violence I don’t think many women would be enthralled with the notion that their husband’s response to infidelity in the act would be to apologize and back out of the room.
In any case, your assertion that violence is never an appropriate response to infidelity may be supportable from a modern manners perspective, but in the end (IMO) it’s simply a defensive stance you are employing to safeguard the complex and delicate structure of your particular relationship where you would view even the smallest hint of violence as a wrecking ball that will destroy the delicate web of emotional and territorial negotiations you have to maintain to keep it in place. Men are wired to defend territory, whether tribal or personal, and women are wired to defend their status hierarchies in relationships. Violence may have unfortunate consequences, but from a practical evolutionary perspective it is simply the way we are, and to decry any application of physical force in maintaining territorial boundaries for your gene pool and it’s resources is quite PC but ultimately somewhat silly
Can you back that up with reasoned logic? I claim that the same could be said for your position. Perhaps you feel the need to justify violence from an emotional reaction like jealousy to help be comfortable in your world-view.
But facts may not help you.
One thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to reason - to control and manage their behaviors in response to emotions.
You prefaced your post with a comment regarding standard male female western marriages, but then drew conclusions about the human animal. I hope you recognize that male female western marriages are not the only, or “standard” model of human relationships, over the course of history. Further, that western culture derives a significant portion of its morals from Xian religious indoctrination.
You mention primates - are you aware that polysexuality is often found in primates? Even “successful” ones? In fact, monogamy is exceptionally rare in nature. Further, chimpanzees live in hierarchical troops, headed by an alpha male, but the females continue to attract the attentions and mate with other males in the troop. And the alpha male chimpanzees are often violent, territorial, and protective over their harems. Yet in bonobos, our closest primate relative, sex is “free”, the women have power equal to that of males, poly sexuality is the rule, and violence is almost non-existant.
While many “standard male female western marriages” claim monogamy, many (most?) fail to achieve it.
It seems the facts would lead one to conclude that your concept of monogamous relationships of “standard male female western marriages” is contrary to nature, not because of it.
You also seem to imply that in humans, or even all primates, that the primary purpose of sexual behavior is procreation - it is not. The primary purpose is interpersonal relationship development.
In primates, the level of natural fidelity within the females has been correlated with the relative testicular weight in the males.
Even more damning evidence can be found in the sperm counts of men in relation to whether their mates have had an opportunity to be “unfaithful”.
And that’s just studying the females nature. Do I even need to address the inclination toward infidelity in men?
I will only concede your view of moral superiority if we agree that the moral frame of reference is Xian ethics (in terms of fidelity, not violence). But don’t go claiming it is natural - the facts don’t support you.
Finally, no one reading this thread should conclude that I am defending KellyM’s posts in the other thread, I am not. I think she has real problems with her attitudes towards men, and needs intensive counseling. Interspersed in her hate, however, are some gems of truth.
Violence, except in the case of self-defense, is never justifiable, not legally, and certainly not even under Xian ethics. While violent behavior in the case described in the OP is understandable in today’s culture, it should not be condoned, justified, or excused. On this point, KellyM and lee are right.
AZCowboy, I suggest that it is wholly improper of you to conclude anything about my psychological state based on statements which I have already made clear were intended as hyperbolic sarcasm. Do you really believe that Jonathan Swift believed in the morality of eating children, too?
I would ask that y’all stop suggesting that I’m insane just because I can outrant you.
KellyM, assuming what you say is true, please accept my most humble apology.
I spend little time in the pit, and only began reading that thread after perusing this one. I only got through the first two pages, so I guess I didn’t see you characterize your earlier posts as hyperbolic sarcasm - I assumed they reflected of your actual views. I hope you can understand how I reached my conclusion based only on that information.
If I could restate that thought, if someone genuinely agreed with the opinions you expressed early in that thread, they would have significant issues in terms of their view of men, and require intensive counseling.
No, I fully understand your point and the fact that human societies can have myriad arrangements with respect to relationship structures which is why I put the caveat "Physical action may not be the most appropriate answer from a modern legal perspective, but it is wired into both male and female humans when it comes to defending the social and physical territorial limits of relationships and the potential violation of agreed upon boundaries. “Agreed upon boundaries” being whatever territorial limits a couple negotiates in their relationship.
In this context my contrast of traditional bi-lateral coupling in western marriage relationships vs polyamorous relationships was made to illustrate that there is a somewhat different dynamic in place in polyamourous relationships which are (overtly at least) pretty rare in the western and global social context within which this discussion about physical action as “violence” to defend or enforce territorial relationship boundaries is taking place.
Humans over the last few thousand years are traditionally either serially or statically pair mated or there is some sort of dominant male(s) control of the most desirable breeding females. There have been other arrangements for both social and environmental reasons but these have been insignificant relative to the pair mated or harem relationship structures. We may be flexible creatures but it is my opinion that this has its limits.
Both male and female humans are inherently all about establishing and defending tribal, personal and hierarchical territory and I think that the western world and other non-western cultures, are lot more reflective of, and driven by, this tendency than the Christian theist flavor of the last millennia or two. Sexual jealousy and physical action to defend your genes, as it relates to the acquisition and defense of mating privileges and resources for the human male and female, are lot more determinant of how people will respond to threats to their gene pool than what gods you believe in.
Ascribing sexual jealousy in humans to “Xian religious indoctrination” is just silly. It’s a lot more fundamental and powerful than that in both it’s evolutionary rationale and manifestation in realtionships and behavior across time and pan-culturally.
Diogenes the Cynic, since you, like me, are newer to the board, maybe you haven’t had a chance to figure out the rules of the different forums. In Great Debates emotional statements that are untenable on their face are discouraged here. The fact that someone’s spouse is unfaithful in many cases has more to do with the unfaithful party, so your statement is as inaccurate is it is immature and foolish. That’s the kind of thing belongs in The Pit, not GD.
How can you espouse that violation of such boundaries can, in any way, justify violence?
Jealousy can certainly apply to material items, would you find violence as an acceptable method of enforcing any other contract, social or otherwise? What makes a negotiated monogamous relationship worthy of violent enforcement?
Even the language is oxymoronic. If the relationship is previously negotiated, between equal partners without coercion and may be terminated at will, to be monogamous, and one person discovers the other “cheating”, then pretty clearly that previously negotiated agreement has been unilaterally voided. What should the recourse be? Certainly not violence…
While a marital contract may not be voided at will, recourse is limited to non-violent actions.
Now, granted, as Avalonian explained earlier, whatever emotional response you have is innate. But your behavioral response is your own responsibility.
[hijack]
One last thought - In your first post, you said:
Human behavior and biology tend to argue otherwise.
Then in your followup post:
At least in your second post, you allow that however limited polyamory may be, it is likely covert, which makes its prevalence difficult to assess. Your first post made it sound “abnormal”, which would be similar to many statements made 40 years ago regarding homosexuality. In our culture, homosexuality has gained more social acceptance than polyamory (for whatever reason). But you seem to imply that monogamy is the norm, and I would suggest that serial monogamy is the norm. And serial monogamy is simply a culturally acceptable form of polygyny. Very few human societies have ever adopted a true lifelong monogamous structure. And I doubt any of those have actually attained the ideal. Even in “monogamous” cultures where infidelity is punishable by death, infidelity remains relatively common.
I don’t believe it is, as there is no evidence that sexual jealously is genetic or inherited, but evidence suggests it is instead a learned disposition. While its roots may not go back to Xian theology, its perpetuation certainly is. Today’s society has no need for it (which, btw, means I disagree that there is any evolutionary component relevent today). To continue that debate here would be a hijack. I’d be willing to continue it, if you would like to spawn yet another thread.
[/hijack]
I did not mention my situation so that I would need to answer impertinent questions, and I am less inclined than I was before to do so after being called a coward, and also in light of what appears to be an attempt to make this about specific situations. I mentioned it mostly to demonstrate that violent response to the situations mentioned by other was hardly universal. Regardless of whether participants are in a proclaimed monogamous relationship, or a polyamorous one, violence in response to perceived unfaithfulness is not inevitable or reasonable. Violence is a reasonable response to you or others being in physical danger from another. I would hope that anyone would be able to perceive or at least determine based on a simple inquiry whether the contact was consensual. If responding violently to perceived unfaithfulness was as inevitable as two male bettas puffing up at the sight of one another, I might feel differently. As is stands, I think anyone incapable of controlling himself or herself in such a situation doesn’t deserve the rights and privileges of an adult. Depending on the ground rules of a relationship, anger may be quite reasonable, but that doesn’t excuse violence and we should not act as if it does.
Enderw24, upon reviewing this mess of a thread, I see you are a bit upset that neither KellyM nor lee addressed your questions. One of the great things about GD (and the SMMB) is that anyone can jump in, so allow me.
You query:
[ul]
[li]A reasonable person who was interested in seeing violent offenders put in jail or at least properly punished. The fact that the individual was committing adultery is quite moot, since adultery laws are not enforced. Each transgression of the law is handled independently of the other.[/li][li]This question is certainly a hijack since the OP clearly conditioned that it was consensual. And it is not even an interesting question, because, sure, you can use force to protect your spouse (or SO, or anyone) from rape. Duh. If you have trouble identifying the difference between consensual sex and rape, the jury will.[/li][li]Unwanted by whom? By you, or your SO? If it is unwanted by you but welcomed by your SO, it’s time for you to reevaluate your relationship. If the behavior is unwanted by your SO, your SO should inform the offending party to stop. If it doesn’t stop, you’ve got choices. Your SO can ask again, more emphatically. Your SO can leave the scene. Your SO can call the police, file a report. You can’t go off and slug 'em (unless the touching you refer to could be considered a sexual assault or otherwise physically threatening, and your actions taken as defending your SO, and even then, the force used should only be what is necessary to remove the threat).[/li][/ul]
Was there something here you wanted to debate? What, exactly, did you disagree with from the OP?
Sgt. J
Most socological and psychological studiues show that men cheat for sex and women cheat because their emotional needs are not being met by the male, so it is a FACT, dude that if a woman cheats on a man, it is statistically probable that it IS his fault. It’s irrelevant anyway because it doesn’t matter WHO’s fault it is, CONSENSUAL “adultery” is not a legal or moral justification for violence. My statement was facetious and was addressed rhetorically to any male who is trying to fantasize a scenario where he gets to beat up a woman for free. Emotional anguish is not an excuse. The Minnesota Vikings have caused me tremendous emotional anguish in my life, does that mean I should be able to beat up Randy Moss? (I know, he would kick my ass, but you get my point)
Not that your post showed you had anything valuable to add to the thread it did make me think of something. When a man cheats he’s often potrayed as being something of a pig in the media. When a woman cheats she’s more often potrayed as finding herself, fulfilling some emotional need, or her husband is a pig.
Marc
Cite? I am not completely uneducated, and it has not been my experience that the preponderance of the psych studies on this issue have come to such a clear-cut conclusion.
Even IF that is true, which I highly doubt, just because one person in a monogamous relationship isn’t getting their needs met doesn’t mean the other party is at fault. That’s silly. The main objective in a relationship isn’t to “do whatever it takes to meet the other’s needs.” That’s emotional blackmail, not a healthy relationship.
I don’t think jealousy is a reason to assault someone.
But it isn’t all about jealousy anymore. If your SO is having sex with another, they are exposing you to DEATH. Disregarding your safety and RISKING YOUR LIFE without your knowledge is no better than standing behind you and playing Russian roulette while you sleep. I would not assault my wife if I found out she was unfaithful, but that’s just me. If my sister or daughter found out their Hubby had so little respect for them as to expose them to diseases and death by having sex outside the marriage and not giving them the information so they can make their own decisions about their heath and safety, I would gladly beat the holy shit out of said husband upon request.
I’d sleep like a baby afterward.
AZCowboy, thank you for responding to my queries. Adultery laws are rarely enforced, this is correct. But I won’t say never. Sodomy laws are rarely enforced too, but people can and have been arrested for it. It is a possibility and that possibility becomes quite a bit more likely when someone wastes the officer’s time saying “he pushed off the bed while I was in the middle of fucking his wife.” The officer is just as likely to turn around and say “he did WHAT while you were committing this crime?”
Yes, this is a waste of the police’s efforts. Pushing is battery. I will not deny that. But no one was hurt and there is a difference between, say, grabbing someone’s wrist and beating that person into a coma. Many levels in between and many shades of gray. But overall, I’d say that if you aren’t physically hurt from the encounter, you’re wasting the officer’s time and being a crybaby to boot.
As to point two, if I thought my girlfriend or wife was being raped I’m not going to stand there and ask politely if they think it’s going to rain later that night. Act first, questions later. If it turns out she was cheating on me, well I’m not going to be the one apologizing for my actions.
Point three: why should it be up to my SO to handle unwanted encounters? If she wants to handle it herself, I’d let her. No problem. But the point of being in a relationship is the ability to present a united front against unwanted attention.
And this gets to the heart of the issue: the united front. Look, if you want an open marriage, that’s perfectly fine. You want to swing? Knock yourself out. If you don’t get jealous, then that’s wonderful to you. I have absolutely nothing but respect for your choices on how you live your life.
But when you enter a marriage knowing that it is you and her, and ONLY you and her, then the game’s changed a bit. When she cheats on you, she’s lied to you. She’s used you. This is not “her life, her choice,” we’re talking about because her life when it comes to a relationship outside the marriage is your life too. You damn well have the right to physically restrain your wife from screwing some other guy (I cannot believe I have to make this clarifying statement, but “physically restrain” does NOT mean beating the crap out of her). If that makes me a lesser person in your eyes, so be it. I’m happy to live with my theoretical imperfections.
Enderw24, on the first point, we essentially agree. The battery worthy of police action should be battery worthy of police action. Like a bloody beating, not a wrist lock. Shades of gray, I agree. My only point is that catching your spouse cheating does not absolve you from acting responsibly. Granted, you may get plenty of sympathy from a jury, but you could still be put in front of a jury.
On the second point, regarding rape, I think it would normally be quite evident (the difference between consensual sex and rape). I can think of some cases where this would not be the case, and I agree that you have to go with your first instinct. If you end up making a mistake, perhaps a jury will take pity. But you still may have to face a charge.
On the third point, you continue something that I found frustrating in your original post, and that is to switch back and forth between SOs and spouses. You also start off “gender generic”, then back to “gender specific”, appealing the chivalry of protecting a defenseless woman. You’ve also failed to clarify how the attention is unwanted (unwanted by whom?). And finally, what I want in a marriage or chose to do with my life is not at question or issue. For context however, I will tell you that I am married with two small children. And sexual jealousy is not an unknown emotion to me.
So, why is up to your SO to handle unwanted encounters? Because only your SO can determine that it is unwanted. If your SO requests your help, then you certainly should step in. Appropriate physical restraint to physical threats is wholly acceptable, and would never lead to charges. If you beat a guy to bloody pulp for winking at your wife, you may find it difficult to sleep well at night, as those beds in jail aren’t very comfortable.
If you are in a traditional marriage, I certainly agree that, “when she cheats on you, she’s lied to you.” It’s kinda redundant. But I don’t understand your comment about how “she’s used you” (and I’m not sure if it is relevent).
Uh, no, you don’t. Where do you believe you derive such a right? And if it doesn’t include “beating the crap out of her”, as you acknowledge, what does it include? Locking her in the closet? Chastity belt? What is it about marriage that makes you think you have the right to physically impose your will over her will?
Sgt. J, are you sexist? No, you say?
Then if you switch your scenario around, the wife of your brother or son was out having (unsafe) sex and therefore creating health risks to your brother or son, would you go beat the holy shit out of said wife?
If not, why not?
And is your issue really health? If said spouse (either way) was practicing safe sex outside marriage, do they still get the holy shit beat out of them?