I don’t think I suggested that it was.
My point was that you do, indeed, have standards to which you hold your husband’s behavior. It’s not an issue in your marriage because you both agree on those standards and where the line is drawn.
I don’t understand how that is funny?
His standards for his behavior are higher than my standards for his behavior, which is why I strenuously disagree with the idea that I am controlling him. I fell in love with a man with high personal standards of behavior. What would happen were he to abandon those standards? Well, he wouldn’t be the same man I fell in love with.
You didn’t suggest that it was my fault if he strays, but a number of posts in this thread have suggested it, perhaps not outright, but very much there. If I am “foolish” to “allow” him to go to a strip club, that’s definitely saying that I have a responsibility for his actions. I am addressing the thread in general when I say that my husband’s behavior is his responsibility, not mine.
I also don’t see why you think that’s funny. If you want to call personal ethics a leash, well, whatever, I won’t argue semantics with you, but the key is, it’s a restriction he puts on himself. I’m not dictating any terms to him or attempting to restrict him in any way; it’s his own code of behavior and self-control that stops him from acting in ways that would be detrimental to our marriage. These are standards that we both hold, otherwise we wouldn’t have married each other.
I find it interesting that the reasons you give for not cheating–don’t want to catch a disease, don’t want to impregnate another woman–are all from fear of consequences, and not because it would simply be wrong or that it would hurt your wife. You freely admit that you would have sex with another woman if those consequences to you weren’t present. I suppose this is why you have a hard time understanding that some people act out of a sense of personal values, and believe that doing some things is simply wrong, and thus don’t do them. Granted, in this age of perpetual adolescence and self-gratification, those people are probably in the minority, but they do still exist.
You judge me wrong. I wouldn’t want to pass on a disease to my wife because it would be wrong. I wouldn’t want to get a woman pregnant because I don’t consider abortion an option; it’s wrong. I don’t want to lie to my wife; lying is wrong.
But no, I don’t consider the sex itself wrong.
Note how eager you were to put in the box of amoral person; I suppose that’s easier to digest than someone who simply disagrees with you in part.
The real disagreement in this thread has been twofold, I think. Between those who blithely say, “Oh, I would trust him” (the naive contingent), and those who say, “Keep an eye open.” Then there is disagreement between those who have peered deeply at human nature (I include myself, I have at least tried) and those with hand-me-down ethics and tired truisms (“relationships aren’t about control, blah blah”).
I mean, c’mon. Wives in 1935 would to a woman have outright forbidden their husbands to have affairs, to watch strippers, to read porn, whatever. All based on a rather strict Judeo-Christian ethic.
Now, in 2005, we have this conceit that porn and strippers are OK but doing it is wrong. What’s up with that? It’s completely arbitrary. It’s nothing more than people people being swayed this way and that by the tide of the times, and replying with prefab outrage when anyone questions any part of their patchwork ethical system.
Personally, I think through moral/ethical situations carefully and do my best to do what is right.
Yeah, you’ve got me pegged.:dubious:
Can you walk me through this? Having sex with another woman isn’t wrong, but the other stuff you listed is? If you’re in an openly polyamorous marriage, I can understand that, but you seemed to indicate earlier that wasn’t the case. If I’m wrong on that, my apologies.
If you’re in a monogamous marriage, I don’t understand how you can justify your last statement.
Except, apparently, you think that your wife has to force you to do what’s “right.”
Because you certainly don’t seem to accept that other men do their best to do what is “right.”
I’ve been following this thread and the various opinions regarding ethics, trust, control, et al. Last night I got involved in a discussion in a chat room on a closely related topic. The woman with whom I was chatting kept maintaining that all men and all women want sex and not only will but should take advantage of every opportunity to to have sex. She refused to accept my statement that I had no interest in sex with anyone but my girlfriend. One of the more interesting exchanges occurred when she asked me if having sex with another woman would make me like my girlfriend any less. I responded that (in the extremely unlikely event that this happened) I would not like my girlfriend any less, but I would like myself less. This completely flummoxed her, as she could not grasp the concept that sex had anything to do with personal feelings.
This is exactly the problem I’m having. Aeschines, you have all through this thread stated that your reasons for not cheating are strictly based on fear of consequences to yourself and not because you think they’re wrong. Now you say it is because you think they’re wrong–oh, except for the actual having sex with someone not your wife, that’s not wrong. What?
Well, that’s an interesting point of view, and well expressed, but also a bit of a false dilemma.
You seem to be dividing men into the two groups of those who believe “relationships aren’t about control blah blah” and those with deep insight into male nature, who think that men will screw anything that is hot and hollow unless they are held in check by a monogamous leash. And I am not so sure the two groups are as distinct as you seem to feel.
<TMI mode>
I was out of town on business about six years back (New York City, as it happens, and I live in the same area as Dangerosa). I attended a party hosted by my client, also attended by a number of other people. One of those people was a rather attractive blonde, from Melbourne, Australia IIRC. Very nice woman, and we got to talking before dinner during the cocktail hour. And then sat next to each other at dinner. All was well, until after dessert, when she asked me if I wanted to go to her hotel for a drink.
Well, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I react to a good solid whack with the Clue Stick,:smack: and for the first time in seventeen years, I found someone was coming on to me other than the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Shodan.
I smiled politely and declined.
Why do I tell this anecdote? Because it is related to something that happened many years earlier than that, before I have even met my wife. I was waiting for a bus (on my way home from a party, about 1:00am), and somewhat buzzed. And a young lady of about my age, or a bit older, came up to me and struck up a conversation. You know the line from the movie Arthur - “What, you’re a hooker? I forgot - I just thought I was doing great with you!” Same scenario, but I did not catch on until she asked me if I was looking for a “date”. more :smack:
I told her, “No thank you”. After I finally caught on.
The point being, you might want to describe me as being on a leash, but my wife is not holding the other end. There are some things, even sexual things, that I Do Not Do. Even if I have the chance, and nobody would know. And even before I was married.
YMMV. But I don’t think this - commitment? frame of mind? - is as rare as you might think.
Regards,
Shodan
This is beautifully put.
Shodan, my opinion of you just went up several notches. And I agree with your last sentence.
I think the question is largely situational. It depends a great deal on the respect and trust within a relationship. If you respect your partner enough, you’re not going to do anything to hurt them. And if there’s trust there, your partner is going to feel comfortable knowing you’re not going to do anything to hurt them. And vice versa, of course.
Thanks for your openness to dialog.
Old school Western thought: You’re married with the blessing of God Himself and sex outside of that marriage is adultery, a serious sin. For that matter, porn is bad, prostitution is bad, masterbation is bad, etc.
I don’t agree with that way of thinking (not the absolutenesss of it, although there is something to be said for its consistency and overall aesthetic). Two people having sex isn’t bad. Sex outside of marriage isn’t bad in itself, either. It’s up to the people in any given relationship to decide what is right and wrong–for them.
I do think lying is basically wrong, however. Creating a partnership with someone and violating the terms of that partnership is wrong. Another thing about my relationship with my wife is that her loyalty and devotion to me is, more or less implicitly, predicated upon a set of behavioral standards for me. It would just feel wrong for me to be out partying with some chick, laughing it up, while she is at home cleaning the house and making my dinner. It’s not the sex itself that is wrong, but the overall violation of her ideal for what we are.
I am not in a monogamous marriage because I myself value monogamy or feel that I would be punished by God if I did not uphold its values. I act monogamously because of the risk not doing so entails and because of my desire to maintain the particular relationship in which I am involved.
Another thing is that I happen to be lucky and be involved in a really great relationship, so the marginial utlitily of alternative poon is really, really low.
There’s something missing in this discussion. Perhaps it’s an unspoken assumption: the idea that once two people become boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, etc., they’re just going to have sex with each other.
Attached to that notion has been, historically, the notion that Heaven/God/the Gods want it to be that way. In other words, monogamy is a given, and it is strictly immoral to violate its rules, whatever those may be in detail.
I think one disconnect between what I and others here have been saying is that I don’t accept monogamy as a given; rather I have explicitly in my own mind identified it as a potentially useful but nevertheless artificial social institution.
It seems to me a lot of people here think (consciously or un-) that monogamy is a good and natural thing. To my mind, monogamy indeed can do good, and society must choose one framework for sexuality or another to avoid social chaos, but it nevertheless on average puts a strain on male sexuality, since men on average will find themselves attracted to multiple partners and desire to have sex with multiple partners.
In the last 45 years, the social structure that specifically supported monogamy has almost completely broken down. Which is not to say that society no longer in general supports monogamy–it does–but the regime of rewards and punishments that gave the system teeth is now almost completely absent. Society used to require a deep committment on the part of men before they could have sex. Now, if anything, society pretty much requires people to have premarital sex inasmuch as women are putting off marriage for the sake of their careers (ie, they must work as wage slaves until at least their late 20s). Living together before marriage is now pretty much standard, divorce regretted but by no means stigmatized.
Put simply, in 1960 men had to obey to get pussy and keep obeying once they got it. Nowadays, that just isn’t the case.
So now we have a society that limply supports/enforces monogamy, and we have a majority of society that flouts its values (consider the Jerry Springer classes). I think monogamy as a value system is old, tired, and conterproductive. That is why I fully support gay and polygamous marriage. People should be free to form such domestic partnerships as they please while accepting full responsibility for their own happiness (exception: young people should absolutely be protected from sexual abuse and exploitation).
So I am not anti-porn, anti-stripper, or anti-any adult pursing his/her sexuality in a manner that does not hurt or exploit others. What I am seeing in this thread, however (and I judge no individuals–I am critiquing only the statements and logic that are being presented in the thread) is the tired-ass legacy meme “monogamy” degraded with modern-day what-the-hell-ism and old-fashioned wishful thinking.
I have no issue whatsoever with a domestic partnership in which porn and strippers are permitted but sex with others is not. But those rules should be based on a careful pondering of what the needs of the participants in fact are, as well as a careful estimate of the likely behavioral outcomes of those rules.
The Kingdom of Monogamy is currently a failed state in possesion of Weapons of Mass Delusion. I don’t think there’s any hope to save it. We need a new constitution.
Aeschines:
And if you take that logic far enough, we’re back to the same old meme: If a woman is raped, it is her fault because she didn’t take the proper precautions. Or the fault of other women he’s known for not laying the smackdown on him and conditioning him out of having a sex drive. Is it ALWAYS up to the woman to exercise control, NEVER the man?
JThunder:
anu-la1979 already said it:
Well, you’re not far off. Many men are swine who will commit rape at various stages in an encounter. Although rape is not a woman’s moral fault, she must still protect herself from crime, just as I must protect myself from getting my car stolen by locking the door. It ought not be that way, but it is.
It is incumbent upon us all to exercise control, so as to fulfill our goals and avoid committing evil.
One of my pet peeves are guys who, because they are guys and therefore know how every guy in the world thinks, say that all men want sex with anyone all the time and only their woman can stop them, through restricting what they can do.
The fundamental problem Aeschines is having is that he does not understand just what kind of trust people are talking about.
Nobody (as far as I see) is talking about trusting someone not to do something they desperately want to do.
That kind of trust, I would agree, is naive.
But what most people who say they would trust their significant other seem to be talking about is instead trust that their significant other would not want to, for example, have sex with a stripper.
That kind of trust is not naive.
Indeed, if you don’t have that trust, you don’t really have anything. Because, even if you tried, you aren’t always going to be there to lead your man around on a leash.
Furthermore, you can drive your significant other away (male or female), or even motivate them to cheat, by trying to control them as Aeschines suggests. It’s a bad strategy all around.
I’m not sure where you got that idea. I’ve stated (on these boards) that human beings are not by nature monogamous. No matter what kind of contract you enter into with your partner, be it monogamous or polyamorous, there are still rules that will be laid down within the relationship in order to avoid misunderstandings and respect your partner’s limits. It has nothing to do with the “laws of god” in my mind, and very little to do with the laws of the state, except to the extent that I expect my partner to be discreet enough to not get arrested. There are other rules, of course, but they are rules we decide on together and they are based on mutual respect and trust.
Faugh. Because something MIGHT happen, I should barricade myself away from all sources of risk else I’m to blame?
Like hell.
If I run around living my life as though every man is a potential rapist - regardless of circumstance - then what good are my life and freedom? If I blame myself for being raped, how am I ever to regain emotional equilibrium? Under your philosophy this is how I should comport myself.
It’s nonsense to say “Men will find themselves attracted to many women, therefore monogamy isn’t the natural condition”. Having the impluse to do something is not the same as that thing being advantageous for either an individual or the species as a whole. I frequently have the impluse to live off of cheetos, cheesecake and Mt. Dew. This does not make such a diet natural - or imposed upon me by the strictures of my society (or the advertising hegemony for that matter). I have the impluse to do a lot of things that aren’t conducive to my own best interests. Being possessed of a modest amount of common sense, I can manage to make decisions that are contrary to my impulses. My preference for a monogamous relationship has nothing to do with the strictures of society and everything to do with my knowledge of what is best for me.
Having chosen a man exhibiting a modest amount of common sense, I can have confidence that he is similarly capable. This is not me beig naive.
A previous poster said it best “If he’s not bright enough to realize that throwing away what we have for the sake of boning a stripper is a bad idea, he ain’t for me” (paraphrased of course).
No, you act in life according to reasonable assessments of risk.
And there is a difference between moral fault and recklessness.
You added the phrase “regardless of circumstance,” thereby grossly distorting the argument.
This has nothing to do with rape in particular but everything to do with risks vis-a-vis other people. If I pick up all manner of hitchhikers out of kindness, I may not be morally at fault for whatever bad things happen to me, but I am still acting stupidly.
No, it makes precise sense, actually. Men’s being attracted to multple partners ipso facto means they are not monogamous by nature.
Quite right! You’ve encountered the unpleasant truth that there are contradictions in human nature. It is a prejudice of our culture that what we consider to be right must also be in harmony with the rest of us. But it isn’t so.
Actually, it is natural. Either your body is a freak but desires it according to its own nature, or your body represents the dietary tendencies we all have. Modern life is in contradiction with our natural desire to eat fat and sugar and carbs. I’m not sure about Mountain Dew, however.
Here we agree completely.
If it isn’t, it isn’t, but many are fooled, right?
This is thinking that serves the lazier part of the mind. If he’s good, then all is well, and if he isn’t good, well, then, I can just get rid of him! You win either way!
Unless, of course, he’s good at appearing good while doing that which you consider bad. Then you’re SOL.