theory on jealousy
Steve Pope
jealousy is always rooted in insecurity, is rooted
in insecurity.
Steve
Scott
You're only saying that because of your insecurity.
--Scott
Mark Kille
> Subject: Re: theory on jealousy
> Message-ID: <4hrkdk$6...@panix2.panix.com>
> References: <4hl00b$g...@agate.berkeley.edu> <4hq8pq$e...@mercury.wright.edu>
>
> Scott (sbur...@library.wright.edu) wrote:
> : s...@bob.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Pope) wrote:
> : >I think the tendency of some people to assert that
> : >jealousy is always rooted in insecurity, is rooted
> : >in insecurity.
I never understood this idea that jealousy comes from insecurity. I'm
one of the more insecure people I know. I'm also one of the least jealous
people I know. If anything, my insecurity leads to me _not_ being jealous,
because I'll get an attitude of "no one could possibly care about me
enough that I'd have the right to make any claim on their behavior."
Robert Wells
: Mark Kille (mki...@dunster-lab1.student.harvard.edu) wrote:
:
: : I never understood this idea that jealousy comes from insecurity.
I never understood that either. Jealousy is a little more
complex than that. I think it is often associated with various types of
insecurity, but I'm sure that sometimes I have felt jealous *before* the
associated insecurity has arisen. And it's not just a
conscious/unconscious distinction. You won't convince me that the
insecurity was necessarily there first, because there are many other
ways I could have consciously identified it without getting jealous.
Feeling jealous might actually often be the *cause* of being
insecure about the levels of commitment in a relationship.
: : I'm
: : one of the more insecure people I know. I'm also one of the least jealous
: : people I know. If anything, my insecurity leads to me _not_ being jealous,
: : because I'll get an attitude of "no one could possibly care about me
: : enough that I'd have the right to make any claim on their behavior."
One of the battles that goes on in my head is between the "you
*know* that's not a very socially positive way to think" side and the
"but I'm not really worth much to another person" side. It doesn't seem
to help assuage any jealous feelings in me, though. Rather, the jealousy
would normally cause me to put that thought away for later so I could do
something about the situation that made me jealous. Oops, that was a
confused paragraph...
: I know that when I am jealous, it's mostly because I feel like the
: person i've become jealous about has found me wanting.. if this makes
: sense.. and is looking for those things in another person.
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. I catch myself wondering how
I can be more fulfilling to my love in whatever sense I think I may be
lacking, that they might feel the need to look somewhere else. I still
haven't decided whether me thinking like this is healthy for a
relationship (or my own security) or not.
: Although, at
: times, my jelaousy is a lot more of a tangled thread than that. For
: instance, I can be jealous if two peole I love are invovled, and i'm not
: there!
Are you sure this is jealousy, Autumn? Perhaps it's just a
little bit of loneliness? I get this too, but I often end up feeling
lucky because it only means my loves are happy, and it means they aren't
dependent on me and only me to be that way.
Sorry I responded to two posts in one, but it seems sensible at
this time of the morning. :)
Cya,
Rob.
:
:
Angi Long
of "I want what sie has, too" is envy. Jealousy is the feeling of "I
don't want hir to have that." Or "I don't want to share that." "I want
*me* to have X *instead*" rather than "I want me to have X *too*."
Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
Steve Pope
> The words 'jealousy' and 'envy' get confused all the time.
Yep.
> Jealousy is the feeling of "I don't want hir to have that."
Yep.
> Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
I often see jealousy that is rooted, not in insecurity, but
in a lack of respect for one's partners and one's partner's
relationships. I see situations where the relationship somebody
is jealous of poses no threat, but simply isn't respected
(usually without just cause). Insecurity often does not
enter into it.
Steve
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>In reading this newsgroup, I can't count the number of
>times I've heard people say things like "I don't get
>jealous" or "Naturally poly people don't get jealous".
Well, I've been here since the group was started in 1992, and I don't
believe that, so if you've seen that sentiment voiced many times, you've
seen it disagreed with at least as many times.
Actually, my experience has been the opposite -- in the local community
of polyfolk, I've experienced a lot of people believing that jealousy is
"bad" or "wrong", or that "naturally poly" people shouldn't feel it, but on
this newsgroup, there's usually been a lot of healthy respect for it.
---
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain |
jenn...@umich.edu | Quidquid latine dictum
http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | sit altum viditur.
U of Michigan Germanic Linguistics |
Stef Jones
>The words 'jealousy' and 'envy' get confused all the time. The feeling
>of "I want what sie has, too" is envy. Jealousy is the feeling of "I
>don't want hir to have that." Or "I don't want to share that." "I want
>*me* to have X *instead*" rather than "I want me to have X *too*."
>Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
It can also be rooted in cultural beliefs, and/or in anger.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely, / the world offers itself to your
imagination, / calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting -- /
over and over announcing your place / in the family of things. --Mary Oliver
KelFay
angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu says...
>
>The words 'jealousy' and 'envy' get confused all the time. The feeling
>of "I want what sie has, too" is envy. Jealousy is the feeling of "I
>don't want hir to have that." Or "I don't want to share that." "I want
>*me* to have X *instead*" rather than "I want me to have X *too*."
>
>Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
I mostly agree with what you've said. But I dont think jealousy is as
simple as insecurity. It has to do with lots of things, including maybe
insecurity, self esteem, selfishness, and so on and so on. When I am
jealous, I am typically being very, very selfish. It often has nothing
to do with insecurity -- for example, I might become jealous in a social
situation where my partner is flirting with or caught up in someone else.
It's not that I always get afraid I will lose my partner's affections.
Sometimes instead, I just would strongly prefer to get all that attention
*myself*, as in "I want *me* to have X instead".
-kel
=================kel...@access.digex.net==================
"...give me little bits of more than I can take..." - soundgarden
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." - Aeon Flux
"Anything is a very big word..." - KelFay
"This is just a rough estimate, but get out." - Exene Chervenka
Stef Jones
>Mark Kille <mki...@dunster-lab1.student.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>I never understood this idea that jealousy comes from insecurity. I'm
>>one of the more insecure people I know. I'm also one of the least jealous
>>people I know. If anything, my insecurity leads to me _not_ being jealous,
>>because I'll get an attitude of "no one could possibly care about me
>>enough that I'd have the right to make any claim on their behavior."
> Thanks for saying this. I really do think it can work that way
>for many people. I have a tinge of that, although when I think that way,
>I am more likely to continue, "...so I might as well break off the
>relationship now before he does and it hurts more."
What happens for me is that I have expectations, I get jealous, and then
I tell myself "you can't ever change people." Then I think the best thing
would be for me to leave the relationship, so I don't have to feel jealous
and don't have to engage in futile attempts to change someone.
The jealousy itself is actually born of the belief that I *can* have
expectations of people and they aren't fulfilling those expectations. To
me, feeling free to expect things of other people is a sign of self-esteem,
not insecurity.
The insecurity is something that arises later, when I attempt to decide
what to do about the jealousy, and I conclude that I'm wrong to believe I
can expect things from this particular situation. To me, feeling that I
can't expect anything is a sign of insecurity.
The jealousy began going away when I learned that I *could* make claims on
my partner's behavior. The jealousy returns only when I try to stifle my
desire to make such claims at times when I really should speak up.
> But I also wanted to say that insecurity/security is by no means
>global, and a person can be very secure in one area and very insecure in
>another. Arthur, the least jealous person I personally know well, at one
>point would not phone repair people to make an appointment, for fear he
>would have to be assertive.... And saying, "You know, that's just a
>symptom of insecurity" would not have helped a bit....
Well said.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your
temper or your self-confidence. -- Robert Frost
KelFay
says...
>
>Jealousy arises sometimes when one's partner is not acting the way one
>expects a partner to act.
I absolutely agreed, until I considered situations in which my partner
has done exactly what I expected zir to do, but hoped zie wouldn't.
>Some people expect a partner to pay attention to them in certain ways;
>when zie doesn't and zie's paying attention to another person or thing,
>they get jealous.
>
>However, I don't think this necessarily has a lot to do with insecurity.
>Having expectations is not a sign of insecurity. I also don't think it's
>necessarily a sign of selfishness.
Agreed, having expectations is not a sign of insecurity. Expectations
need to be managed, a lesson I learned in my career. Unmet expectations
costs contracts at work. Luckily, it usually only causes small fights in
my relationships. ;-)
>Having expectations is selfish only if one thinks one shouldn't have
>expectations, or if one's expectations are beyond what one believes is
>appropriate.
>
>If one has extremely low expectations of a relationship, such as "I
>shouldn't expect my partner's attention if there's someone else
>attractive around," that could in fact be seen as a sign of insecurity.
Agreed as well. The selfishness I originally referred to could be
categorized as expectations beyond what is appropriate, or what is
reasonable. I have come to recognize in myself a character flaw: I am
very greedy about attention and affection. It's not rooted in
insecurity, it's not rooted in anything other than the realization that X
feels good and I want more. So when I see a partner or love interest or
even a person I have a crush on lavishing attention on someone else, I am
envious (I want that *too*), but in a more selfish mood I am jealous
(hey, what are you doin in *my* spot!). Ugly, isn't it! ;-)
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>>Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
>>It can also be rooted in cultural beliefs, and/or in anger.
>Cultural beliefs, yes, though I have a hard time understanding that.
>I mean, yes, your culture may tell you that if your SO hugs another,
>it means sie's leaving, but I have a hard time understanding why you
>would *persist* in believing that once it's pointed out to you that
>that fear really has no basis in your particular situation.
Feelings *don't* persist once you learn that they really have no basis.
But learning that a feeling has no basis is more complicated than simply
being told. You may need reinforcement over time -- you may need to
actually see many times that your SO's hugging someone doesn't lead to
unpleasant consequences for you (which may be "leaving" or something else
you consider unpleasant).
>I guess
>that no matter what you consciously believe, though, you can still
>have some habitual jealousy *feelings*.
Yes, until you learn that the feelings have no basis. Of course, strong
negative feelings create aversion and it's difficult to get the evidence
necessary in the face of that aversion.
>If jealousy is rooted in anger, then where does the anger come from?
>Anger has to start with being hurt in some way.
No, anger doesn't always involve being hurt. Anger can come from not having
one's expectations met, even if one is not hurt. If I expect that SOs don't
and shouldn't go around hugging other people, and my SO does that, then my
expectations aren't being met, and I may get angry over that, especially if
my expectation is rooted in my moral belief system.
If my SO is drowning guinea pigs in the toilet, I am not being hurt, but I
might still get angry because I believe that's inappropriate behavior.
>But jealousy is a
>feeling of resentment about something someone else has, and if you
>were secure, then why would the fact of someone else having something
>good bother or hurt you?
Envy is resentment about something that someone else has. Jealousy is a
feeling that something inappropriate is going on that and it is taking away
from you something that you need or deserve.
You don't have to be emotionally insecure to have this feeling. You only
have to believe that you deserve something and that someone is behaving
inappropriately.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a
chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but
also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such
a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's
dominion maintained.
Stef Jones
>On 16 Mar 1996 09:46:22 -0800, st...@baygate.bayarea.net (Stef Jones) wrote:
>[] The jealousy began going away when I learned that I *could* make claims on
>[] my partner's behavior. The jealousy returns only when I try to stifle my
>[] desire to make such claims at times when I really should speak up.
>"Claims"? Or "requests"?
My partner and I agreed to follow certain guidelines in our relationship.
Once of those guidelines involves our right to expect certain behavior from
the other person. Call it what you will.
>I could "expect" things from other people - but what good does that do?
In a broad sense, having some basic expectations of other people's behavior
sort of keeps human society together. For example, if you go to a sit-down
restaurant, you expect a server to come and ask for your order and then
deliver your food.
>I can
>more pragmatically "request" things from other people. Then they can decide
>whether or not to give me what I'm asking for. Then we can negotiate from
>there.
Yep.
>But I'm not here to fulfill other people's "claims" and "expectations". OTOH,
>I'm open to negotiating about other people's "requests".
I think we're in a terminology quibble here. I think that if I am friends
with someone, that means I am expected to behave in certain ways. For
example, I'm expected to keep in contact with the person at some minimal
level. I'm expected to support the person in some way if zie's in trouble.
If I don't do those things, then I can't really call myself a friend. So
the person has some claim on me if we are considering ourselves friends.
However, my exact behavior is not necessarily specified by the expectation
or claim.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever gotten tired of hearing those ridiculous AT&T commercials
claiming credit for things that don't even exist yet? You will.
-- Emmanuel Goldstein
Angi Long
>Angi Long (angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
>It can also be rooted in cultural beliefs, and/or in anger.
Cultural beliefs, yes, though I have a hard time understanding that.
I mean, yes, your culture may tell you that if your SO hugs another,
it means sie's leaving, but I have a hard time understanding why you
would *persist* in believing that once it's pointed out to you that
that fear really has no basis in your particular situation. I guess
that no matter what you consciously believe, though, you can still
have some habitual jealousy *feelings*.
If jealousy is rooted in anger, then where does the anger come from?
Anger has to start with being hurt in some way. But jealousy is a
Angi Long
>The jealousy itself is actually born of the belief that I *can* have
>expectations of people and they aren't fulfilling those expectations. To
>me, feeling free to expect things of other people is a sign of self-esteem,
>not insecurity.
I think that depends on what it is you're expecting, and why it is
that the expectation is important to you. In most cases of what I
would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
some behavior that is irrationally perceived as "threatening," for
no reason other than that irrational perception. "Don't talk to
women at parties, because it makes me jealous (makes me afraid I'll
lose you, even though there's no real threat)." If the threat is
real and substantial, I would call it fear or something else rather
than jealousy. And if the expectation is for an agreement to be
kept, and the agreement is broken, I wouldn't call that jealousy,
either.
To some extent, of course, you can expect other people to cater to
your irrational emotions "just because." If doing X *isn't a big
deal* to my partner, and for no rational reason X makes me feel
jealous, then it's reasonable if I expect my partner to refrain
from X. But if X *is* important to my partner, and there really
isn't a substantial threat to me or my relationship, then wanting
hir to avoid X anyway isn't reasonable.
>The insecurity is something that arises later, when I attempt to decide
>what to do about the jealousy, and I conclude that I'm wrong to believe I
>can expect things from this particular situation. To me, feeling that I
>can't expect anything is a sign of insecurity.
Again, it depends on the degree. If, for example, you feel you
can expect me to abide by expectations of yours which *I* don't
find reasonable and never agreed to, then you're going too far,
and in that situation you *should* be feeling that you can't ex-
pect what you're wanting to expect.
Anthony Squires
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>The jealousy itself is actually born of the belief that I *can* have
>>expectations of people and they aren't fulfilling those expectations. To
>>me, feeling free to expect things of other people is a sign of self-esteem,
>>not insecurity.
>
>I think that depends on what it is you're expecting, and why it is
>that the expectation is important to you. In most cases of what I
>would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
>some behavior that is irrationally perceived as "threatening," for
>no reason other than that irrational perception.
[...]
>>The insecurity is something that arises later, when I attempt to decide
>>what to do about the jealousy, and I conclude that I'm wrong to believe I
>>can expect things from this particular situation. To me, feeling that I
>>can't expect anything is a sign of insecurity.
Ummm... isn't it also possible to have jealousy without asociated
expectations? I can recall times when I was not in a relationship when
seeing others in that happy state made me jealous (including the
resentment...) but where I felt no expectation that they stop displaying
affection or what have you. In such cases I think my jealousy arose out
of my insecurity rather than out of any expectations. Granted, there were
associated *desires* etc. which, bound up with the insecurity, might have
in a sense caused my jealousy. And I can see that there are cases of
jealousy that are closely bound up with expectations. However, perhaps
there are many possible conttributing factors to the arising of jealousy.
Craig
Anthony Squires
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
[...]
>If jealousy is rooted in anger, then where does the anger come from?
>Anger has to start with being hurt in some way. But jealousy is a
>feeling of resentment about something someone else has, and if you
>were secure, then why would the fact of someone else having something
>good bother or hurt you?
Slight sidestep here... I think your question hits the nail on the head,
at least in my own experience; but I wonder if it is possible to feel
jealousy *for someone else*. Consider a situation where you do not feel
insecure about your own situation, but (through empathy?) feel for
someone else's insecure situation and so feel jealous in empathy with
them about something they lack. I can't think of a specific situation in
which I have actually felt this, but it strikes me at the moment as
possible... But then jealousy would not be grounded in one's own
insecurity. Just a thought.
(he says, delurking...)
Craig
George A. Stathis
>In most cases of what I
>would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
>some behavior that is irrationally perceived as "threatening," for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no reason other than that irrational perception.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This perception needs to be told again and again, and actually
made conscious by those people and by those societies which have
a habitual tendency to perceive certain types of behaviour as
"threatening", whereas no threat whatsoever actually exists for real!
It's the first time I see this perception expressed in a newsgroup.
It's great to see it expressed here...
I would add that some people have the tendency to "threaten" others
that... they intend to perceive their perfectly human feelings or
behaviour as a "threat". Often we find someone saying "Is this a
threat?", and believe me, THIS is really threatening, or at least
intended as a threat... Though it need not terrorize us, of course.
Some people have the arrogance of _forcing_ us to comply with their
demands on our behaviour by pointing out that our behaviour is seen
by them as a threat... And this goes far beyond jealousy, which is
one small example...
>To some extent, of course, you can expect other people to cater to
>your irrational emotions "just because."
Well, what if we don't cater for this? What if we resort to some
other 'threatening behaviour' such as healthy criticism? Will we
then be... threatened? LOL!!!! Hope not...
>But if X *is* important to my partner, and there really
>isn't a substantial threat to me or my relationship, then wanting
>hir to avoid X anyway isn't reasonable.
A very elegant, sound, logically consistent definition, provided
one is realistic and does not perceive unthreatening things as
threatening, IMO...
>>To me, feeling free to expect things of other people is a sign of
>>self-esteem, not insecurity.
(this was said by the original poster, not Ms. Long).
I don't know whether to agree or not;
My life has evolved to a 'no expectations' attitude since long ago.
Having no expectations does not mean you (one) does not want or
desire certain things or people, but rather that one is freed (in
a painful way sometimes) from _expecting_ anything from anybody.
Unless it's my self-esteem, of course, suffering from a chronic...
threat!!!! Oh dear!!! ... ROTFL
George
(not so much laughing, but seriously agreeing, at the moment...)
Mark Kille
> Subject: jealousy vs. envy
> Message-ID: <4i9nlr$j...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
> References: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960310091515.259...@dunster-lab1.student.harvard.edu> <4i50bh$1...@panix.com>
>
Angi Long wrote:
>
> Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
So what? Are you saying that one should never feel insecure?
Maybe it's just my age. Maybe it's just that I've run into the wrong
people (and had my friends run into the wrong people too). But
relationships, sexual or otherwise, do not strike me as the most secure
things in the world. I personally think that anyone who never feels
insecure, ever, is...well...OK, I can't break the IMHO, YMMV,
your-acronym-here conditioning.
So if someone sees their honey snuggling with someone else, and they feel
insecure and jealous, what of it? They get reassured, they feel better,
everyone is happy. Expecting someone to always shoulder the burden of
trust on their own is pretty unfair, and unrealistic as well.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>Good point. Within a given relationship, I'm usually happy to go
>with whatever language is mutually understood (although I'm even
>happier if we use *my* language -- that is, the *right* language --
>of course). But with somebody I haven't been though the language-
>synchronizing process with, it can cause blowups if language is
>used very "sloppily," because I seem to be incredibly inept at
>catching what was meant through the screen of what was actually
>said. Unless I have very good evidence to the contrary, I assume
>things are meant literally; to do otherwise is to attempt mind-
>reading.
You mean literally by your definition, of course. The other person is
usually speaking literally by zir definition.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"First one back from the bathroom gets to be the bottom."
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>The jealousy itself is actually born of the belief that I *can* have
>>expectations of people and they aren't fulfilling those expectations. To
>>me, feeling free to expect things of other people is a sign of self-esteem,
>>not insecurity.
>I think that depends on what it is you're expecting, and why it is
>that the expectation is important to you.
To some extent, yes.
>In most cases of what I
>would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
>some behavior
Or to behave in a certain way, yes.
>that is irrationally perceived as "threatening,"
Not necessarily. The expectation comes before the feeling, not after. It
doesn't come from the feeling that the behavior is threatening. It comes
from the belief that the behavior is inappropriate. *After* one has decided
"zie is engaging in inappropriate behavior," one may feel threatened because
one doesn't know why zie would behave in such a way, or one may believe
(rightly or wrongly) that if someone behaves in that way, it means there's
a problem.
The original belief, and the feeling of threat, may or may not be rational.
They do not necessarily have to be irrational.
>for
>no reason other than that irrational perception. "Don't talk to
>women at parties, because it makes me jealous
No -- someone doesn't get jealous because zie gets jealous. Someone gets
jealous because zie believes (on some level) that it's inappropriate for
someone in a certain role in zir life to behave in a certain way.
It's a good thing to understand the expectation/belief that is being
challenged, because then one has choices about how to act -- one can
negotiate with one's partner and/or work on changing one's belief.
>If the threat is
>real and substantial, I would call it fear or something else rather
>than jealousy.
No. It doesn't make any sense to define an emotional/belief complex based
on a standard of reality. Fear is not based on a standard of reality -- you
can be afraid of a lion charging you or the idea of getting cancer or a
boogeyman in the dark. Joy is not based on a standard of reality -- you can
be happy about being with a loved one or happy about your favorite
character on Star Trek. Resentment can be based on real things or unreal
things -- "you don't cook as often as me," "you don't really love me." So
why should we apply a reality standard to jealousy?
>To some extent, of course, you can expect other people to cater to
>your irrational emotions "just because." If doing X *isn't a big
>deal* to my partner, and for no rational reason X makes me feel
>jealous, then it's reasonable if I expect my partner to refrain
>from X. But if X *is* important to my partner, and there really
>isn't a substantial threat to me or my relationship, then wanting
>hir to avoid X anyway isn't reasonable.
*Wanting* zir to avoid X is perfectly OK. Negotiating an agreement in which
zie avoids X under certain circumstances is perfectly OK. Demanding that
zie avoid X without any consideration for zir feelings is not OK.
>>The insecurity is something that arises later, when I attempt to decide
>>what to do about the jealousy, and I conclude that I'm wrong to believe I
>>can expect things from this particular situation. To me, feeling that I
>>can't expect anything is a sign of insecurity.
>Again, it depends on the degree. If, for example, you feel you
>can expect me to abide by expectations of yours which *I* don't
>find reasonable and never agreed to, then you're going too far,
>and in that situation you *should* be feeling that you can't ex-
>pect what you're wanting to expect.
Yes. Feeling that I can't expect anything without checking out the facts--
because I've been taught not to be a bother, or taught that no one ever
changes--that's insecurity.
However, knowing I can't expect anything in a particular situation, *after*
checking out the facts, is different. That's knowledge. I can use it to
decide how to act.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better
than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." --A Yale University management
professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight
delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
Angi Long
>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>In most cases of what I
>>would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
>>some behavior
>Or to behave in a certain way, yes.
>>that is irrationally perceived as "threatening,"
>Not necessarily. The expectation comes before the feeling, not after. It
>doesn't come from the feeling that the behavior is threatening. It comes
>from the belief that the behavior is inappropriate. *After* one has decided
How can a behavior be "inappropriate" if it's not threatening? What
do you mean by "inappropriate?" Inappropriate means... not proper
for the given situation. Not proper means wrong. Wrong means some-
one or something of value is harmed, risked, or threatened beyond ac-
ceptable limits. If nothing is threatened, then on what grounds is
the behavior judged inappropriate?
>"zie is engaging in inappropriate behavior," one may feel threatened because
>one doesn't know why zie would behave in such a way, or one may believe
I don't generally know why anyone does what they do. Why would that
make me feel threatened? Unless I was just irrationally insecure,
and believed that anything I didn't understand was probably dangerous.
>(rightly or wrongly) that if someone behaves in that way, it means there's
>a problem.
If one believes that a certain behavior indicates a problem, a threat,
then that would be grounds for judging the behavior inappropriate. I
don't see it working the other way around... you can't (rationally)
call a behavior arbitrarily "inappropriate" and then decide that since
it's inappropriate, it hurts you. Hitting is wrong because it hurts
someone, it doesn't hurt someone because it's wrong.
>>no reason other than that irrational perception. "Don't talk to
>>women at parties, because it makes me jealous
>No -- someone doesn't get jealous because zie gets jealous. Someone gets
>jealous because zie believes (on some level) that it's inappropriate for
>someone in a certain role in zir life to behave in a certain way.
Why? How could a behavior be "inappropriate" if it doesn't harm you?
>>If the threat is
>>real and substantial, I would call it fear or something else rather
>>than jealousy.
>No. It doesn't make any sense to define an emotional/belief complex based
>on a standard of reality. Fear is not based on a standard of reality -- you
>can be afraid of a lion charging you or the idea of getting cancer or a
>boogeyman in the dark. Joy is not based on a standard of reality -- you can
>be happy about being with a loved one or happy about your favorite
>character on Star Trek. Resentment can be based on real things or unreal
>things -- "you don't cook as often as me," "you don't really love me." So
>why should we apply a reality standard to jealousy?
There is usually more than one emotion going on at a time. When there's
a real threat, and fear of loss is the overriding feeling and concern,
I'd focus on the fear and the threat, not on the resentment of another
which may have arisen as a "side effect." When there's no real threat,
no rational fear of loss, just a resentment of someone else, or when the
only real threat is the threat of feeling the resentment -- circular --
then jealousy is the main issue.
Angi Long
>Angi Long wrote:
>> Envy I get. Jealousy I can't see as rooted in anything but insecurity.
>So what? Are you saying that one should never feel insecure?
No, of course not. Later in the thread I explained that insecurity
can be either rational or irrational. When it's rational, though,
there's a real threat, a real fear of loss, and the focus is on
"threat" and "fear" and "loss," not on the jealous resentment that
arises as a side effect of feeling threatened. It's when the in-
security is irrational, and persists despite reassurance, that the
main issue is "jealousy."
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Feelings *don't* persist once you learn that they really have no basis.
>>But learning that a feeling has no basis is more complicated than simply
>>being told. You may need reinforcement over time -- you may need to
>>actually see many times that your SO's hugging someone doesn't lead to
>>unpleasant consequences for you (which may be "leaving" or something else
>I see that "needing reinforcement over time" as irrational insecurity,
>when someone persists in believing there's a threat when there's no
>rational reason to believe that. The assumption that something is a
>real threat "unless proven otherwise," rather than the other way around
>-- that nothing is a threat unless proven a threat -- isn't rational.
Wanting reinforcement is not irrational. It's sensible. Wanting
reinforcement is the same as requiring scientific experiments to be
replicated before deciding for sure that the results are valid.
People sometimes don't tell the truth. People sometimes change. So making
sure their actions match their words over time is important. I could argue
it's a sign of irrational insecurity to trust too soon or too completely
without checking from time to time -- it could be essentially from the
belief that I'm no good anyway, so I'm not worth protecting.
>>No, anger doesn't always involve being hurt. Anger can come from not having
>>one's expectations met, even if one is not hurt. If I expect that SOs don't
>What's there to be angry about if you don't feel hurt, feel that some-
>thing you value is damaged or threatened?
If something you value is threatened, that is not the same thing as being
hurt yourself. But I agree that anger is always either about being hurt, or
about threat to something you value or believe in. Thus, if I believe that
a partnership involves certain behavior and my partner behaves otherwise,
something I value/believe in is threatened, and I might respond by getting
angry. Certain other components would be necessary for jealousy to arise,
but the jealousy for me would always include anger over a belief of mine
being violated.
>>If my SO is drowning guinea pigs in the toilet, I am not being hurt, but I
>>might still get angry because I believe that's inappropriate behavior.
>I can't identify with that at all. I'd get angry because the thought
>of helpless animals suffering and dying would hurt me.
Why would it hurt you? You're not being harmed. It might hurt because your
belief that it's inappropriate or wrong to make pet rodents suffer has an
emotional component.
>"Inappropriate
>behavior" is meaningless without a justification for why the behavior
>isn't appropriate. The behavior isn't appropriate because it causes
>hurt.
It causes hurt because you believe it is wrong/inappropriate. Are you hurt
when someone steps on an ant? If not, why not? It too is a helpless animal
suffering and dying. But it doesn't hurt you because you believe in different
behavior standards toward guinea pigs and ants -- because you believe they
are different sorts of creatures and should be treated differently. Your
"hurt" in this situation comes partly from a belief in what behavior is
appropriate.
>>>But jealousy is a
>>>feeling of resentment about something someone else has, and if you
>>>were secure, then why would the fact of someone else having something
>>>good bother or hurt you?
>>Envy is resentment about something that someone else has. Jealousy is a
>>feeling that something inappropriate is going on that and it is taking away
>>from you something that you need or deserve.
>You're using completely different definitions from mine, then. In fact,
>I don't think I've ever heard "jealousy" used to describe the feeling
>that "something inappropriate is going on" or a feeling of loss or of
>having something taken away. I'd call that fear, loss, offense, hurt,
>anger... many other things, but not jealousy.
Jealousy does not come *simply* from a belief that something inappropriate
is going on. But that belief is almost always *involved* for me. I think
that if others really look at what beliefs are wrapped up in their
jealousy, the belief that one's partner's behavior is inappropriate will
often be there. Other things are also involved -- including often the
opposite belief, that one should feel one's partner's behavior is
acceptable (therefore one's feelings are inappropriate). The jealousy can
grow out of that conflict between one belief about appropriateness and
another.
>Using Webster's as a reality check, I find it agrees with the way I've
>always used the words, too... the main difference between the two
>definitions is the occurence of the word "resentment" in every defini-
>tion under "jealousy" but not under "envy." Envy is the desire for
>something that someone else has... jealousy is the *resentment* that
>the other person has something you want.
Fine, and the resentment comes in part from a belief that one *should* have
that thing, that one deserves it, that it's inappropriate for it to have
been taken away.
>You might mean something other than what I mean by "insecurity," too.
>What I'm referring to is the feeling, or belief, that the relationship,
>and your place in it, is secure, is safe, is not threatened.
[...]
>Some insecurity is rational -- when there's a real threat, you *should* feel
>insecure. It's when the insecurity isn't rational that there's a prob-
>lem, and that's when I see jealousy coming into play.
My definition of insecurity is "feeling one can't act to get what one
needs or deserves." If something is going wrong but I feel I can fix it or
it will right itself, I don't feel insecure.
Irrational insecurity is believing one can't act when one has in fact
demonstrated an ability to meet one's needs.
Jealousy can involve rational or irrational insecurity. It can also involve
feeling the urge to fight for something one believes in, rather than
insecurely assuming that one can't do anything to change a situation. For
me jealousy tends to arise if I have an internal conflict between two
beliefs -- one that I deserve, want, or believe something and should act to
get or protect it, the other that don't deserve/want it, shouldn't believe
that, and/or should not act.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
We're not just taking off our clothes and having sex. We've also got
karaoke. -- "Wild" Bill Goodwin, 71, denying to police investigators in
May that he was conducting orgies at his Costa Mesa, Calif., home. [San
Francisco Chronicle-AP, 5-6-95]
Angi Long
>Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>said. Unless I have very good evidence to the contrary, I assume
>>things are meant literally; to do otherwise is to attempt mind-
>>reading.
>You mean literally by your definition, of course. The other person is
>usually speaking literally by zir definition.
My definition is usually the only one I know. If I have reason to
believe there might be another definition intended, I take that into
account, but most of the time it doesn't occur to me that someone
might be using "table" to mean "orange." When I hear "table," I
think I'm justified in expecting it to mean what it's always meant
when I've heard it in the past: one of those flat-topped things you
can put stuff on.
Ulrika O'Brien
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>>would call jealousy, the expectation is for someone to refrain from
>>>some behavior
>
>>Or to behave in a certain way, yes.
>
>>>that is irrationally perceived as "threatening,"
>
>>Not necessarily. The expectation comes before the feeling, not after. It
>>doesn't come from the feeling that the behavior is threatening. It comes
>>from the belief that the behavior is inappropriate. *After* one has decided
>
>do you mean by "inappropriate?" Inappropriate means... not proper
>for the given situation.
Yes, inappropriate means frequently means out of frame, frame
here being the context of social expectations and tacit social
contracts operating in a given situation. Entering a classroom
and brushing my teeth in full view of my students before beginning
to lead a discussion section would, for instance, be one form
of inappropriate behavior. My lover allowing someone else to
grope his genitals under his clothes immediately in front of
me at a party is inappropriate behavior. Stef may be thinking
of other examples...
>Not proper means wrong.
No, I think "wrong" is a stronger word, carries far more, and
different connotational baggage. Some behavior that is not
proper can also be described as wrong, but not all, I think.
>Wrong means some-
>one or something of value is harmed, risked, or threatened beyond ac-
>ceptable limits.
No, I don't agree here. "Wrong" means a great many things, including
simply being a violation of some collectively or intersubjectively held
normative code. "Wrong" can mean simply mistaken, confused,...
etc....a great many things, depending on context. What you offer
here is at best a subset of what all "wrong" can mean, even if
wrong and inappropriate can properly be regarded as synonymous,
which they can't.
>If nothing is threatened, then on what grounds is
>the behavior judged inappropriate?
See my tooth brushing example, for non-threatening inappropriate
behavior.
>
>>"zie is engaging in inappropriate behavior," one may feel threatened >>because
>>one doesn't know why zie would behave in such a way, or one may believe
>
>I don't generally know why anyone does what they do. Why would that
>make me feel threatened? Unless I was just irrationally insecure,
>and believed that anything I didn't understand was probably dangerous.
You know, I don't know if you mean to do this, but it sure seems
to me that you keep consistently trying to put down those who don't
share your views on jealousy as being "irrationally insecure". I'm
not sure if that's very helpful to the dialog. If someone behaves
in a manner that is *out* *of* *frame*, i.e. unexpected, in breach
of normal context, contract, and expectation, this is jarring and
requires more explanation than in frame behavior. While, of course,
it is never possible to have epistemic access to someone else's
motivations, in many cases we do have a good best guess. Some
out of frame behavior can be accounted for by the agent not
understanding the frame for instance, as when children or foreigners
act inappropriately. When behavior is both jarringly out of frame,
and not readily explicable, this can be reason enough for it to
be appropriate to be disturbed and even threatened by the behavior.
>>(rightly or wrongly) that if someone behaves in that way, it means there's
>>a problem.
>
>If one believes that a certain behavior indicates a problem, a threat,
>then that would be grounds for judging the behavior inappropriate. I
>don't see it working the other way around... you can't (rationally)
>call a behavior arbitrarily "inappropriate" and then decide that since
>it's inappropriate, it hurts you. Hitting is wrong because it hurts
>someone, it doesn't hurt someone because it's wrong.
But who says that Stef is suggesting that judgements of inappropriate
behavior are arbitrary, or for that matter, unilateral? Human
beings voluntarily generate and commit to all sorts of tacit and
explicit agreements about mutual behavior and expectations. Agreed
that making them explicit is a real good idea, as is negotiating
them when there is disagreement, that does not mean that there is
no such thing as a tacit contract in some cases. Where there is,
and the contract is broken, there is nothing "arbitrary" about
finding a breach inappropriate.
>>>no reason other than that irrational perception. "Don't talk to
>>>women at parties, because it makes me jealous
>
>>No -- someone doesn't get jealous because zie gets jealous. Someone gets
>>jealous because zie believes (on some level) that it's inappropriate for
>>someone in a certain role in zir life to behave in a certain way.
>
>Why? How could a behavior be "inappropriate" if it doesn't harm you?
See above.
[snip]
>
>There is usually more than one emotion going on at a time. When there's
>a real threat, and fear of loss is the overriding feeling and concern,
>I'd focus on the fear and the threat, not on the resentment of another
>which may have arisen as a "side effect."
How an emotion arises, or which one you personally prefer to address,
does not, however, make that emotion any more or less real or
appropriate, though, right? Just because you would focus on the fear
does not mean that there is no other emotion, nor that everyone is
in some way obligated to do things in the same way, right?
--
On the other hand, the examined life isn't very lucrative.
Ulrika O'Brien * Philosopher without Portfolio * ulr...@aol.com
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>
>In one primary relationship, I had feelings that were neither envy nor
>jealousy, although I am not embarrassed to admit that I have felt and
>do feel both on occasion. I got mad because my partner broke a
>specific partnership agreement. When I expressed this anger, my
>partner insisted on calling it "jealousy," no matter what I was really
>feeling. This is a big ol button for me -- being "corrected" about my
>feelings, which didn't help anything at all.
>
>So now I have agreed to call anything "jealousy" if it will help get
>through the meta-argument about terminology and talk about what is
>going on between us.
When my partner and I have reached in impasse in our discussions because
we disagree about the meaning of a word, we often try to find another
word not so laden with emotional freight that we can use.
Angi Long
>>when someone persists in believing there's a threat when there's no
>>rational reason to believe that. The assumption that something is a
>>real threat "unless proven otherwise," rather than the other way around
>>-- that nothing is a threat unless proven a threat -- isn't rational.
>Wanting reinforcement is not irrational. It's sensible. Wanting
>reinforcement is the same as requiring scientific experiments to be
>replicated before deciding for sure that the results are valid.
Wanting something to be repeatedly proved "not a threat" is more like
requiring repeated experiments performed on a box your lover brought
home, to prove it's not a bomb, even after your lover (someone you
should be able to trust *that* much, at least) assures you it's not.
>it's a sign of irrational insecurity to trust too soon or too completely
>without checking from time to time -- it could be essentially from the
>belief that I'm no good anyway, so I'm not worth protecting.
That's true, too. But I think to assume everything is dangerous by
default is paranoid, irrational, and unhealthy; it differs from the
healthy approach of assuming everything is safe until proven other-
wise, and keeping your eyes open to possible threats while acting as
if the situation is safe. Especially since prophesies are so often
self-fulfilling -- if you approach a situation with the belief it's
unsafe, you will treat it as unsafe, and probably *make* it unsafe.
If you approach a situation with jealousy and the belief that your
relationship is threatened, you might well *cause* a threat to your
relationship with your own jealous behavior.
>>What's there to be angry about if you don't feel hurt, feel that some-
>>thing you value is damaged or threatened?
>If something you value is threatened, that is not the same thing as being
>hurt yourself.
Hmm... I think it is, with the only distinction being that one
type of hurt is more direct than the other. Isn't that pretty
much the definition of "valuing" something? When I say I value
something, that's certainly what I mean -- that if that thing is
harmed or threatened, then *I* am harmed or threatened; I lose
something.
>But I agree that anger is always either about being hurt, or
>about threat to something you value or believe in. Thus, if I believe that
>a partnership involves certain behavior and my partner behaves otherwise,
>something I value/believe in is threatened, and I might respond by getting
Right. But there must also be some *reason* you believe a partner-
ship should include that behavior in the first place. There must
be something of value you believe is preserved by that behavior, or
is harmed by the lack of that behavior. Some things might be "this
is just something I want" (for example, holidays and sleeping with
my lover (as opposed to just having sex and sending hir home) are
important to me for not necessarily rational reasons). But it's
not IMO reasonable to say "this is just the way it SHOULD be." At
the root of your morality structure, there have to be some basic
assumptions, but behavior within a relationship is too high up the
tree for "there's no reason, it just doesn't work that way" to be
justified.
>>>If my SO is drowning guinea pigs in the toilet, I am not being hurt, but I
>>>might still get angry because I believe that's inappropriate behavior.
>>I can't identify with that at all. I'd get angry because the thought
>>of helpless animals suffering and dying would hurt me.
>Why would it hurt you? You're not being harmed. It might hurt because your
>belief that it's inappropriate or wrong to make pet rodents suffer has an
>emotional component.
I think you have it backwards. I feel pain at the thought of other
feeling creatures suffering. That's called 'empathy.' Without em-
pathy, we'd be sociopathic. Because of empathy, of caring for the
feelings of others, I believe it is wrong to cause unjusified hurt.
That's the basis of my entire morality; the only basis I've seen
that makes any sense.
>>"Inappropriate
>>behavior" is meaningless without a justification for why the behavior
>>isn't appropriate. The behavior isn't appropriate because it causes
>>hurt.
>It causes hurt because you believe it is wrong/inappropriate. Are you hurt
No, I believe it is wrong because it causes hurt and I believe an
action is wrong if and only if it causes unjustified hurt.
>when someone steps on an ant? If not, why not? It too is a helpless animal
Yes, I am, a little.
>suffering and dying. But it doesn't hurt you because you believe in different
>behavior standards toward guinea pigs and ants -- because you believe they
>are different sorts of creatures and should be treated differently. Your
It doesn't hurt me as much because I believe it doesn't hurt the
ant as much. An ant has a much less sophisticated nervous system
and brain, so I have reason to believe the ant probably doesn't ex-
perience the same kind of suffering a mammal would. Probably the
suffering is little enough that going far out of my way to avoid
stepping on ants isn't justified. But purposefully stomping on
them is still wrong, and still hurts me, because it causes unnece-
ssary and unjustified harm to a feeling creature.
>"hurt" in this situation comes partly from a belief in what behavior is
>appropriate.
My hurt comes from my best estimate of the amount of hurt caused
to the animal. My belief in what behavior is "appropriate" is
based on that estimate and on my judgment of how justified the
hurting is.
>>I don't think I've ever heard "jealousy" used to describe the feeling
>>that "something inappropriate is going on" or a feeling of loss or of
>>having something taken away. I'd call that fear, loss, offense, hurt,
>>anger... many other things, but not jealousy.
>Jealousy does not come *simply* from a belief that something inappropriate
>is going on. But that belief is almost always *involved* for me. I think
I thought you said jealousy *was* the belief or feeling that some-
thing inappropriate was going on. Okay, then... by what standards
do you judge something "inappropriate?"
>>always used the words, too... the main difference between the two
>>definitions is the occurence of the word "resentment" in every defini-
>>tion under "jealousy" but not under "envy." Envy is the desire for
>>something that someone else has... jealousy is the *resentment* that
>>the other person has something you want.
>Fine, and the resentment comes in part from a belief that one *should* have
>that thing, that one deserves it, that it's inappropriate for it to have
>been taken away.
If there has really been something taken away, that's rational.
I can understand resentment occurring then, but I also think it
makes no sense to focus on that resentment; what makes sense in
that case is to talk about your own loss, the wrongness of some-
thing having been taken away, rather than the wrongness of it
having been given to someone else. It's not the fact that some-
one else has something that's wronging you, or even any of your
business, directly; it's the fact that you *don't* have what
you should have.
But often, when jealousy is an issue, there is no real loss to
the jealous person; nothing has been taken away. When your
partner loves someone else, no love is "taken away" from you.
When sie spends time sie wouldn't have spent with you anyway
with someone else, you lose nothing. Yet many people feel
jealous in that situation, feel resentment of the other person.
Irrationally, IMO.
>>What I'm referring to is the feeling, or belief, that the relationship,
>>and your place in it, is secure, is safe, is not threatened.
>My definition of insecurity is "feeling one can't act to get what one
>needs or deserves." If something is going wrong but I feel I can fix it or
>it will right itself, I don't feel insecure.
Hmm... I'd call that feeling "in control," and the opposite
"powerlessness." I think that's very closely tied to security,
but not exactly the same thing.
>
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>>I see that "needing reinforcement over time" as irrational insecurity,
>>Wanting reinforcement is not irrational. It's sensible. Wanting
>>reinforcement is the same as requiring scientific experiments to be
>>replicated before deciding for sure that the results are valid.
>Wanting something to be repeatedly proved "not a threat" is more like
>requiring repeated experiments performed on a box your lover brought
>home, to prove it's not a bomb, even after your lover (someone you
>should be able to trust *that* much, at least) assures you it's not.
That analogy is exaggerated. A bomb is an object. A relationship is much
more changeable and a person's inner emotions much less directly accessible
than the inner state of a physical object. Someone can prove an object is
not a bomb by taking it apart. But nothing about another human being's
state of mind can really be *proved*, one just has to take the other's word
for it and see that zir actions match. It's not at all irrational that such
a process would take time.
If a lot of time has passed and a person has shown zirself to be mostly
consistent, then having a lot of insecurity about the relationship is
irrational. If a relationship is relatively new, or a situation is
relatively new, then it makes sense to be cautious.
>But I think to assume everything is dangerous by
>default is paranoid, irrational, and unhealthy; it differs from the
>healthy approach of assuming everything is safe until proven other-
>wise, and keeping your eyes open to possible threats while acting as
>if the situation is safe.
Of course, both extremes are unhealthy -- trusting completely or not
trusting at all. But I thought we were talking about jealousy, and it seems
to me that jealousy can arise in the middle as well as at the ends.
Jealousy can arise in a person who assumes things are safe until there is
evidence otherwise, or in a person who assumes things may be unsafe until
there is evidence otherwise, or in a person who assumes very little until
there is evidence with which to make a decision.
Incidentally, the latter is the relationship stance that I favor. I like to
trust people with small things, or with backups in place, and see how they
perform before trusting them with big things or without backups in place.
>Especially since prophesies are so often
>self-fulfilling -- if you approach a situation with the belief it's
>unsafe, you will treat it as unsafe, and probably *make* it unsafe.
>If you approach a situation with jealousy and the belief that your
>relationship is threatened, you might well *cause* a threat to your
>relationship with your own jealous behavior.
I agree, but a situation in which one is jealous going in, before there is
any behavior to be jealous about, is not the only kind of jealousy.
Jealousy doesn't always come out of nowhere. If someone acts in a way that
triggers your jealousy, and then the relationship ends up threatened, it's
not so clear who "caused" the threat, and it's generally not useful to
spend too much time trying to determine the cause, because that leads to
blame and polarization. It's best to look at the situation as a mismatch
and try to come up with solutions in which both people get what they most
want and avoid what they most hate.
If there is no possible compromise, because someone is so anxious that they
get jealous over absolutely everything, or because someone is so stubborn
that they refuse to give the jealous person any room at all, even to
express feelings, then those people are probably better off not in a
relationship.
>Hmm... I think it is, with the only distinction being that one
>type of hurt is more direct than the other. Isn't that pretty
>much the definition of "valuing" something? When I say I value
>something, that's certainly what I mean -- that if that thing is
>harmed or threatened, then *I* am harmed or threatened; I lose
>something.
What do you lose if you see a small mammal suffering?
>>But I agree that anger is always either about being hurt, or
>>about threat to something you value or believe in. Thus, if I believe that
>>a partnership involves certain behavior and my partner behaves otherwise,
>>something I value/believe in is threatened, and I might respond by getting
>Right. But there must also be some *reason* you believe a partner-
>ship should include that behavior in the first place. There must
>be something of value you believe is preserved by that behavior, or
>is harmed by the lack of that behavior. Some things might be "this
>is just something I want" (for example, holidays and sleeping with
>my lover (as opposed to just having sex and sending hir home) are
>important to me for not necessarily rational reasons). But it's
>not IMO reasonable to say "this is just the way it SHOULD be." At
>the root of your morality structure, there have to be some basic
>assumptions, but behavior within a relationship is too high up the
>tree for "there's no reason, it just doesn't work that way" to be
>justified.
The "reason" for believing behavior is inappropriate is often "Because
that's how I was brought up -- that's how it's done." If you want to take
it one step further to the feelings it engenders, then you would come up
with "therefore being around such behavior makes me feel uncomfortable, so
it's something I want not to deal with."
The examination doesn't have to stop there. One can go on to decide whether
one wants to continue holding this belief. Having a belief doesn't mean the
other person has to toe the line. But those beliefs are where a lot of
jealousy and other negative feelings in relationships are engendered, and
it is helpful to know that information.
>>>I can't identify with that at all. I'd get angry because the thought
>>>of helpless animals suffering and dying would hurt me.
>>Why would it hurt you? You're not being harmed. It might hurt because your
>>belief that it's inappropriate or wrong to make pet rodents suffer has an
>>emotional component.
>I think you have it backwards. I feel pain at the thought of other
>feeling creatures suffering. That's called 'empathy.' Without em-
>pathy, we'd be sociopathic.
So butchers are sociopathic? Or are they just angry all the time?
>It doesn't hurt me as much because I believe it doesn't hurt the
>ant as much. An ant has a much less sophisticated nervous system
>and brain, so I have reason to believe the ant probably doesn't ex-
>perience the same kind of suffering a mammal would.
It seems to me that it's possible the less sophisticated nervous system
means the ant experiences *more* suffering. Much of the sophistication of a
mammal's nervous system is designed to alleviate suffering rather than
heighten it. I submit that your belief isn't based entirely in reason; it's
also based in the unsubstantiable belief that ants feel less than you
simply because they are very different from you.
>>Jealousy does not come *simply* from a belief that something inappropriate
>>is going on. But that belief is almost always *involved* for me. I think
>I thought you said jealousy *was* the belief or feeling that some-
>thing inappropriate was going on. Okay, then... by what standards
>do you judge something "inappropriate?"
My personal standards don't matter. My point is that if someone thinks
behavior is inappropriate, and this decision is based on matching the
behavior with zir cultural/personal belief system, this is not irrational.
One might challenge particular beliefs or systems and wind up showing
someone there are better systems from which to derive beliefs, but it's not
the same as saying zir beliefs are irrational (unless you think the vast
majority of people are primarily irrational, in which case we don't have
much to discuss because I want to talk about how to solve jealousy problems
in real relationships, not among computers or Vulcans).
>>Fine, and the resentment comes in part from a belief that one *should* have
>>that thing, that one deserves it, that it's inappropriate for it to have
>>been taken away.
>If there has really been something taken away, that's rational.
>I can understand resentment occurring then, but I also think it
>makes no sense to focus on that resentment;
It's probably not good to dwell on it to the exclusion of everything else,
but if it exists, it certainly doesn't make sense to pretend it doesn't
exist. Pretending a feeling doesn't exist is the best way to make it a lot
bigger than it originally was.
>what makes sense in
>that case is to talk about your own loss, the wrongness of some-
>thing having been taken away, rather than the wrongness of it
>having been given to someone else.
Agreed about what you should talk about when trying to *solve* a problem
that involves jealousy. But before that, it makes sense to talk about what
you're feeling, and if you're feeling both that it's wrong to have it taken
away, and wrong to give it to someone else, you should talk about that.
Your statement assumes that the fact someone else has "it" does not prevent
you from having "it." This is not always true. If your fiance took the
engagement ring zie gave to you and gave it to someone else, and you had
negative feelings about that, they would legitimately involve the wrongness
of giving the ring to someone else as well as the wrongness of not having
it yourself. Likewise, if your SO used to spend five nights a week with you
and now zie is spending one night a week because zie is concentrating
exclusively on a new partner, the lack of infinite resources means that any
negative feelings would legitimately be directed at the new partner's
getting some of "your" time.
>It's not the fact that some-
>one else has something that's wronging you, or even any of your
>business, directly; it's the fact that you *don't* have what
>you should have.
This is a good way to re-interpret some jealousy issues when trying to
solve them.
>But often, when jealousy is an issue, there is no real loss to
>the jealous person; nothing has been taken away. When your
>partner loves someone else, no love is "taken away" from you.
That's true only if your partner says "I love that other person, but my
love for zir will never influence my actions in any way." If your partner
acts on zir love for the other person, then something may be taken away
from you -- perhaps the time and resources your partner would otherwise
have been spending exclusively with/on you, or perhaps something as
nebulous as a certain emotional state of your partner's and the behavior
that went along with that. People can get upset at subtle changes as well
as major, obvious ones, and there's nothing particularly "irrational" about
feeling upset in such circumstances. It's irrational only if the upset
continues long after the change happened and long after reasonable attempts
to resolve the issue.
I am arguing with you on this because I've experienced both kinds of
upset/jealousy -- rational and irrational -- and I find them very
different. They also have very different solutions, and lumping them
together makes jealousy issues much harder to resolve.
First I experienced jealousy because my partner behaved in a way I did not
expect and that I found inappropriate, in a situation I found scary,
because he had connected strongly with someone else. I consider that
rational jealousy. I had very good reasons to be jealous. I had actually
lost something because of another person and had actually been threatened.
But for a long time I thought it was irrational, and that led me to doubt
myself in ways that were very damaging to my sense of personal competence.
Later on, my partner and I began to develop better ways of dealing with
polyamory. But I found myself feeling very insecure, out of control,
clingy, and constantly upset. *This* was irrational jealousy because I knew
it was way out of proportion to the situation.
The way to resolve rational jealousy is to try to come to an understanding
of what behavior is appropriate, based on feelings, beliefs, and logic.
It's very bad to dismiss it as insecurity and irrationality, because it
only digs in harder.
The way to resolve irrational jealousy is to acknowledge the feelings but
recognize that they are out of proportion to the situation and take steps
to find out why that is, while refusing to let the feelings completely
control your life and that of your partner.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to say how to recognize rational vs.
irrational jealousy unless one has experienced both.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon
to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. -- Oscar Wilde
Mean Green Dancing Machine
But we're not talking about tables and oranges. We're talking about
words such as 'jealousy' and 'love'. And I claim that when a person
says, "I'm feeling jealous," zie's speaking quite literally, even if
*you* don't understand what's being said.
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>instances of jealousy arose when my partner was behaving in ways
>that broke some sort of contract I thought I had with him, and
>was giving to someone else something that I thought was due to
>me at that time. Classic instance would be when he promised me
>he'd be home in the morning by a certain time after spending the
>night with someone else, and then was five or six hours late.
FIVE or SIX HOURS late? Whoa, Ulrika, you're a saint! I think if
anyone, lover or not, were ever five or six hours late to meet me, they
wouldn't live to see the next morning ...
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Not necessarily. The expectation comes before the feeling, not after. It
>>doesn't come from the feeling that the behavior is threatening. It comes
>>from the belief that the behavior is inappropriate. *After* one has decided
>How can a behavior be "inappropriate" if it's not threatening?
Because based on one's belief systems and values, one thinks it is
inappropriate. Not everyone uses a "threat" standard for deciding what's
appropriate. (One could also argue that a behavior one finds inappropriate
is threatening insofar as it challenges one's values and worldview.)
>What
>do you mean by "inappropriate?" Inappropriate means... not proper
>for the given situation. Not proper means wrong. Wrong means some-
>one or something of value is harmed, risked, or threatened beyond ac-
>ceptable limits.
Yes up to your definition of "wrong." Not everyone uses your definition of
"wrong."
>>"zie is engaging in inappropriate behavior," one may feel threatened because
>>one doesn't know why zie would behave in such a way, or one may believe
>I don't generally know why anyone does what they do. Why would that
>make me feel threatened? Unless I was just irrationally insecure,
>and believed that anything I didn't understand was probably dangerous.
First of all, I didn't say it would make you feel threatened; we're talking
about other people here. Second, I didn't say that *any* behavior which one
believes is inappropriate would make one feel threatened. I said this might
happen in certain cases.
In the other discussion we're having, I explained why it is not necessarily
"irrationally insecure" to be cautious or in some cases fearful of behavior
one doesn't understand.
>If one believes that a certain behavior indicates a problem, a threat,
>then that would be grounds for judging the behavior inappropriate. I
>don't see it working the other way around... you can't (rationally)
>call a behavior arbitrarily "inappropriate" and then decide that since
>it's inappropriate, it hurts you.
People's behavior standards are not generally arbitrary; they are usually
derived through some process of reason from belief systems; therefore they
are at least partly rational even if they don't use your "hurt" standard
for judging inappropriate behavior.
>>>If the threat is
>>>real and substantial, I would call it fear or something else rather
>>>than jealousy.
>>No. It doesn't make any sense to define an emotional/belief complex based
>>on a standard of reality. Fear is not based on a standard of reality -- you
>>can be afraid of a lion charging you or the idea of getting cancer or a
>>boogeyman in the dark. Joy is not based on a standard of reality -- you can
>>be happy about being with a loved one or happy about your favorite
>>character on Star Trek. Resentment can be based on real things or unreal
>>things -- "you don't cook as often as me," "you don't really love me." So
>>why should we apply a reality standard to jealousy?
>There is usually more than one emotion going on at a time. When there's
>a real threat, and fear of loss is the overriding feeling and concern,
>I'd focus on the fear and the threat, not on the resentment of another
>which may have arisen as a "side effect."
That may be appropriate once you're to the point of discussing how to
resolve an issue, but not necessarily when you're discussing the feelings
themselves or when you're feeling them. We're talking about whether the
feeling of jealousy is always based on irrational insecurity. We aren't
talking about what to do with the feeling once it's determined to exist.
Furthermore, many people do not experience "fear of loss" and "anger" and
"resentment" as separate emotions. Jealousy is a name given to a complex of
beliefs and emotions that may include all those things.
>When there's no real threat,
>no rational fear of loss, just a resentment of someone else, or when the
>only real threat is the threat of feeling the resentment -- circular --
>then jealousy is the main issue.
When the situation is to the point of attempting to resolve a problem of
negative feelings, then is important to determine whether the feelings have
some basis in one's beliefs and/or in fact (rational basis), or whether
they are self-sustaining or circular (irrational basis). Jealousy can be
the experience in either case.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
"Question authority!"
"Why?"
Ulrika O'Brien
>My definition is usually the only one I know. If I have reason to
>believe there might be another definition intended, I take that into
>account, but most of the time it doesn't occur to me that someone
>might be using "table" to mean "orange." When I hear "table," I
>think I'm justified in expecting it to mean what it's always meant
>when I've heard it in the past: one of those flat-topped things you
>can put stuff on.
Ah, so you've never heard of the table of elements, tables of
contents, or the uppermost surface of a faceted stone? :) English
is a particularly subtle and complex language, being as it is,
the inheritor of several different source languages, including
German, French, and Latin. It is remarkably rare for a word to
have a single univocal meaning, and usually when it does, it's
because it is a very narrow, technical term that does not enjoy
wide usage. Those subtle gradations of meaning are what make English
such a wonderful toy to play with, so rich in metaphor, an opportunity
for word play. IMHO, if you spend too much supposing that there's
only one way to read a word, you're probably missing something,
and possibly depriving yourself...
--Ulrika
Ulrika O'Brien
>Jealousy does not come *simply* from a belief that something >inappropriate
>is going on. But that belief is almost always *involved* for me. I think
>that if others really look at what beliefs are wrapped up in their
>jealousy, the belief that one's partner's behavior is inappropriate will
>often be there. Other things are also involved -- including often the
>opposite belief, that one should feel one's partner's behavior is
>acceptable (therefore one's feelings are inappropriate). The jealousy can
>grow out of that conflict between one belief about appropriateness and
>another.
I think this is probably right. I think that in my experience,
instances of jealousy arose when my partner was behaving in ways
that broke some sort of contract I thought I had with him, and
was giving to someone else something that I thought was due to
me at that time. Classic instance would be when he promised me
he'd be home in the morning by a certain time after spending the
night with someone else, and then was five or six hours late.
I had a particular expectation, a local contract with him, and
saw his breaking that expectation as inappropriate. Also, at the
same time, he was giving something he had promised to me (his
time, those five or six hours) to someone else instead. This
was threatening and upsetting to me because he was showing an
inappropriate disregard for me and our agreements in order to
be with someone else.
At any rate, I think inappropriate behavior, coupled with other
factors, definitely plays a role in what makes me feel jealous.
I'd distill it as being a matter of inappropriate disregard for
me, or my expectations or agreements.
>
>>Using Webster's as a reality check, I find it agrees with the way I've
>>always used the words, too... the main difference between the two
>>definitions is the occurence of the word "resentment" in every defini-
>>tion under "jealousy" but not under "envy." Envy is the desire for
>>something that someone else has... jealousy is the *resentment* that
>>the other person has something you want.
>
>Fine, and the resentment comes in part from a belief that one *should* >have that thing, that one deserves it, that it's inappropri=
ate for it to >have been taken away.
Yes, I think this is right. In fact, this discussion has been very
illuminating and immediately applicable for me in my own life,
for which I must thank you, Stef.
Ulrika O'Brien
>That's true, too. But I think to assume everything is dangerous by
>default is paranoid, irrational, and unhealthy; it differs from the
>healthy approach of assuming everything is safe until proven other-
>wise, and keeping your eyes open to possible threats while acting as
>if the situation is safe.
I see nothing in the least bit healthy about assuming everything
is safe until proven otherwise. That kind of assumption is
what gets parents to push their children in strollers out into
moving traffic because they happen to be in a crosswalk, and
a lot of other remarkably daft, unsafe behavior. Reasonable caution
is not at all the same as assuming everything is safe until
proven otherwise, it's a matter of following all your data points
and constantly evaluating them. I think there is a middle ground
between unreasonable panic, and unreasonable placidity, and I think
the middle ground is healthier than either extreme. It's also
the most work.
Angi Long
>>That's true, too. But I think to assume everything is dangerous by
>>default is paranoid, irrational, and unhealthy; it differs from the
>>healthy approach of assuming everything is safe until proven other-
>>wise, and keeping your eyes open to possible threats while acting as
>>if the situation is safe.
>I see nothing in the least bit healthy about assuming everything
>is safe until proven otherwise. That kind of assumption is
>what gets parents to push their children in strollers out into
>moving traffic because they happen to be in a crosswalk, and
You've neglected the "keeping your eyes open to possible threats"
part. What I mean by assuming everything is safe is, for example,
if I meet a person who looks different from the norm, I assume
sie's no more dangerous than any other person; I do not assume
that hir unusual looks correspond to danger. When I get into a
car with an acquaintance, I assume the car won't blow up and the
driver has some degree of competence. If the driver then puts us
through 90-mile-an-hour turns and shrieking near misses, *then* I
start avoiding that driver. But until that happens, I assume
reasonable safety.
Angi Long
>Because based on one's belief systems and values, one thinks it is
>inappropriate.
So if somebody *thinks* something is inappropriate, then it *is*
inappropriate? Maybe I'd accept that as applied to that person's
*own* behavior only. But that's not what we're talking about.
You can't cause your partner's behavior to be inappropriate just
by thinking it is when your partner doesn't agree. I don't think
morality is that relative.
>>for the given situation. Not proper means wrong. Wrong means some-
>>one or something of value is harmed, risked, or threatened beyond ac-
>>ceptable limits.
>Yes up to your definition of "wrong." Not everyone uses your definition of
>"wrong."
To judge something "wrong" is to assert that others shouldn't do
that thing. I don't accept as valid someone else judging my ac-
tions "wrong," saying that I shouldn't do something I want to do,
when there's no real harm or risk to others involved in my action.
Harm to others is the only valid reason I see for someone to ex-
pect me to compromise my will and modify my behavior.
>>>"zie is engaging in inappropriate behavior," one may feel threatened because
>>>one doesn't know why zie would behave in such a way, or one may believe
>>I don't generally know why anyone does what they do. Why would that
>>make me feel threatened? Unless I was just irrationally insecure,
>>and believed that anything I didn't understand was probably dangerous.
>First of all, I didn't say it would make you feel threatened; we're talking
>about other people here.
I was using the generic "me." I don't understand why simply not
knowing the explanation for a certain behavior would make anyone
feel particularly threatened.
>Second, I didn't say that *any* behavior which one
>believes is inappropriate would make one feel threatened. I said this might
>happen in certain cases.
What you said above that I was asking about was that "one may feel
threatened *because one doesn't know why zie would behave in such
a way*." I just don't understand why not knowing all the reasons
behind a particular behavior would cause one to feel threatened,
much less to rationally believe sie was threatened.
>>don't see it working the other way around... you can't (rationally)
>>call a behavior arbitrarily "inappropriate" and then decide that since
>>it's inappropriate, it hurts you.
>People's behavior standards are not generally arbitrary; they are usually
>derived through some process of reason from belief systems; therefore they
>are at least partly rational even if they don't use your "hurt" standard
>for judging inappropriate behavior.
If the root of an ethical system is "because it is that way" or
"because Mr. Authority says so," I don't consider the system
rational. (Or maybe "reasonable" is the term I want.) Sure,
you can arrive at logical conclusions starting with the premise
"one shouldn't clap in front of one's SO," but I don't see that
as a reasonable premise to start with, or one which an SO should
be expected to accept as valid. If my SO tried to tell me "I
don't want you to do X because, well, you just shouldn't. It
doesn't hurt me or anyone else, but you just shouldn't," I'd say,
"well, tough; I want to do X, and if you don't have some good
reason I shouldn't, I'll do it." There might be some good rea-
son I'd accept other than harm to someone, but if there is, I
can't think of it.
>>There is usually more than one emotion going on at a time. When there's
>>a real threat, and fear of loss is the overriding feeling and concern,
>>I'd focus on the fear and the threat, not on the resentment of another
>>which may have arisen as a "side effect."
>That may be appropriate once you're to the point of discussing how to
>resolve an issue, but not necessarily when you're discussing the feelings
>themselves or when you're feeling them.
Isn't resolving negative feelings a large part of the point of
discussing them? If there's an underlying problem of which the
jealousy is only a side effect or symptom, I wouldn't call it a
"jealousy problem," I'd call it a "threat problem" or "loss prob-
lem," just as I'd call a child's sickness a "meningitis problem"
rather than a "fever problem" if that's what's going on.
>We're talking about whether the
>feeling of jealousy is always based on irrational insecurity.
I never said it was. I said I couldn't see jealousy as rooted
in, couldn't understand why it would or how it could arise from,
anything but insecurity. Not always irrational insecurity.
>We aren't
>talking about what to do with the feeling once it's determined to exist.
We aren't?
>Furthermore, many people do not experience "fear of loss" and "anger" and
>"resentment" as separate emotions. Jealousy is a name given to a complex of
>beliefs and emotions that may include all those things.
Really? Hmm... I'd thought everyone could differentiate their
emotions at least to that extent, whether they ever bothered to
or not.
Angi Long
>Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>might be using "table" to mean "orange." When I hear "table," I
>>think I'm justified in expecting it to mean what it's always meant
>>when I've heard it in the past: one of those flat-topped things you
>>can put stuff on.
>But we're not talking about tables and oranges. We're talking about
>words such as 'jealousy' and 'love'. And I claim that when a person
I still think I'm justified in expecting those words to mean more
or less what they've seemed to mean every time I've heard them in
the past. I assume "love" at least includes an aspect of deep
caring, and probably also an aspect of deep liking, and I assume
"jealousy" includes an aspect of envy and an aspect of resentment.
I've never before, to my knowledge, heard "jealousy" used to refer
to "the feeling or belief that something inappropriate is happen-
ing," for example. I don't think it would have been reasonable
for me to suspect that something that far out of line with my ex-
perience could have been intended.
Angi Long
>>>Wanting reinforcement is not irrational. It's sensible. Wanting
>>>reinforcement is the same as requiring scientific experiments to be
>>>replicated before deciding for sure that the results are valid.
Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>Wanting something to be repeatedly proved "not a threat" is more like
>>requiring repeated experiments performed on a box your lover brought
>>home, to prove it's not a bomb, even after your lover (someone you
>>should be able to trust *that* much, at least) assures you it's not.
>than the inner state of a physical object. Someone can prove an object is
>not a bomb by taking it apart.
No, sie can't. Sie can only prove it doesn't appear to be any fami-
liar type of bomb. The only way to *prove* something isn't a bomb
and won't blow up is to wait until the end of time and witness that
it never exploded. You can prove something *is* a bomb by setting
it off, and you can prove a relationship *is* threatened by breaking
it up (although that doesn't prove the source of the threat), but
you can never prove something is *not* a threat.
>But nothing about another human being's
>state of mind can really be *proved*, one just has to take the other's word
>for it and see that zir actions match. It's not at all irrational that such
>a process would take time.
Taking someone's word for hir own mindstate takes time? I tend to
think that if you're in a relationship with someone whose honesty
about hir own intentions you can't even trust, that's probably not
a relationship you should be in in the first place. And I think
that a person is the ultimate authority on hir own feelings. A
person's word should be given more weight than whether or not, in
some subtle way, sie lives up to your expectations of someone who
has a particular feeling. (Within reason, of course.)
If I say, "I don't intend to kill you," and then I pull out a gun
and shoot you in the chest, I'd say you're pretty justified in
concluding I was lying. But if I say, "I don't intend to hurt
your feelings," then I do something which hurts your feelings, I
think your reaction should be to take me at my word about my in-
tentions and assume we have a simple misunderstanding. I don't
think you'd be justified in making assumptions about my feelings
("she hates me" "she wanted to hurt me" "she doesn't care") based
on something that very well might be a misunderstanding, *espe-
cially* in the face of my own statements.
Unfortunately, I've run into problems with that too many times.
:/ I've been told that people think I "don't care" because I fail
to ask directly about negative emotions, when the reason I don't
ask is either because I have no idea there might be negative emo-
tions going on, or because I don't think I'm close enough to that
person for that sharing-of-feelings degree of intimacy, and the
ethic *I* picked up, which until recently I assumed most others
shared, said that asking that directly would be an invasion of
privacy and personal space, and demonstrate rudeness and lack of
caring. So I was doing something I believed was polite and re-
spectful, and doing it because I *cared*, and some others were
thinking I felt the opposite, some going so far as to accuse me
of *lying* when I said I cared.
And recently, my love's other has accused me of "lying" and hy-
pocrisy for being on the poly mailing list and here when I only
currently happen to have one lover of my own. This in spite of
the fact that I've never made any claims about wanting or seek-
ing other relationships at all. (Being poly means I prefer and
retain the *freedom* to have more than one relationship, not
that I'm *required* to have more than one, just as being bi
doesn't mean I'm *required* to have lovers of both genders.)
This just shows that if you go looking to prove something is
unsafe or undependable, you can always find the proof. If you
wait long enough, *anyone* will say or do something you con-
sider inconsistent, or sie'll flub up like humans do, and you
will have "proved" that there is a bomb in the box after all.
>>But I think to assume everything is dangerous by
>>default is paranoid, irrational, and unhealthy; it differs from the
>>healthy approach of assuming everything is safe until proven other-
>>wise, and keeping your eyes open to possible threats while acting as
>>if the situation is safe.
>Of course, both extremes are unhealthy -- trusting completely or not
>trusting at all. But I thought we were talking about jealousy, and it seems
>to me that jealousy can arise in the middle as well as at the ends.
It seems to me that the levels of jealousy that cause real prob-
lems arise mostly at the extreme, when someone is considering a
situation dangerous by default and feelings arise from that as-
sumption.
>Jealousy doesn't always come out of nowhere. If someone acts in a way that
>triggers your jealousy, and then the relationship ends up threatened, it's
>not so clear who "caused" the threat, and it's generally not useful to
>spend too much time trying to determine the cause, because that leads to
>blame and polarization.
If you don't determine the cause, how do you find a solution?
It seems to me you always have to know the cause of a problem
in order to treat it; otherwise you're just treating symptoms.
It seems pretty clear to me that if the relationship is threa-
tened only in the perception of the person feeling jealousy,
then it's the jealousy itself that is causing the threat, since
if that jealousy / perception of threat didn't exist, there
would be no threat from any other source.
>It's best to look at the situation as a mismatch
>and try to come up with solutions in which both people get what they most
>want and avoid what they most hate.
Agreed; such solutions are always the goal, I think. But to
some extent "don't do that because I hate it" needs a little
more justification before it's good cause for someone else to
radically alter hir behavior. "I can't stand the sight of
you, so don't ever drive past my house or shop where I shop"
is beyond reason. What one person "most hates" can be some-
thing not reasonable to expect others to quit.
>>much the definition of "valuing" something? When I say I value
>>something, that's certainly what I mean -- that if that thing is
>>harmed or threatened, then *I* am harmed or threatened; I lose
>>something.
>What do you lose if you see a small mammal suffering?
Peace of mind. Freedom from emotional pain. The same things
I'd lose if I was the one directly suffering. I hesitate
even to make the distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect'
suffering in a case like that, because my own suffering is
certainly very real and possibly as intense as the suffering
of the other. The only distinction is the actual physical
pain, which I might or might not interpret as 'suffering' if
I was the one feeling it, anyway.
What do you lose when you suffer? What do you lose when your
lover, family member, child suffers? Is there really that
much of a difference between one loss, one suffering, and the
other?
>>Right. But there must also be some *reason* you believe a partner-
>>ship should include that behavior in the first place. There must
>>be something of value you believe is preserved by that behavior, or
>>is harmed by the lack of that behavior. Some things might be "this
>>is just something I want" (for example, holidays and sleeping with
>>my lover (as opposed to just having sex and sending hir home) are
>>important to me for not necessarily rational reasons). But it's
>>not IMO reasonable to say "this is just the way it SHOULD be." At
>The "reason" for believing behavior is inappropriate is often "Because
>that's how I was brought up -- that's how it's done." If you want to take
If I was your partner, I wouldn't accept "because that's how it
is" as reason enough for me to sacrifice, to change behavior I
don't want to change. If it was something I didn't have strong
feelings about in the first place, that's one thing. But if
it's enough of an issue to cause a real conflict in the first
place, I assume it's a case where my wants differ from yours,
and if you expect me to give up my wants, you've got to have
stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>Having a belief doesn't mean the other person has to toe the line.
No, but when a belief causes a conflict, it does mean someone
was *expecting* the other to abide by something sie didn't be-
lieve in hirself. That in itself I see as a problem of unjus-
tified expectations. And it does usually mean one *wants* the
other to toe the line.
>But those beliefs are where a lot of
>jealousy and other negative feelings in relationships are engendered, and
Yes, and that's what I see as irrational. First, holding a
belief about "shoulds" which (generic) you've never bothered
to think through or justify. Then expecting (an)other(s) to
abide by that belief even though they've never agreed to it.
Then developing feelings of resentment, anger, blame of another
for not living up to expectations you weren't justified in ex-
pecting in the first place. I'm not saying those feelings are
"wrong" -- I don't believe feelings themselves can be "right"
or "wrong" -- but they're not rational, and the expectations
aren't right or rational. I don't think holding a strong be-
lief about morality ("shoulds") which hasn't been thoroughly
reasoned out, justified, and researched is rational.
>>I think you have it backwards. I feel pain at the thought of other
>>feeling creatures suffering. That's called 'empathy.' Without em-
>>pathy, we'd be sociopathic.
>So butchers are sociopathic? Or are they just angry all the time?
Some might be; some probably are -- I can't know that. I
think most of them simply believe what they're doing is jus-
tified, though. So do I; I'm not a vegetarian, and I think
killing for meat is justified, as long as the killing is done
humanely. Causing more suffering than necessary, using a
more painful method when a less painful one is available, is
not justified. Butchers who knowingly cause much more suffer-
ing than necessary, who don't *care* -- yes, those I consider
sociopathic.
>>It doesn't hurt me as much because I believe it doesn't hurt the
>>ant as much. An ant has a much less sophisticated nervous system
>It seems to me that it's possible the less sophisticated nervous system
>means the ant experiences *more* suffering. Much of the sophistication of a
>mammal's nervous system is designed to alleviate suffering rather than
It seems to me the mammals need the pain-relieving mechanisms
specifically because they have such a great capacity to suffer.
>heighten it. I submit that your belief isn't based entirely in reason; it's
>also based in the unsubstantiable belief that ants feel less than you
>simply because they are very different from you.
No. It's more of a comparative lack of belief that ants feel
as much as I, because they're so different from me that I
can't really begin to guess what they might or might not feel.
It's a matter of practicality, really. For all I know, a rock
could suffer excruciating pain every time I step on it. But I
can't know one way or the other, and I just can't walk around
acting like, or worrying about, whether the air hurts when I
breathe it. I have a sophisticated structure, and it's reason-
able to assume that that has something to do with my being able
to have the depth of conscious experiences that I do. You act
much like me in many ways, and have much the same structure, so
it makes sense to assume you feel things much like I do. A
hamster has much of the same structure, but on a smaller scale,
and acts in many of the same ways -- cuddles, squeals, avoids,
seeks -- so it's reasonable to assume it feels much the same
way, but maybe on a "smaller scale," with less depth due to
its lesser capacity to cogitate about its own suffering (much
of our suffering, I think, comes from sadness at our own pain).
A rock isn't structured much like me at all and displays none
of the behaviors that I associate with feelings of any type in
myself, so it makes sense to assume the rock doesn't feel, or
at least to *act* as if it doesn't. The ant is somewhere be-
tween the hamster and the rock. Its structure is like mine
only in some very rudimentary ways, and it displays some of my
basic behaviors -- walks, eats, seeks food, avoids some things
-- but in a comparatively *very* basic way. It therefore makes
sense to assume, and act as if, the ant's consciousness and
ability to suffer are much less than my own. The reasoning is
not that I'm *sure* the ant doesn't feel much, but that I'm
not sure *enough* that the ant *does* suffer much to justify
changing my own behavior for the ant's sake. I'm sure enough
to justify not pulling their legs off, but not sure enough to
justify watching every single step I take lest I step on one.
My belief is based on reason and on the best educated guesses
I can make, given the impossibility of *knowing* any other's
experience.
>One might challenge particular beliefs or systems and wind up showing
>someone there are better systems from which to derive beliefs, but it's not
>the same as saying zir beliefs are irrational (unless you think the vast
>majority of people are primarily irrational, in which case we don't have
I do think the majority of people act irrationally in many ways.
Most people start out holding irrational beliefs which they hold
simply because they've never thought to question them. Once
your attention is called to those beliefs, it's not rational or
right to go on stubbornly holding them when they might be causing
you to do things, or have expectations, which are hurting others
more than is justified by whatever is really behind the beliefs.
>>If there has really been something taken away, that's rational.
>>I can understand resentment occurring then, but I also think it
>>makes no sense to focus on that resentment;
>It's probably not good to dwell on it to the exclusion of everything else,
>but if it exists, it certainly doesn't make sense to pretend it doesn't
>exist. Pretending a feeling doesn't exist is the best way to make it a lot
>bigger than it originally was.
True. What I'm saying is that in those cases, jealousy clear-
ly *is* based on insecurity. There really is a threat or loss,
something really is unsafe, so the insecurity is rational, and
the jealousy is understandably caused by that insecurity. So
those aren't the cases I find hard to understand, or where we
seem to have any disagreement.
>Your statement assumes that the fact someone else has "it" does not prevent
>you from having "it." This is not always true. If your fiance took the
No, of course not. But I think it is true when "it" is love.
>it yourself. Likewise, if your SO used to spend five nights a week with you
>and now zie is spending one night a week because zie is concentrating
>exclusively on a new partner, the lack of infinite resources means that any
>negative feelings would legitimately be directed at the new partner's
>getting some of "your" time.
Yes and no. I don't like the notion of someone else's future
time being "yours," to begin with. It hasn't happened yet,
so it can't be "yours," so you can't lose it, since you've
never had it. But, yes, there is the fact that if that other
person didn't exist, you might have more of your partner's
time. But then again, would it be quality time, and would
you really have it at all? My love says that if he wasn't
spending his time away from his wife with me, he'd be spen-
dint it with others, or doing things alone, probably not with
her, and almost definitely not having 'quality time' with
her. I think it's often like that... I think, "if I didn't
go to school, I'd spend more quality time with my kids," but
would I really? What I seem to be missing isn't really what
I'd have if the situation was different, and even when I re-
member "before" I'm sure my memory is selective.
At any rate, being on the "receiving end" of jealousy, what
I have a problem with is when the request or expectation or
outright demand is that someone stop doing something sie
wants to do rather than that sie starts doing something the
other wants. For example, I feel wronged when the request
is "stop spending so much time with hir" rather than "start
spending more time with me."
>>the jealous person; nothing has been taken away. When your
>>partner loves someone else, no love is "taken away" from you.
>That's true only if your partner says "I love that other person, but my
>love for zir will never influence my actions in any way." If your partner
Love can't entirely not influence actions. But why would the
change in actions take anything "away?"
>have been spending exclusively with/on you, or perhaps something as
>nebulous as a certain emotional state of your partner's and the behavior
>that went along with that. People can get upset at subtle changes as well
Yes, they can. It's just that when the change is as nebulous
and unquantifiable as "a certain emotional state," it's not
very reasonable to expect one's partner to avoid making that
change or to "change it back." It usually can't be changed
back, anyway, and it's usually difficult or impossible to
predict, much less to prevent. Yes, if there's some subtle
emotional state that is lost, a real loss, then there's ra-
tional insecurity, and I can understand jealousy feelings.
Just not the request or expectation that one's partner stop
feeling something in order to alleviate jealousy. Feelings
just don't work that way for most people.
>I am arguing with you on this because I've experienced both kinds of
>upset/jealousy -- rational and irrational -- and I find them very
>different. They also have very different solutions, and lumping them
>together makes jealousy issues much harder to resolve.
I didn't lump them together.
>First I experienced jealousy because my partner behaved in a way I did not
>expect and that I found inappropriate, in a situation I found scary,
>because he had connected strongly with someone else. I consider that
>rational jealousy. I had very good reasons to be jealous. I had actually
>lost something because of another person and had actually been threatened.
There's not enough information here for me to know whether
I'd consider it rational or not. What, exactly, was lost?
Was it only that something unexpected happened? If so, did
the expectation itself have a rational basis? Was something
tangible actually threatened, or did you just *feel* threa-
tened?
>The way to resolve rational jealousy is to try to come to an understanding
>of what behavior is appropriate, based on feelings, beliefs, and logic.
>It's very bad to dismiss it as insecurity and irrationality, because it
>only digs in harder.
If the insecurity is rational, I wouldn't dismiss it as ir-
rational. I would say, "okay, there are jealous feelings,
but the underlying problem is the conflicting expectations,"
and then work on solving that conflict, not on directly try-
ing to make the jealousy diminish.
>The way to resolve irrational jealousy is to acknowledge the feelings but
>recognize that they are out of proportion to the situation and take steps
>to find out why that is, while refusing to let the feelings completely
>control your life and that of your partner.
Right.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
<shrug> You're justified in expecting anything you want. Whether those
expectations are met is another matter entirely.
Stef Jones
>Ulrika O'Brien <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Yes, inappropriate means frequently means out of frame, frame
>>here being the context of social expectations and tacit social
>>contracts operating in a given situation.
>I'm not sure what you mean by 'social contracts.' It has to me
>the scent of a notion that others have the right to 'expect'
>things from me, and to hold me guilty of wrong or 'inappropri-
>ateness,' which I haven't consented to and may not even know
>about.
Yes, exactly. People have the right to think that they expect things of
you, and they will expect things of you. People have the right to decide
you are right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, based on their
expectations, and they will do so. This will sometimes happen regardless of
your consent or knowledge, because your consent is not necessary for other
people's thoughts.
The ironic thing is that when you say you assume something or someone is
"safe," you are talking about precisely those social contracts, and yet
in this post you claim that you think they exist.
>>Entering a classroom
>>and brushing my teeth in full view of my students before beginning
>>to lead a discussion section would, for instance, be one form
>>of inappropriate behavior.
>Hm. Why?
In the "frame" of "classroom," there are certain expectations of how
a teacher will behave, and brushing teeth is not among them. Therefore it
is inappropriate behavior for that circumstance. If a teacher did it to
make some kind of point, that would give it a meaning in that frame, and
then it would be appropriate.
[snip]
>If a behavior is not wrong, then why should it not be done?
People will make assumptions about you and will behave toward you based on
those assumptions. And you might not want people to behave toward you the
way they might if you behave in a way they consider your behavior
inappropriate.
In other words, because the behavior may have negative consequences.
>I don't accept that an action can be judged morally wrong based
>only on some arbitrary "normative code."
Normative codes are not "arbitrary"; they are derived from belief systems.
You mention that you don't accept homosexuality is wrong simply because
some people believe that it is. I agree. But I also know that the idea that
homosexuality is wrong is derived from a particular belief system. It's not
arbitrary. Our idea that homosexuality is not wrong is derived from a
different belief system.
>>If someone behaves
>>in a manner that is *out* *of* *frame*, i.e. unexpected, in breach
>>of normal context, contract, and expectation, this is jarring and
>>requires more explanation than in frame behavior. While, of course,
>Hm. I see this as saying that you put the responsibility for
>living up to your expectations, or otherwise 'explaining' their
>'breaches,' on others. But how can others be expected to even
>know what your expectations are, much less held responsible for
>living up to something they haven't agreed to? This is a sore
>spot for me. Too many times I've been accused of wrongdoing for
>"not doing what I was 'supposed' to do" in some situation, when
>I'd had no way of even *knowing* what the person thought I was
>'supposed' to do, and sometimes their expectations have been the
>exact opposite of what I'd always believed was right.
Most people are accused of this a lot. That's because the communication of
belief systems and expectations is imperfect, and because in this world
different cultures mix and change a great deal therefore people who
interact have different expectations quite frequently.
Nevertheless, expectations exist. You are responsible for doing what you
can to figure out others' expectations, communicate your own, and working
out compromises in behavior when they don't match. Unless you don't care
about the negative consequences that will ensue if you don't do those
things.
Of course the burden goes both ways--others are responsible for the same
thing. And so we try to communicate and muddle through.
>To be disturbed, yes. To be threatened, I don't think so... to
>be a little cautious makes sense, but to assume something is a
>serious threat merely because it doesn't fit the norm isn't ra-
>tional. And 'disturbed' doesn't add up to 'jealous.' Why would
>'out-of-frame' or inexplicable behavior cause jealous resentment
>of something someone else has?
It wouldn't. The jealousy arises when someone interprets the behavior. If I
believe that good partnerships are always physically monogamous, then I
will interpret my partner's kissing someone else passionately as a sign
that we don't have a good partnership. If I believe that it's impolite for
my partner to kiss someone in front of me, then I will interpret my
partner's behavior as impolite and I may have an emotional reaction to that.
>If something is judged 'inappropriate' despite the fact that it
>harms no one (or if the only 'harm' comes circularly from the
>perception of the behavior as 'inappropriate'), then that judg-
>ment, as far as I can see, is totally arbitrary.
So you think only your belief system (which apparently judges behavior
based on solely on your ideas about what constitutes harm) has a basis, and
you think all other belief systems have no basis (are arbitrary).
This is an interesting example of fundamentalism.
>When an explicit agreement has been made, then there are grounds
>to be offended at a breach, certainly. But when no explicit con-
>tract has been made, most 'breaches,' I've found, are not viola-
>tions of anything the 'offending' party believes sie's agreed to;
>rather, they're 'violations' of things the other person didn't
>have the right to expect in the first place.
A person has the right to expect anything zie wants. People have the right
to think as they please.
When discussing the resolution of a problem, then it's appropriate to make
contracts. But when discussing how a feeling arises, breaches of
expectations and implicit contracts can cause a feeling just as breaches of
explicit contracts can.
>Not obligated, no, but I don't see it as terribly constructive
>to focus on a side effect when there's something much more im-
>portant going on. It doesn't make sense to treat a fever or to
>describe a condition as "fever" when the real issue, the condi-
>tion that most needs treatment, is the underlying illness. It's
>only when there's no serious illness that the fever, in and of
>itself, becomes important.
A fever in itself can cause brain damage and other unpleasant things. It is
most definitely a real issue in itself, even if some other condition gave
rise to the fever. Sometimes the underlying condition can't be treated, as
in the case of flu and some other viruses, and the only thing that can and
should be treated is the fever.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the
same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice
as fast as that! --Lewis Carroll
Jill Lundquist
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>
>>>I don't generally know why anyone does what they do. Why would that
>>>make me feel threatened? Unless I was just irrationally insecure,
>>>and believed that anything I didn't understand was probably dangerous.
>
>>First of all, I didn't say it would make you feel threatened; we're talking
>>about other people here.
>
>I was using the generic "me." I don't understand why simply not
>knowing the explanation for a certain behavior would make anyone
>feel particularly threatened.
>
>>Second, I didn't say that *any* behavior which one
>>believes is inappropriate would make one feel threatened. I said this might
>>happen in certain cases.
>
>What you said above that I was asking about was that "one may feel
>threatened *because one doesn't know why zie would behave in such
>a way*." I just don't understand why not knowing all the reasons
>behind a particular behavior would cause one to feel threatened,
>much less to rationally believe sie was threatened.
I can offer an example of this, a poly-related one, in fact. A
lover of mine once went next door to get a chair he'd left at
that apartment from his neighbor, with whom he had very recently
had sex for the first time and had not seen since. He came back
and told me that when she saw him, her eyes lighted up, and then
when he asked for the chair she looked slightly disappointed and
got the chair. He described himself as being fairly curt and to
the point; in a similar situation I would have apologized for
being in a hurry.
I responded to this story with fear and uncertainty; I felt
threatened. No, I did not know why he had done what he did, and
I could imagine ways of explaining it that were fine in my
eyes. What I didn't know was whether he and she were of the
same understanding about what the sex between them might imply,
or why he was deciding to avoid responding to something he
clearly perceived she wanted from him, and whether he was
committing what is a wrong in my eyes, treating a casual lover
as meaningless or disposable.
I think it was perfectly sensible for me to feel uncomfortable
not knowing all this and to ask him what was going on
emotionally, and even to tell him that I would strongly prefer
that he make sure he and she understood each other and had
reasonable expectations of each other. I didn't know why he was
doing what he was doing, and I felt threatened because of it (and
because of what I feared I might find out).
>If the root of an ethical system is "because it is that way" or
>"because Mr. Authority says so," I don't consider the system
>rational. (Or maybe "reasonable" is the term I want.) Sure,
>you can arrive at logical conclusions starting with the premise
>"one shouldn't clap in front of one's SO," but I don't see that
>as a reasonable premise to start with, or one which an SO should
>be expected to accept as valid.
However, the point here isn't so much what is valid and what
isn't; it's whether people are happy and feel loved. Let's say
two people are brought up to believe that clapping in front of
an SO is a sign that one is planning to pack the cat and leave.
They start to love each other, get together and decide to live
their lives on a more rational basis and to examine societal
norms and all that neat stuff. Now, if one of them starts
clapping, it's hardly surprising that the other might experience
uncertainty or doubt or even something akin to jealousy. That
same SO who is clapping in the living room is the one who still
eats like 'most everyone else in society, who speaks the same
language and dresses like everyone else. How can you know without
asking whether clapping is one of those customs (like the standard
language) that the SO doesn't question or one of those customs
(like, oh, monogamy) that he or she does?
So yes, I agree that it's not logical or perhaps even rational
to make a societal rule that clapping in front of one's SO means
one is leaving. I will point out that we cannot communicate
with any reasonable bandwidth without such cues. It's also
undeniable that polyamory involves changing some societal cues.
However, I don't think it's useful, kind, or conducive to
happiness to decide that a partner's jealousy, even if related
to those nonlogical societal cues, is "irrational" and therefore
Not My Problem. (just to be careful with words, I'm not saying
that one should therefore jump right in and try to solve it for
the partner, but that the partner is much better equipped to
solve it for him or her self if one is willing to listen and
provide support when possible, even when support may occasion
changing one's behavior)
I don't think many of us who have been poly in any way have
failed to get the assumptions from others, from our partners,
and perhaps from ourselves that behaving a certain way with
another means one is leaving. For me, the assumptions in
myself are the scariest and weirdest.
>don't want you to do X because, well, you just shouldn't. It
>doesn't hurt me or anyone else, but you just shouldn't," I'd say,
>"well, tough; I want to do X, and if you don't have some good
>reason I shouldn't, I'll do it." There might be some good rea-
>son I'd accept other than harm to someone, but if there is, I
>can't think of it.
I agree that this is not a good enough reason to ask someone to
change most of the time, but not with your response to it. :-(
I don't get jealous particularly often, but if I take it to my
partner to resolve I want my partner to take it seriously and
look for ways to help me resolve it, not say, "you can't ask
that because you don't have a good enough reason." It's a matter
of what makes everyone happiest, and taking positions like "you
can't do X" or "I'll do whatever I like unless you can prove that
I shouldn't" don't IMHO contribute to happiness.
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@qualcomm.com DoD #882
When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>If I
>believe that good partnerships are always physically monogamous, then I
>will interpret my partner's kissing someone else passionately as a sign
>that we don't have a good partnership. If I believe that it's impolite for
>my partner to kiss someone in front of me, then I will interpret my
>partner's behavior as impolite and I may have an emotional reaction to that.
I have another example that I believe supports your point, Stef, from
someone who also gets quite jealous but feels very differently about
physical affection with other people in front of her:
If my partner refrains from being physically affectionate with his other
partner in front of me, I go into "you're hiding something from me"
mode. When Chris was first involved with Deirdre, some of the most
uncomfortable moments for me were when we were all together, and the two
of them were gazing at each other longingly but very obviously painfully
refraining from touching. It hurt a lot, because I was imagining that
they were trying to hide their relationship from me, or that they were
afraid of having to deal with possible jealousy from me.
So, my "belief system" that in a poly situation, the only reason to
automatically refrain from touching would be to hide something, caused me
to feel hurt in that situation. Maybe not jealous, but hurt.
fairest one
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>Taking someone's word for hir own mindstate takes time? I tend to
>think that if you're in a relationship with someone whose honesty
>about hir own intentions you can't even trust, that's probably not
>a relationship you should be in in the first place.
Angi?
It takes some of us a hell of a lot longer to learn this than others. Me,
it took several very excruciatingly painful years.
Also, there's the fact that for some people (myself included; surprise
surprise) the "once bitten, twice shy" effect applies. If I can manage to
verbalize it and say "Oh, I'm having problems trusting my new SO about
thing X because last* time someone asked me to do this it was my abusive
ex!", then I relax about it about nine thousand percent. But until I
figure that* out, I'm a paranoid horrible sort of person to deal with on
that issue.
betsy.
Ulrika O'Brien
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>>How can a behavior be "inappropriate" if it's not threatening?
>
>>Because based on one's belief systems and values, one thinks it is
>>inappropriate.
>
>So if somebody *thinks* something is inappropriate, then it *is*
>inappropriate?
What, did you suppose that there was some sort of single,
univocal, solid platinum metric standard of inappropriateness
kept at some Ecole in Paris? Inappropriateness is, indeed,
determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
shared, intersubjective entity called culture. Where cultures
don't match up exactly, where the underlying values differ,
there will be different views of inappropriateness. There is
no ultimate way to adjudicate these differences. Nobody can
argue their way to being objectively "right" about it. All
there is is negotiation, explanation, and mutual accomodation.
Or conflict, and beating each other on the head.
Bitch_Goddess
>>inappropriate?
>
>univocal, solid platinum metric standard of inappropriateness
>kept at some Ecole in Paris? Inappropriateness is, indeed,
>determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
>nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
>shared, intersubjective entity called culture.
I think Angi's point was that Stef's definition of "inappropriate" seems
to be unilateral, based entirely on *one* person's definitions of appropriate
and inappropriate. I can, all by myself, decide that something *I've* done
is inappropriate. I cannot, on the other hand, decide something my SO does
is inappropriate unless he and I *both* agree that it's inappropriate. I
cannot fault *him* for not fulfilling *my* expectations unless I've made him
aware of those expectations and he's agreed to live up to them. Stef
seemed to be saying that having a belief system where <blah> is inappropriate
is enough, in and of itself, to hold people responsible for not doing <blah>,
whether they are aware of or in agreement with the expectation or not. This,
I think, is what Angi's objecting to. Stef and Angi both can correct me if
I've misunderstood either of them.
Myra L. Oliver
===============================================================================
= .:.:.:. .: :. :... .... = mol...@gl.umbc.edu =
= : : : : : : : ...: = "Clueless people make the world STOP!" - JCG =
===:==:=:==:..:==:=====:..;====================================================
: Disclaimer: I seriously doubt that UMBC or UCS would agree
:..; with anything I say. Even if they did, they wouldn't
ask me to say it for them.
Stef Jones
>I think Angi's point was that Stef's definition of "inappropriate" seems
>to be unilateral, based entirely on *one* person's definitions of appropriate
>and inappropriate. I can, all by myself, decide that something *I've* done
>is inappropriate. I cannot, on the other hand, decide something my SO does
>is inappropriate unless he and I *both* agree that it's inappropriate.
I beg to differ. I can decide whatever I want, and I can certainly decide
unilaterally that someone else's behavior is inappropriate. It only becomes
necessary to make an agreement if I want to get zir to behave according to
my decision.
For example, if I see some anti-abortion activists blocking a clinic door,
I can decide they are doing something inappropriate without getting
agreement from them.
>I cannot fault *him* for not fulfilling *my* expectations unless I've made him
>aware of those expectations and he's agreed to live up to them.
Sure you can -- finding fault with someone is a thought, and you can think
whatever you wish.
It may not be the best course of action to dwell on that particular
thought. It might be best to talk yourself out of it.
It also might not be best to *tell* someone that zie is at fault for not
fulfilling your expectations, when zie didn't know what your expectations
were.
However, telling zir that you were upset because zie didn't behave as you
expected is simply information. Then a negotation can start about what
you and zie can do to align your expectations and zir behavior.
>Stef
>seemed to be saying that having a belief system where <blah> is inappropriate
>is enough, in and of itself, to hold people responsible for not doing <blah>,
>whether they are aware of or in agreement with the expectation or not.
No. The belief system is what I use to decide whether something is
appropriate. This takes place in the realm of thoughts and feelings.
However, whether and how someone acts in response to my beliefs is a
separate issue. Action is different from thoughts and feelings.
To drag it back to the original topic: If my belief system leads me to
decide that certain behavior is inappropriate, and I then have negative
feelings, such as jealousy, about that behavior when it occurs, those
negative feelings do not necessarily come from "irrational insecurity."
They are derived from my belief system.
My negative feelings do not obligate someone to act, nor do they obligate
me to demand that someone else act.
The problem with jealousy is not that jealousy exists or that it's
irrational. It's that some people believe that jealousy must always
be acted upon in such a way as to completely eradicate it.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social
sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Bang. Bang. Bang.
Angi Long
>>the scent of a notion that others have the right to 'expect'
>>things from me, and to hold me guilty of wrong or 'inappropri-
>>ateness,' which I haven't consented to and may not even know
>>about.
>Yes, exactly. People have the right to think that they expect things of
>you, and they will expect things of you. People have the right to decide
>you are right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, based on their
>expectations, and they will do so. This will sometimes happen regardless of
>your consent or knowledge, because your consent is not necessary for other
>people's thoughts.
Having the "right to expect" something is more than having a
right to private thoughts. A right is always paired with an ob-
ligation: if I have the right to expect I will not be raped,
that means that others have an obligation not to rape me. A per-
son may think whatever sie wants, but if sie has a *right to ex-
pect* that I'll behave in a certain way, that means that I have
an *obligation* to behave that way.
>The ironic thing is that when you say you assume something or someone is
>"safe," you are talking about precisely those social contracts, and yet
>in this post you claim that you think they exist.
I didn't say they didn't exist; I asked about what exactly
was meant by them. I don't buy the "social contract" philoso-
phy of morality -- the idea that all ethics are simply social
contracts, agreements that I won't kill you if you don't kill
me, that otherwise there's no reason to behave in any particu-
lar way, no 'right' or 'wrong.' Or the philosophy that all
morality is totally relative and culturally determined -- I
don't think 'right' and 'wrong' are *determined* by 'majority
rule' (ethical democracy?).
>>>and brushing my teeth in full view of my students before beginning
>>>to lead a discussion section would, for instance, be one form
>>>of inappropriate behavior.
>>Hm. Why?
>In the "frame" of "classroom," there are certain expectations of how
>a teacher will behave, and brushing teeth is not among them. Therefore it
>is inappropriate behavior for that circumstance. If a teacher did it to
I'd call it unusual behavior, but I don't think I'd go as far
as *inappropriate*, which says to me not just that teachers
usually don't brush their teeth in class, but that teachers
*shouldn't* do so. Is there any reason a teacher *shouldn't*
brush hir teeth in class?
>>If a behavior is not wrong, then why should it not be done?
>People will make assumptions about you and will behave toward you based on
>those assumptions. And you might not want people to behave toward you the
>way they might if you behave in a way they consider your behavior
>inappropriate.
That'a a reason I might choose not to do something unusual.
It's not a reason for anyone else to judge my behavior wrong
or inappropriate, as far as I can see, though.
>>I don't accept that an action can be judged morally wrong based
>>only on some arbitrary "normative code."
>Normative codes are not "arbitrary"; they are derived from belief systems.
I thought the normative code basically *was* the belief system.
>>spot for me. Too many times I've been accused of wrongdoing for
>>"not doing what I was 'supposed' to do" in some situation, when
>>I'd had no way of even *knowing* what the person thought I was
>>'supposed' to do, and sometimes their expectations have been the
>>exact opposite of what I'd always believed was right.
>Nevertheless, expectations exist. You are responsible for doing what you
>can to figure out others' expectations, communicate your own, and working
>out compromises in behavior when they don't match. Unless you don't care
IMO the bulk of the responsibility for communicating an ex-
pectation lies with the person who has the expectation. If a
person hasn't first communicated hir expectation, then reached
an agreement about it, then sie has no right to expect the
other to live up to it, or to hold the other guilty of wrong
for failing to. (This goes for matters above the basics, of
course... I don't think I have to communicate "I expect not
to be robbed or physically harmed by you;" that much goes
without saying.)
>>tional. And 'disturbed' doesn't add up to 'jealous.' Why would
>>'out-of-frame' or inexplicable behavior cause jealous resentment
>>of something someone else has?
>It wouldn't. The jealousy arises when someone interprets the behavior. If I
>believe that good partnerships are always physically monogamous, then I
>will interpret my partner's kissing someone else passionately as a sign
>that we don't have a good partnership. If I believe that it's impolite for
Then the feeling comes not from the lack of an explanation
for the behavior; it comes from an assumed explanation.
>>If something is judged 'inappropriate' despite the fact that it
>>harms no one (or if the only 'harm' comes circularly from the
>>perception of the behavior as 'inappropriate'), then that judg-
>>ment, as far as I can see, is totally arbitrary.
>So you think only your belief system (which apparently judges behavior
>based on solely on your ideas about what constitutes harm) has a basis, and
>you think all other belief systems have no basis (are arbitrary).
Not "my ideas about what constitutes harm." For the most part,
I think that individuals decide for themselves what constitutes
harm to them. When I can't communicate with someone, or don't
have time to communicate about every little detail of behavior,
I have to make some assumptions, and I assume they consider
themselves harmed by the same things I and most others I've had
experience with do, because that assumption seems to make the
most sense. I also assume that unless I have reason to believe
an action *does* cause harm, then I can assume it *doesn't*
cause harm, or at least that I can *act* as if it doesn't until
I have information to the contrary. That, also, seems the most
practical and sensible assumption.
I didn't say all other belief systems were arbitrary. I do
have yet to hear of a completely different belief system that
makes much sense to me. And if you tell me that something I'm
doing is wrong (inappropriate), and at the same time tell me
that my actions don't hurt you in any way, you don't consider
them to harm anyone else, and the only reason you give that I
shouldn't do what I want to do is "because it's not appropri-
ate," then your judgment seems completely arbitrary, as far
as I can see.
>contracts. But when discussing how a feeling arises, breaches of
>expectations and implicit contracts can cause a feeling just as breaches of
>explicit contracts can.
Yes, they can. But whether or not the feeling has a rational
basis depends, in large part, on whether the expectation was
justified.
>>portant going on. It doesn't make sense to treat a fever or to
>>describe a condition as "fever" when the real issue, the condi-
>>tion that most needs treatment, is the underlying illness. It's
>A fever in itself can cause brain damage and other unpleasant things. It is
>most definitely a real issue in itself, even if some other condition gave
>rise to the fever. Sometimes the underlying condition can't be treated, as
>in the case of flu and some other viruses, and the only thing that can and
>should be treated is the fever.
If a fever is extreme enough and lasts long enough, yes, it
can be a problem in itself. But if you treat only the fever,
then whatever is causing it will still be there, and will
just cause it to come back. And sometimes the fever is a
normal and necessary, however temporarily unpleasant, side
effect of the body's natural defense systems, and treating
the fever can diminish those defenses and cause the under-
lying problem to get *worse*.
Stef Jones
>Having the "right to expect" something is more than having a
>right to private thoughts. A right is always paired with an ob-
>ligation: if I have the right to expect I will not be raped,
>that means that others have an obligation not to rape me.
No, I don't agree with that definition. Expectations are thoughts.
Therefore the right to expect something is simply the right to think. The
right you are speaking of here is simply the right not to be raped.
>A per-
>son may think whatever sie wants, but if sie has a *right to ex-
>pect* that I'll behave in a certain way, that means that I have
>an *obligation* to behave that way.
I disagree with this definition, but we can work with it. In that case I
would change my general statement to "You have the right to think and feel
whatever you wish about someone else's behavior, including the right to
think and feel that zir behavior is inappropriate."
>>The ironic thing is that when you say you assume something or someone is
>>"safe," you are talking about precisely those social contracts, and yet
>>in this post you claim that you think they exist.
>I didn't say they didn't exist; I asked about what exactly
>was meant by them. I don't buy the "social contract" philoso-
>phy of morality -- the idea that all ethics are simply social
>contracts, agreements that I won't kill you if you don't kill
>me, that otherwise there's no reason to behave in any particu-
>lar way, no 'right' or 'wrong.' Or the philosophy that all
>morality is totally relative and culturally determined -- I
>don't think 'right' and 'wrong' are *determined* by 'majority
>rule' (ethical democracy?).
"You don't buy" them. Does that mean you don't establish your morality that
way, or you don't believe they exist, or you think that other people who
work this way are automatically irrational, or what?
I don't think *all* ethics are *simply* social contracts or culturally
determined. I do think that *some* ethics are social contracts and
culturally determined. I also think that there are culturally determined
guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate behavior. These may or may not
be called "ethics"; behavior doesn't have to be morally wrong to be
inappropriate.
>>In the "frame" of "classroom," there are certain expectations of how
>>a teacher will behave, and brushing teeth is not among them. Therefore it
>>is inappropriate behavior for that circumstance. If a teacher did it to
>I'd call it unusual behavior, but I don't think I'd go as far
>as *inappropriate*, which says to me not just that teachers
>usually don't brush their teeth in class, but that teachers
>*shouldn't* do so. Is there any reason a teacher *shouldn't*
>brush hir teeth in class?
Insofar as it would undermine the teacher's authority with the students,
zie shouldn't do it.
However, saying something is inappropriate is not saying that it shouldn't
be done. It's describing a belief/feeling that many people will have upon
witnessing the behavior.
>>>If a behavior is not wrong, then why should it not be done?
>>People will make assumptions about you and will behave toward you based on
>>those assumptions. And you might not want people to behave toward you the
>>way they might if you behave in a way they consider your behavior
>>inappropriate.
>That'a a reason I might choose not to do something unusual.
>It's not a reason for anyone else to judge my behavior wrong
>or inappropriate, as far as I can see, though.
But people don't need a reason that you agree with in order to judge your
behavior.
>>Normative codes are not "arbitrary"; they are derived from belief systems.
>I thought the normative code basically *was* the belief system.
There are core sets of beliefs, and the codes derive from that.
For example, your belief is that behavior that harms someone is wrong, and
therefore you derive a code that it's not OK to drown guinea pigs in the
toilet (because it harms someone).
>>Nevertheless, expectations exist. You are responsible for doing what you
>>can to figure out others' expectations, communicate your own, and working
>>out compromises in behavior when they don't match. Unless you don't care
>IMO the bulk of the responsibility for communicating an ex-
>pectation lies with the person who has the expectation. If a
>person hasn't first communicated hir expectation, then reached
>an agreement about it, then sie has no right to expect the
>other to live up to it, or to hold the other guilty of wrong
>for failing to. (This goes for matters above the basics, of
>course...
Ah, precisely -- how do we decide which are "the basics"? For example, for
many people, it is "basic" that their partner does not blatantly court
another person; therefore they do not think that they are responsible for
negotiating about that expectation; therefore, when it happens, they think
it is obviously inappropriate and/or wrong, and they may get jealous.
We are responsible for making some effort to figure out other people's
expectations *because* people have different ideas about what are "the
basics." Agreed that the responsibility goes both ways.
>>It wouldn't. The jealousy arises when someone interprets the behavior. If I
>>believe that good partnerships are always physically monogamous, then I
>>will interpret my partner's kissing someone else passionately as a sign
>>that we don't have a good partnership. If I believe that it's impolite for
>Then the feeling comes not from the lack of an explanation
>for the behavior; it comes from an assumed explanation.
Yes.
>>So you think only your belief system (which apparently judges behavior
>>based on solely on your ideas about what constitutes harm) has a basis, and
>>you think all other belief systems have no basis (are arbitrary).
>Not "my ideas about what constitutes harm." For the most part,
>I think that individuals decide for themselves what constitutes
>harm to them. When I can't communicate with someone, or don't
>have time to communicate about every little detail of behavior,
>I have to make some assumptions, and I assume they consider
>themselves harmed by the same things I and most others I've had
>experience with do, because that assumption seems to make the
>most sense. I also assume that unless I have reason to believe
>an action *does* cause harm, then I can assume it *doesn't*
>cause harm, or at least that I can *act* as if it doesn't until
>I have information to the contrary. That, also, seems the most
>practical and sensible assumption.
Those are practical and sensible assumptions, but you need to add the
assumption that your assumptions will be incorrect some of the time and
know something to try when they are incorrect.
>I didn't say all other belief systems were arbitrary. I do
>have yet to hear of a completely different belief system that
>makes much sense to me. And if you tell me that something I'm
>doing is wrong (inappropriate), and at the same time tell me
>that my actions don't hurt you in any way, you don't consider
>them to harm anyone else, and the only reason you give that I
>shouldn't do what I want to do is "because it's not appropri-
>ate," then your judgment seems completely arbitrary, as far
>as I can see.
(1) Wrong and inappropriate are not the same thing. I also use a "harm"
basis for determining *wrong* behavior (at least in part). I don't use a
"harm" basis for determining *inappropriate* behavior. Inappropriate
behavior is culturally determined; however there are usually belief systems
underlying the judgement that behavior is inappropriate.
(2) In a situation where someone gets jealous, some harm could be said to
have occurred.
>But whether or not the feeling has a rational
>basis depends, in large part, on whether the expectation was
>justified.
Justified according to whom or what?
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
"Once you start down the path of the Dark Side, forever will it dominate
your destiny." -- Yoda summarizes the "slippery slope" argument.
Allison Floyd
avoiding jumping in feet-first, but at this point I think I
might be able to shed a bit of light on the argument at hand.
It seems we're having a bit of a definitional problem, among
other things. There are three basic ideas here:
1) Ethics. The study of things which are "wrong in and of
themselves". The relativists mentioned in an earlier post
would argue that this doesn't exist; that all things are defined
as wrong within the context of the society that produces them.
If you believe that there are certain things which are wrong,
regardless of context (e.g., the taking of life for pleasure),
then what you have in mind is (un)ethical behavior. It seems
that none of this discussion hinges upon this concept, but
the word is getting thrown around rather a lot.
2) Morality. Things which are wrong because society deems
them to be so. (or the individual, in the case of individual
morality) For much of (american) society, sexual liasons
outside of the marriage bond fall into this category.
3) Appropriateness. The idea that there's a time and a place
for (almost) everything. These boundaries are frequently
placed for efficiency. The idea that one shouldn't post ads
to the vast majority of USENET groups falls under this category.
The example of the professor brushing hir teeth in front of the
class is inappropriate, not because it's "wrong", but because
the classroom has a defined purpose, that of educating the
students, and tooth-brushing doesn't (usually) contribute to
that purpose.
Now, the person arguing that things which are wrong are so because
they cause harm could look at the category of "appropriate" things
with the idea that time is valuable, and performing acts which
detract from the stated purpose of time spent in a given arena
harm those who are there for the aforementioned stated purpose.
The students in the classroom are "harmed" because they're there
to learn, and watching the professor brush hir teeth takes up
time which they had intended (and paid for, frequently) to use
for study. I personally thing that's stretching the concept of
harm a bit; but it's a fuzzy term to start out with, and can
probably stand a bit of stretching one way or another.
Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion...
ttfn,
Allison
Angi Long
>>might be using "table" to mean "orange." When I hear "table," I
>>think I'm justified in expecting it to mean what it's always meant
>>when I've heard it in the past: one of those flat-topped things you
>>can put stuff on.
>Ah, so you've never heard of the table of elements, tables of
>contents, or the uppermost surface of a faceted stone? :) English
Those meanings are usually clear from context. In the case of a
surface of a stone, that's not a meaning of 'table' I've heard
before, but I suspect the fact that the word isn't being used in
the familiar way would probably be clear from context. The point,
anyway, was that if somebody uses a word in a way totally foreign
from any way I've heard that word used before, then I don't think
I'm at fault if I misunderstand. I think if you're going to use
a word in an unusual way, the burden of responsibility for pro-
viding a definition belongs to you, not to your listener.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>:/ I've been told that people think I "don't care" because I fail
>to ask directly about negative emotions, when the reason I don't
>ask is either because I have no idea there might be negative emo-
>tions going on, or because I don't think I'm close enough to that
>person for that sharing-of-feelings degree of intimacy, and the
>ethic *I* picked up, which until recently I assumed most others
>shared, said that asking that directly would be an invasion of
>privacy and personal space, and demonstrate rudeness and lack of
>caring. So I was doing something I believed was polite and re-
>spectful, and doing it because I *cared*, and some others were
>thinking I felt the opposite, some going so far as to accuse me
>of *lying* when I said I cared.
Well, it's true: you *don't* care, not from the perspective of the
person making the judgment. Feelings mean very little, in the end, only
what we *do* counts. And if you aren't doing things to demonstrate
caring in a way that makes the other person feel cared for, well, you
don't really care, do you?
The only way to get somewhere when someone accuses you of not caring is
to ask, "What *would* make you feel cared for?" Then you start the
process of negotiation.
>And recently, my love's other has accused me of "lying" and hy-
>pocrisy for being on the poly mailing list and here when I only
>currently happen to have one lover of my own. This in spite of
>the fact that I've never made any claims about wanting or seek-
>ing other relationships at all. (Being poly means I prefer and
>retain the *freedom* to have more than one relationship, not
>that I'm *required* to have more than one, just as being bi
>doesn't mean I'm *required* to have lovers of both genders.)
Assuming you're describing the conversation accurately, it's pretty
clear to me based on what I know of your relationship that your love's
other sees some signals that your lover may be acting in a serially
monogamous fashion. Rightly or wrongly, zie is taking some of it out on
you, partly in the belief that if you were clearly and unequivocally
poly, there would be less concern that zir primary would leave.
Please note that I'm not saying any of this *should* be happening, only
trying to create a plausible explanation for what *is* happening.
>>Of course, both extremes are unhealthy -- trusting completely or not
>>trusting at all. But I thought we were talking about jealousy, and it seems
>>to me that jealousy can arise in the middle as well as at the ends.
>
>It seems to me that the levels of jealousy that cause real prob-
>lems arise mostly at the extreme, when someone is considering a
>situation dangerous by default and feelings arise from that as-
>sumption.
That's probably true. But people get angry regularly in ways that don't
cause real problems; why should jealousy be any less real if it's not
causing damage to a relationship?
>It seems pretty clear to me that if the relationship is threa-
>tened only in the perception of the person feeling jealousy,
>then it's the jealousy itself that is causing the threat, since
>if that jealousy / perception of threat didn't exist, there
>would be no threat from any other source.
Humans are not ruled strictly by intellect; we see patterns that look
similar to previous patterns that affected us emotionally, and we react
emotionally -- often regardless of how appropriate the emotion is to the
current situation.
For example, someone who had an alcoholic parent might well learn to
interpret giddy, bouncy behavior as a sign of drunkenness and possibly
other irrational behavior to come. If zie gets into a relationship with
someone who gets naturally bouncy, zie will quite likely experience some
sort of discomfort when the partner gets bouncy. This kind of deeply
rooted reaction takes a long time to change.
>>It's best to look at the situation as a mismatch
>>and try to come up with solutions in which both people get what they most
>>want and avoid what they most hate.
>
>Agreed; such solutions are always the goal, I think. But to
>some extent "don't do that because I hate it" needs a little
>more justification before it's good cause for someone else to
>radically alter hir behavior. "I can't stand the sight of
>you, so don't ever drive past my house or shop where I shop"
>is beyond reason. What one person "most hates" can be some-
>thing not reasonable to expect others to quit.
That's true, but one can take your argument too far to the other extreme
as well.
>>The "reason" for believing behavior is inappropriate is often "Because
>>that's how I was brought up -- that's how it's done." If you want to take
>
>If I was your partner, I wouldn't accept "because that's how it
>is" as reason enough for me to sacrifice, to change behavior I
>don't want to change. If it was something I didn't have strong
>feelings about in the first place, that's one thing. But if
>it's enough of an issue to cause a real conflict in the first
>place, I assume it's a case where my wants differ from yours,
>and if you expect me to give up my wants, you've got to have
>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
>>>If there has really been something taken away, that's rational.
>>>I can understand resentment occurring then, but I also think it
>>>makes no sense to focus on that resentment;
>>
>>It's probably not good to dwell on it to the exclusion of everything else,
>>but if it exists, it certainly doesn't make sense to pretend it doesn't
>>exist. Pretending a feeling doesn't exist is the best way to make it a lot
>>bigger than it originally was.
>
>True. What I'm saying is that in those cases, jealousy clear-
>ly *is* based on insecurity. There really is a threat or loss,
>something really is unsafe, so the insecurity is rational, and
>the jealousy is understandably caused by that insecurity. So
>those aren't the cases I find hard to understand, or where we
>seem to have any disagreement.
Is it really so hard for you to understand that a sense of loss does not
need to be based on insecurity? How many times do people have to tell
you that before you start to consider that maybe you don't have the only
way of looking at the world?
>At any rate, being on the "receiving end" of jealousy, what
>I have a problem with is when the request or expectation or
>outright demand is that someone stop doing something sie
>wants to do rather than that sie starts doing something the
>other wants. For example, I feel wronged when the request
>is "stop spending so much time with hir" rather than "start
>spending more time with me."
That's a reasonable position, and normally I agree with you, but it does
ignore one crucial factor: a person's behavior changes depending on who
or what zie spends time on. And what the jealous person really wants
changed isn't necessarily the direct behavior, but the energy zie
perceives in zir partner after spending time with the other lover.
Unfortunately, the jealous person who feels this way often isn't able to
articulate the feeling, which leads to 'irrational' demands.
>>have been spending exclusively with/on you, or perhaps something as
>>nebulous as a certain emotional state of your partner's and the behavior
>>that went along with that. People can get upset at subtle changes as well
>
>Yes, they can. It's just that when the change is as nebulous
>and unquantifiable as "a certain emotional state," it's not
>very reasonable to expect one's partner to avoid making that
>change or to "change it back." It usually can't be changed
>back, anyway, and it's usually difficult or impossible to
>predict, much less to prevent. Yes, if there's some subtle
>emotional state that is lost, a real loss, then there's ra-
>tional insecurity, and I can understand jealousy feelings.
>Just not the request or expectation that one's partner stop
>feeling something in order to alleviate jealousy. Feelings
>just don't work that way for most people.
That's true, but behavior modification *does* work on most people, and
the internal state changes with it. I'll grant that maybe I'm a lot
better than most people at looking inside myself, and I was certainly
helped a lot by an extremely articulate partner, but I *was* able to
shift my internal state without too much pain in order to accomodate my
partner's discomfort.
Of course, part of what made that work was that my partner made an equal
effort to learn what those 'energy signals' meant in terms of my actual
internal state rather than passing them through zir old filters.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <4jaqut$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>
>>But nothing about another human being's
>>state of mind can really be *proved*, one just has to take the other's word
>>for it and see that zir actions match. It's not at all irrational that such
>>a process would take time.
>
>Taking someone's word for hir own mindstate takes time? I tend to
>think that if you're in a relationship with someone whose honesty
>about hir own intentions you can't even trust, that's probably not
>a relationship you should be in in the first place. And I think
>that a person is the ultimate authority on hir own feelings. A
>person's word should be given more weight than whether or not, in
>some subtle way, sie lives up to your expectations of someone who
>has a particular feeling. (Within reason, of course.)
The problem in this context has little to do with honesty per se. It's
much more a matter of taking time to learn what a person means when zie
says something. For example, if the other says, "I love you," even if
you both discuss what that means, I think you'd be quite foolish to
simply take the statement at face value until you see how zir actions
line up behind zir words.
Chip & Jennifer
>>I didn't say all other belief systems were arbitrary. I do
>>have yet to hear of a completely different belief system that
>>makes much sense to me. And if you tell me that something I'm
>>doing is wrong (inappropriate), and at the same time tell me
>>that my actions don't hurt you in any way, you don't consider
>>them to harm anyone else, and the only reason you give that I
>>shouldn't do what I want to do is "because it's not appropri-
>>ate," then your judgment seems completely arbitrary, as far
>>as I can see.
>(1) Wrong and inappropriate are not the same thing. I also use a "harm"
>basis for determining *wrong* behavior (at least in part). I don't use a
>"harm" basis for determining *inappropriate* behavior. Inappropriate
>behavior is culturally determined; however there are usually belief systems
>underlying the judgement that behavior is inappropriate.
>(2) In a situation where someone gets jealous, some harm could be said to
>have occurred.
>>But whether or not the feeling has a rational
>>basis depends, in large part, on whether the expectation was
>>justified.
>Justified according to whom or what?
>
Hi. Hope you both don't mind if i jump into the discussion. It's
been awhile since i've posted anything.
My boyfriend and i have come up with a plan that works great for us.
We've decided that jealousy is something that the person experiencing
the jealousy needs to deal with. That might seem harsh to some who
feel the need to always negotiate their feelings in the relationship,
but for us not only does it make sense.. it works beautifully.
Here's how it works. We both love each other. We also both feel
that if we don't love each other, then we shouldn't be together.
Okay, that's easy, because like i said.. we DO love each other... for
who we are, not who we would like the other person to be or who
society feels is appropriate for that person to be. Now say that Chip
is cuddling with someone at a party and i suddenly start cringing.
As long as i don't see anyone putting a gun to his head, or otherwise
forcing him to cuddle with the other person, i can pretty much assume
that he's doing it because he's enjoying it. I can assume that he is
being HIMSELF. Remember, i love this person. I don't just love him
when he's doing exactly what i want. I love him for who he is. Now
here's where i might need to think for a minute to get some grasp of
everything before i start storming over there and telling him how
inappropriate it is for him to be doing that.
Of course if i go over there and ask him to stop, he most likely will.
He loves me too. The problem with that is that by making him change
his natural behavior, i would also be losing something. I would be
losing the person that he naturally is. Okay, i can hear everyone
now. "But if you're naturally jealous of that type of behavior, then
by not saying anything, aren't you losing a bit of yourself?" I
believe here that the action should override the *reaction*. His
action was pure. My reaction is where the problem would begin, and
what needs to be dealt with.
So before i go over there, i think first and foremost that that man
cuddling with someone over there is the man that i love with all my
heart. That already eases most of my feelings. I stop thinking "how
dare he!" and just start thinking, hmmm.. my man LOVES to cuddle.
Okay, there's still the feelings of insecurity. I've actually only
felt this once strongly. It's not exactly a feeling of being insecure
with myself as it is an insecurity in the relationship. The first
time i felt jealousy for this reason i found myself thinking, "but
what if he ends up loving this person more than he loves me?". My
very next thought occured in a matter of seconds. That thought was,
"well that's a stupid thing to think!". After that it was over. I
knew immediately that it's not a question of loving someone more, only
differently, and by taking the time to question my reaction, i was
able to deal with it. So much nicer than having to lose part of the
person i love!
What if it doesn't work that easily? What if after questioning my
reaction, i came to the conclusion that this was behavior i simply
couldn't tolerate? Well, then i'd feel the need to question whether i
should be in a relationship with someone who, while just being
himself, causes me so much frustration and compromise. I would have
to ask myself whether i was in this relationship to mold him into the
kind of person i want him to be, and if so, why don't i just go find
someone like that instead of going to all the work to transform him to
be like i want him to be.
The beauty of this is that from respecting and loving him for who he
is, i get this back. I know that i can always be myself, too. No
more trying to worry about what's appropriate or not. The feeling
that comes from knowing i can be loved while being truly myself is the
greatest feeling there is.
Hope this helps.
Jennifer
Angi Long
>>inappropriate?
>kept at some Ecole in Paris? Inappropriateness is, indeed,
>determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
>nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
>shared, intersubjective entity called culture. Where cultures
That's your philosophy. I don't believe that morality is com-
pletely relative. I don't believe that just because a group of
people say it's wrong to be polyamorous, it *is* wrong to be so.
Maenad
>>So if somebody *thinks* something is inappropriate, then it *is*
>>inappropriate? Maybe I'd accept that as applied to that person's
>>*own* behavior only. But that's not what we're talking about.
>>You can't cause your partner's behavior to be inappropriate just
>>by thinking it is when your partner doesn't agree. I don't think
>>morality is that relative.
First of all, Angi and others involved in this thread, let me
apologize for taking this statement out of a very long and complex
context.
However, I take exception to what I think you're saying. In the
context of a committed (whatever that means) relationship (whatever
that means), I assume that both my partner(s) and I will have certain
unreasonable requests which I will nevertheless honor -- assuming that
what I am being asked to do doesn't directly conflict with my values
or basic needs.
For instance, my wife has asked me to always come home and go to
sleep with her, no matter how late it is (the birdies may be tweeting,
the sky may be light, but I fall asleep WITH HER in our bed). That's
not technically a "reasonable" request, but it's one I've honored for
three years, with specific and rare exceptions negotiated. It's
important to her, therefore I just do it.
For instance, I need my male partner to honor my need to sometimes
be in all-female environments or scenes without him interfering,
kibitzing, or "helping out." Often, these scenes are public and
involve women with whom he is friendly or with whom he also
sometimes plays. So my asking him to butt out occasionally so I
can wallow in all-girl play, even if he is at the same party, is not
necessarily "reasonable" -- but it is extremely important to me, so I
expect him to honor it.
If these unreasonable expectations we've agreed to began to be
broken in either case -- If I started to fall asleep with my lovers
and play partners and ignore my wife's request; If my male partner
ignored my "butt out" rule for certain scenes -- I would consider it a
serious breach of the rules of those partnerships.
For other partners and partnerships, these things would be
unreasonable and probably meaningless. For us, they are vital
signs that the parties to the relationship are respecting what others
say they need, whether any of us thinks it's reasonable or not.
None of this is at all the same as expecting something unstated from a
partner and then getting pissed off that (a) the partner didn't
fulfill the expectation, and (b) the partner didn't automatically know
it was an expectation. I'm not responsible for my partner's unstated
expectations. And I am responsible for figuring out and clearly
stating what my own expectations are, and negotiating a compromise if
they conflict with my partner's needs.
- Lydia
Paul E. Ourada
>
> Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) wrote:
> >>inappropriate?
> >
> >univocal, solid platinum metric standard of inappropriateness
> >determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
> >nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
> >shared, intersubjective entity called culture.
Have to disagree here. What people think is only what they think. Only if
there is some basis for what they think, can such thinking have any meaning.
The only possible basis for appropriateness can be agreement between two or more
parties. If two people agree to behave or treat each other in a particular
fashion, and then one of the parties abrogates that agreement without
communicating to the other party their intention of leaving the agreement, then
they have behaved inappropriately.
This is not to say that there are not some societal boundaries that generally
expected of societal members, such as physical boundaries. It is generally
expected that strangers not touch us. It is generally expected that strangers
not even approach us except in certain controlled circumstances like store clerks,
used car salesmen, etc. There is an entire millieu of social do's and don'ts.
> I think Angi's point was that Stef's definition of "inappropriate" seems
> to be unilateral, based entirely on *one* person's definitions of appropriate
> and inappropriate. I can, all by myself, decide that something *I've* done
> is inappropriate. I cannot, on the other hand, decide something my SO does
> is inappropriate unless he and I *both* agree that it's inappropriate.
Yes, it is possible for you to not agree on a particular act's inappropriateness,
and it still be inappropriate. The rationale is given above in which one person
abrogates the prior agreement and fails to communicate their intention to leave the
agreement prior to leaving. This has to do with living up to one's word. The act
was inappropriate, regardless of whether there is agreement on this issue. The
interested parties may decide to forgive or overlook the inappropriateness, but
that does not change the fact.
> I cannot fault *him* for not fulfilling *my* expectations unless I've made him
> aware of those expectations and he's agreed to live up to them. Stef
> seemed to be saying that having a belief system where <blah> is inappropriate
> is enough, in and of itself, to hold people responsible for not doing <blah>,
> whether they are aware of or in agreement with the expectation or not. This,
> I think, is what Angi's objecting to. Stef and Angi both can correct me if
> I've misunderstood either of them.
I agree, just having a belief system does not require those not having the same
belief to behave according to it.... except when in Rome do as Romans. If you're
not willing to do as Romans, be prepared to be up front about it, else suffer the
consequences. If one lives in a society where a particular behavior is expected,
don't expect everyone to stand up and applaud you when you don't exhibit the
behavior. Don't even expect them to not stand up and boo you if you don't exhibit
the behavior. It seems to me that a person ought to take responsibility for their
actions in the context they occured. Ignorance is no excuse. If one lives in a
particular society, it behooves them to know and understand that social system, and
to know how their behaviors may be construed. American failure to be this simply
courteous in foreign countries has branded us as buffoons abroad.
$0.02,
Paul.
----------------------------------------------
Paul & Thomas Ourada |Windoz# Wa@hers, Ink.
Paul O'Bear & Kirby |"We cl%an the bu*s offa
Boulder, CO |W&ndoze' win$shiel~."
pou...@enet.net |
----------------------------------------------
Angi Long
>>>by thinking it is when your partner doesn't agree. I don't think
>>>morality is that relative.
>that means), I assume that both my partner(s) and I will have certain
>unreasonable requests which I will nevertheless honor -- assuming that
>what I am being asked to do doesn't directly conflict with my values
>or basic needs.
I'd say that "unreasonable" is the word that applies to requests
which do conflict with your values or basic needs. "Irrational"
is the word I'd use for requests which don't necessarily have a
'logical' basis. Irrational does not mean wrong. It's only
when there's a real conflict of wants that I think a partner's
request needs to be somewhat rational and justified before I'll
be motivated to give up what *I* want to satisfy it.
>For instance, my wife has asked me to always come home and go to
>sleep with her, no matter how late it is (the birdies may be tweeting,
>the sky may be light, but I fall asleep WITH HER in our bed). That's
>not technically a "reasonable" request, but it's one I've honored for
>three years, with specific and rare exceptions negotiated. It's
>important to her, therefore I just do it.
I'd say that's very reasonable, because she asks for something
you don't (seem to) have strong feelings against. Her feelings
on the matter are much stronger than yours, so it's reasonable
that you bow to her request. If you had feelings just as strong
about sleeping with other lovers, though, so that it was a real
sacrifice for you to never sleep with them, then her request
would not be that reasonable. Some sort of compromise would
probably be in order, but expecting you to just give up what
*you* strongly want or need for her, in this case irrational,
request wouldn't be reasonable.
>None of this is at all the same as expecting something unstated from a
>partner and then getting pissed off that (a) the partner didn't
>fulfill the expectation, and (b) the partner didn't automatically know
>it was an expectation. I'm not responsible for my partner's unstated
>expectations. And I am responsible for figuring out and clearly
>stating what my own expectations are, and negotiating a compromise if
>they conflict with my partner's needs.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. If I think it's 'in-
appropriate' for my partner to give graham crackers to another
person, that doesn't *make* it inappropriate or wrong for hir
to do so, and I've got no right to go blaming hir for not ful-
filling that expectation, which sie didn't even know about. I
do have the right to *ask* hir to not give graham crackers,
and to expect that sie'll honor my request *if* sie has no
strong feelings which conflict with it. But if my partner has
a religious custom of giving graham crackers to new friends,
and feels sie would suffer a great loss if sie had to give up
the custom, then I don't have the right to expect that sie'll
make that much of a sacrifice just for my irrational request.
I'd need some reason just as strong as hirs, some harm or
benefit to me that rivals the harm or benefit to hir, before
it would be reasonable for me to expect such a sacrifice.
(Maybe I had a Traumatic Graham Cracker Incident in the past,
so my feelings are exceptionally strong and difficult to
overcome.)
Angi Long
>>caring. So I was doing something I believed was polite and re-
>>spectful, and doing it because I *cared*, and some others were
>>thinking I felt the opposite, some going so far as to accuse me
>>of *lying* when I said I cared.
>Well, it's true: you *don't* care, not from the perspective of the
>person making the judgment. Feelings mean very little, in the end, only
>what we *do* counts. And if you aren't doing things to demonstrate
>caring in a way that makes the other person feel cared for, well, you
>don't really care, do you?
Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
not that of the person making the judgment. I'm the only one
who has any direct insight into my feelings.
If you had been treating someone in a perfectly, as far as you
knew, loving way, doing as much as you knew how to demonstrate
your caring, and certainly *feeling* a lot of caring, and sud-
denly sie accused you of *not caring* because you hadn't peeled
any apricots for hir lately, something sie'd never asked for
before and something you would never have suspected was even
expected of you, would you agree with hir that you *didn't care*?
>The only way to get somewhere when someone accuses you of not caring is
>to ask, "What *would* make you feel cared for?" Then you start the
Making someone feel cared for is one thing. Caring is quite
another. If someone doesn't feel cared for by my actions,
there could be any number of reasons, among them the possibi-
lity that I misunderstand or don't *know* what sie needs or
expects. The conclusion that I necessarily *don't care* just
because my actions don't meet hir expectations isn't valid.
>>And recently, my love's other has accused me of "lying" and hy-
>>pocrisy for being on the poly mailing list and here when I only
>>currently happen to have one lover of my own. This in spite of
>clear to me based on what I know of your relationship that your love's
>other sees some signals that your lover may be acting in a serially
>monogamous fashion. Rightly or wrongly, zie is taking some of it out on
Hmm... no, I don't think it's serial monogamy that she sees;
I think it's just plain polyamory. She has said things like,
"It was okay for you to have sex, but not to form a relation-
ship." (Which is not what she said in the beginning; if it
had been, I wouldn't have been interested in getting involved.)
She hasn't really talked as if she thought he was "replacing"
her with me, I think... in fact, she says that if he acted the
same way toward "anyone else," it would be okay, just not *me*.
>you, partly in the belief that if you were clearly and unequivocally
>poly, there would be less concern that zir primary would leave.
I don't really understand the connection (why would my number
of other relationship have any effect on how inclined he'd be
to leave her?), but I also don't think she really has concern
that he'll leave. It's more like she wishes I'd find somebody
else to make me "forget" him so I'd go away.
Anyway, she *says* she doesn't have any problem with the kind
of relationship we have or the situation per se. It's just
that after a couple years of being friendly to me, she's de-
cided she just doesn't want to share him with *me*. I don't
think she's being quite honest with herself, though. I know
we never had a whole lot in common, but we used to get along,
and I know I haven't done anything to earn the degree of dis-
like and hatred she aims at me now.
>>It seems to me that the levels of jealousy that cause real prob-
>>lems arise mostly at the extreme, when someone is considering a
>>situation dangerous by default and feelings arise from that as-
>>sumption.
>That's probably true. But people get angry regularly in ways that don't
>cause real problems; why should jealousy be any less real if it's not
>causing damage to a relationship?
I didn't say it was less real; I said it was less of a prob-
lem, and less to be focussed on when there are more basic un-
derlying problems, and therefore less worthy a topic of dis-
cussion.
(to radically change behavior I felt strongly about doing, I'd need)
>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
>happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship in which I
was expected to sacrifice my own wants at the whim of my
partner who has no better justification than "because
that's how it is." If my partner wants me to quit wearing
pants and start wearing dresses all the time, "because
that's how I was raised, that's just how it is," and *I*
would be totally uncomfortable with that, I'm supposed to
automatically say, "okay, you asked for it, you get it, no
matter what I want," and then be happy? I think not! If
sie wants me to do something I don't want to do, sie'd bet-
ter have some religious belief, some serious trauma in the
past, some fundamental principle, *something* to justify
why hir feelings should override mine, and then it had bet-
ter be something I can accept even if I don't agree with
it. "You must wear dresses because women should always be
accessible for sex" ain't going over, no matter how strong
that person's feelings on the matter are.
>>True. What I'm saying is that in those cases, jealousy clear-
>>ly *is* based on insecurity. There really is a threat or loss,
>Is it really so hard for you to understand that a sense of loss does not
>need to be based on insecurity? How many times do people have to tell
Huh?? Yes, it is. What definition of "insecurity" are you
using? I've already explained that what I mean is "a feeling
or belief of impending probable loss; the sense that some-
thing is not secure, not safe, threatened." Are you saying
that if the loss has already occurred, the term "insecurity"
doesn't rightly apply? I dunno... I think I'd feel even
*more* unsafe in the jaws of the crocodile than just before
I fell.
>>other wants. For example, I feel wronged when the request
>>is "stop spending so much time with hir" rather than "start
>>spending more time with me."
>That's a reasonable position, and normally I agree with you, but it does
>ignore one crucial factor: a person's behavior changes depending on who
>or what zie spends time on. And what the jealous person really wants
Indirectly, yes. But it's still less offensive to me for
the request to be that the directly relevant behavior change,
rather than that something the other thinks might be causing
the behavior change. "You don't pay as much attention to me
lately. Can you please try to be more focussed on me when
you get here?" is better than "Stop seeing X, because it
makes you neglect me." Leave it up to the person being
asked to make a change to decide how that change needs to be
implemented. If the problem really is the lack of attention,
and that can be changed with some simple concentration with-
out cutting off time sie wants to spend with another, then
that solution should be perfectly acceptable.
>Unfortunately, the jealous person who feels this way often isn't able to
>articulate the feeling, which leads to 'irrational' demands.
Yes, that makes sense. People don't always understand what
it is they really want.
Stef Jones
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>So I was doing something I believed was polite and re-
>>>spectful, and doing it because I *cared*, and some others were
>>>thinking I felt the opposite, some going so far as to accuse me
>>>of *lying* when I said I cared.
>>Well, it's true: you *don't* care, not from the perspective of the
>>person making the judgment. Feelings mean very little, in the end, only
>>what we *do* counts. And if you aren't doing things to demonstrate
>>caring in a way that makes the other person feel cared for, well, you
>>don't really care, do you?
>Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
>not that of the person making the judgment. I'm the only one
>who has any direct insight into my feelings.
But your feelings don't "count" in a sense unless the person they're
directed at knows about them.
>If you had been treating someone in a perfectly, as far as you
>knew, loving way, doing as much as you knew how to demonstrate
>your caring, and certainly *feeling* a lot of caring, and sud-
>denly sie accused you of *not caring* because you hadn't peeled
>any apricots for hir lately, something sie'd never asked for
>before and something you would never have suspected was even
>expected of you, would you agree with hir that you *didn't care*?
I would take the accusation as an expression of feelings and I would try to
negotiate a solution. I would apologize for seeming uncaring and offer to
peel apricots for zir (or make a mental note to do so in the future) and
ask if I could do anything else that would help zir feel more cared for.
>>The only way to get somewhere when someone accuses you of not caring is
>>to ask, "What *would* make you feel cared for?"
>Making someone feel cared for is one thing. Caring is quite
>another. If someone doesn't feel cared for by my actions,
>there could be any number of reasons, among them the possibi-
>lity that I misunderstand or don't *know* what sie needs or
>expects. The conclusion that I necessarily *don't care* just
>because my actions don't meet hir expectations isn't valid.
All that is true, but it's still true that the only way to *get* somewhere
with the person, presuming it matters to you that zie knows you care, is to
apologize and ask what would make zir feel cared for.
[...]
>Hmm... no, I don't think it's serial monogamy that she sees;
>I think it's just plain polyamory. She has said things like,
>"It was okay for you to have sex, but not to form a relation-
>ship." She hasn't really talked as if she thought he was "replacing"
>her with me, I think... in fact, she says that if he acted the
>same way toward "anyone else," it would be okay, just not *me*.
She said it wasn't OK for her partner to form a relationship and then she
said it was OK if it were someone else? Sounds like a contradiction. Which
does she really mean?
>I don't really understand the connection (why would my number
>of other relationship have any effect on how inclined he'd be
>to leave her?),
If you expect a great deal of support and time from your partner, to the
point where it interferes with your partner's other relationship(s),
someone might believe that if you had other relationships as well, you
would not be making so many demands on that partner's energy.
Also, if you've never had multiple partners, someone might believe that you
don't understand some of the issues involved with juggling multiple partners.
It still wouldn't necessarily be true that you aren't poly. It might be
true that you don't understand some of the dynamics involved in being poly.
>but I also don't think she really has concern
>that he'll leave. It's more like she wishes I'd find somebody
>else to make me "forget" him so I'd go away.
Or maybe she wishes that you'd find somebody else to rely on too, so that
you are not relying entirely on him for your social needs.
>Anyway, she *says* she doesn't have any problem with the kind
>of relationship we have or the situation per se.
But she has also said that he shouldn't form relationships, and that it
would be OK for him to form relationships with people other than you.
Which of these statements does she really believe?
If someone says something and then changes zir mind or decides it doesn't
accurately represent zir attitudes, it's not really fair of you to keep
repeating it as if it does. It could look like you're misrepresenting zir.
>It's just
>that after a couple years of being friendly to me, she's de-
>cided she just doesn't want to share him with *me*. I don't
>think she's being quite honest with herself, though. I know
>we never had a whole lot in common, but we used to get along,
>and I know I haven't done anything to earn the degree of dis-
>like and hatred she aims at me now.
How can you "know" that? You claimed above that no one has direct access to
a person's feelings except zirself. Therefore you don't know whether she
really dislikes and hates you. If you can care but be accused of hating,
then so can others, right?
> (to radically change behavior I felt strongly about doing, I'd need)
>>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>>That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
>>happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
>I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship in which I
>was expected to sacrifice my own wants at the whim of my
>partner who has no better justification than "because
>that's how it is."
You're focusing on the most extreme form of Aahz's point. To understand
better, focus on a milder form. You have planned to make hamburgers for
dinner. Your partner comes home and says "I would really prefer to go out
to a salad bar." It's not a demand, just a request. There is no
justification -- it's just zir preference. Would you refuse to consider
this request unless you had a suitable justification?
>If my partner wants me to quit wearing
>pants and start wearing dresses all the time, "because
>that's how I was raised, that's just how it is," and *I*
>would be totally uncomfortable with that, I'm supposed to
>automatically say, "okay, you asked for it, you get it, no
>matter what I want," and then be happy?
Milder form: your partner asks you to wear dresses occasionally. Just a
preference -- zie likes the way you look in them. You don't particularly
like dresses. Would you refuse ever to wear dresses unless you had a
suitable justification?
In most good relationships I know of, people frequently go out of their way
to accommodate each other's requests and preferences. They don't throw out
their most dearly held beliefs, but they are willing to make some changes
in their behavior for the sake of pleasing the other person.
This works because it goes both ways -- because there is mutual respect and
caring for the other person's feelings and wants. Not because one comes up
with a highfalutin justification every time. Sometimes it's nice to have
your preferences catered to "just because." I can use justifications and
morals to get things out of people who *don't* care about me. But I can
only get my little whims met every now and then by people who *do* care
about me. And I will meet my friends' and partners' little whims in return,
even if sometimes I don't entirely feel like it.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be
determined to make them otherwise. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ulrika O'Brien
>>>inappropriate?
>
>>determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
>>nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
>
>That's your philosophy. I don't believe that morality is com-
>pletely relative. I don't believe that just because a group of
>people say it's wrong to be polyamorous, it *is* wrong to be so.
You're missing what I'm saying in at least two ways. Intersubjectivity
and relativity are not the same thing at all, for the first, and for
the second, I don't think I ever claimed that inappropriateness was a
*moral* issue, per se. Not all normative standards have anything whatever
to do with morality, vide grammar, for instance.
--Ulrika
Angi Long
>the second, I don't think I ever claimed that inappropriateness was a
>*moral* issue, per se. Not all normative standards have anything whatever
I don't see what else it could be. To say that something is "in-
appropriate" is to say that it "shouldn't" be done (in the given
time/place/circumstances). A "should" is a moral issue. Do you
mean something completely different by "inappropriate?"
Angi Long
>Therefore the right to expect something is simply the right to think. The
I really think that phrase means more than that to most lis-
teners. If one of your friends asked you to babysit for a
weekend, you turned hir down, and sie got angry, saying, "I
had a right to expect you'd do this for me!", would you really
agree with hir?
>would change my general statement to "You have the right to think and feel
>whatever you wish about someone else's behavior, including the right to
>think and feel that zir behavior is inappropriate."
As long as the thoughts stay thoughts, I'll buy that. I don't
think it extends to the right to *accuse* someone of inappro-
priate behavior necessarily, though.
>>was meant by them. I don't buy the "social contract" philoso-
>>phy of morality -- the idea that all ethics are simply social
>>contracts, agreements that I won't kill you if you don't kill
>>me, that otherwise there's no reason to behave in any particu-
>>lar way, no 'right' or 'wrong.' Or the philosophy that all
>>morality is totally relative and culturally determined -- I
>>don't think 'right' and 'wrong' are *determined* by 'majority
>>rule' (ethical democracy?).
>"You don't buy" them. Does that mean you don't establish your morality that
>way, or you don't believe they exist, or you think that other people who
>work this way are automatically irrational, or what?
I don't think there's any truth to them, and I don't think it's
very reasonable to base a code of ethics on those axioms. And
I don't find it palatable to interact much with people like
that. People who will insist that the man who murders his wife
and children in a culture which accepts such actions is really
doing *right* give me the chills. And my ex-bf truly had no
real caring for anyone; he freely admitted that the *only*
reason he didn't rape my children was because there would be
negative consequences for him. He also thought that everyone
else worked the same way he did, so the only way to ensure his
own safety was to make sure everyone had reason to be afraid
of him and of the consequences of harming him. *shiver*
It's not right not to care. Or to let "society's rules" over-
ride the feelings and needs of real people.
>determined. I do think that *some* ethics are social contracts and
>culturally determined. I also think that there are culturally determined
But if there's no good reason for an ethic, and I disagree
with it, then I don't think I should be bound by it. I
shouldn't have to sacrifice my own wants -- to give up my bi-
sexuality, for example -- just because society, or some sub-
set of it, dictates some rule that doesn't have good justi-
fication.
>be called "ethics"; behavior doesn't have to be morally wrong to be
>inappropriate.
"Inappropriate" means "shouldn't," which means "morally wrong."
I can't squeeze a definition of "inappropriate" out of my ex-
perience or my dictionary that doesn't include the term "wrong"
or some equivalent.
>>*shouldn't* do so. Is there any reason a teacher *shouldn't*
>>brush hir teeth in class?
>Insofar as it would undermine the teacher's authority with the students,
>zie shouldn't do it.
Hm. Why would it undermine hir authority, and why should sie
avoid undermining that authority?
>However, saying something is inappropriate is not saying that it shouldn't
>be done. It's describing a belief/feeling that many people will have upon
>witnessing the behavior.
Huh? I can't get "belief" or "feeling" out of "inappropriate"
at all. To say that something is inappropriate is to *judge*
that it is wrong. It's a lot more than saying that you don't
prefer the behavior or that it "feels wrong" to you; it's
saying that the behavior *is* wrong.
The only difference I find between the two words "inappropriate"
and "wrong" is that "inappropriate" means "wrong for the given
situation" -- something inappropriate for one situation may be
right for another situation -- whereas "wrong" without qualifi-
cation probably means "wrong for *any* situation."
>>>People will make assumptions about you and will behave toward you based on
>>>those assumptions. And you might not want people to behave toward you the
>>That'a a reason I might choose not to do something unusual.
>>It's not a reason for anyone else to judge my behavior wrong
>>or inappropriate, as far as I can see, though.
>But people don't need a reason that you agree with in order to judge your
>behavior.
No, but they do need some sort of reason. It's not right to
judge someone without good reason.
>>I thought the normative code basically *was* the belief system.
>There are core sets of beliefs, and the codes derive from that.
>For example, your belief is that behavior that harms someone is wrong, and
>therefore you derive a code that it's not OK to drown guinea pigs in the
Right. But in the examples I was giving, there was no core set
of beliefs, no justification given at all except "because it is
that way" for a certain code. "You shouldn't wear purple near
me because that's just the way things are."
>>IMO the bulk of the responsibility for communicating an ex-
>>pectation lies with the person who has the expectation. If a
>>person hasn't first communicated hir expectation, then reached
>>an agreement about it, then sie has no right to expect the
>>other to live up to it, or to hold the other guilty of wrong
>>for failing to. (This goes for matters above the basics, of
>>course...
>Ah, precisely -- how do we decide which are "the basics"? For example, for
>many people, it is "basic" that their partner does not blatantly court
>another person; therefore they do not think that they are responsible for
>negotiating about that expectation; therefore, when it happens, they think
>it is obviously inappropriate and/or wrong, and they may get jealous.
Right; at *first*, they assume their expectations are more or
less the same as their partners' and others'. But once a con-
flict comes up, and they find out that their partners aren't
callously ignoring their feelings, they're instead simply act-
ing rightly according to a slightly different set of beliefs,
then they should stop thinking of the behavior as *wrong* or
inappropriate and start talking instead about which parts of
each person's expectations are really important and which can
be compromised.
>>I have to make some assumptions, and I assume they consider
>>themselves harmed by the same things I and most others I've had
>>experience with do, because that assumption seems to make the
>>most sense. I also assume that unless I have reason to believe
>>an action *does* cause harm, then I can assume it *doesn't*
>>cause harm, or at least that I can *act* as if it doesn't until
>>I have information to the contrary. That, also, seems the most
>Those are practical and sensible assumptions, but you need to add the
>assumption that your assumptions will be incorrect some of the time and
>know something to try when they are incorrect.
All assumptions are tentative. I just object to being judged
guilty of wrongdoing when I've acted based on a *reasonable*
assumption which just turned out to be wrong.
>(2) In a situation where someone gets jealous, some harm could be said to
>have occurred.
Because of the bad feelings caused by the jealousy itself?
But that's circular, to claim that jealousy is caused by the
fear of being harmed, when the harm is the jealousy itself.
"I feel jealousy because I'm afraid I'll feel jealous." Huh?
That would make me want to say, "Well, if you can talk your-
self *into* feeling jealous that easily, then talk yourself
back out of it!"
>>But whether or not the feeling has a rational
>>basis depends, in large part, on whether the expectation was
>>justified.
>Justified according to whom or what?
According to reason and sense. If I expect you to not mur-
der me, that's justified, IMO. If I expect you to show up
for dinner when I haven't even invited you, that's not jus-
tified, and any hurt feelings I get when you don't show up
are my own fault for forming such an unreasonable expecta-
tion.
Angi Long
>Angi Long (angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>Well, it's true: you *don't* care, not from the perspective of the
>>>person making the judgment. Feelings mean very little, in the end, only
>>Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
>>not that of the person making the judgment. I'm the only one
>But your feelings don't "count" in a sense unless the person they're
>directed at knows about them.
When the question is how *I* *feel*, I think my words should
count a lot more than some conclusion the other person drew from
some subtlety of my behavior, especially when I explain that I
*was* acting in the way I *thought*, and from my own experience
had every reason to believe, *would* make the person feel cared
for.
>>If you had been treating someone in a perfectly, as far as you
>>knew, loving way, doing as much as you knew how to demonstrate
>>your caring, and certainly *feeling* a lot of caring, and sud-
>>denly sie accused you of *not caring* because you hadn't peeled
>>any apricots for hir lately, something sie'd never asked for
>>before and something you would never have suspected was even
>>expected of you, would you agree with hir that you *didn't care*?
>I would take the accusation as an expression of feelings and I would try to
>negotiate a solution. I would apologize for seeming uncaring and offer to
>peel apricots for zir (or make a mental note to do so in the future) and
>ask if I could do anything else that would help zir feel more cared for.
And why should sie believe you mean any of that, when sie's al-
ready convinced hirself that you *don't care*?
>>another. If someone doesn't feel cared for by my actions,
>>there could be any number of reasons, among them the possibi-
>>lity that I misunderstand or don't *know* what sie needs or
>>expects. The conclusion that I necessarily *don't care* just
>>because my actions don't meet hir expectations isn't valid.
>All that is true, but it's still true that the only way to *get* somewhere
>with the person, presuming it matters to you that zie knows you care, is to
>apologize and ask what would make zir feel cared for.
I've tried that in the past, and in the worst situation, those
efforts did nothing but waste my time and frustrate me more. I
explained that I did care and would have been happy to give
what he'd needed if I'd known what he needed, and he called me
a liar for contradicting him about my own feelings. I asked
what it was that he had expected of me, so I could try to live
up to it in the future, and he refused to tell me, claiming
that I should "know." And the first time it happened, I was
willing to let the accusation about my feelings go as a bad
choice of language, but I explained how that kind of accusa-
tion hurt me, and asked him to please address my *actions* if
he had a problem with them next time, rather than make accusa-
tions about my *feelings*, since I *did* care and anything I
did that came across as uncaring would not be intentional.
But the accusations continued, and he continued to be unwill-
ing to explain what I'd *done* to lead him to the conclusion
that I hated him, or to discuss what he needed me to do to
show him otherwise, or to acknowledge that his accusations
were hurting me, or to change that behavior. Finally I told
him I wasn't willing to be friends any more until he was
willing to discuss, in a constructive manner, how to change
that pattern. He's never been willing to.
>>"It was okay for you to have sex, but not to form a relation-
>>ship." She hasn't really talked as if she thought he was "replacing"
>>her with me, I think... in fact, she says that if he acted the
>>same way toward "anyone else," it would be okay, just not *me*.
>She said it wasn't OK for her partner to form a relationship and then she
^with me
>said it was OK if it were someone else? Sounds like a contradiction. Which
>does she really mean?
The big contradiction is between what she says now and what she
said in the beginning. Then, she said she had no problem with
our relationship. From the time she was saying that explicitly
to me to the time she started trying to push me away, nothing
substantial about our relationship changed. We kept the same
schedule, had the same feelings, did all the same things. Now
she denies ever saying that things were fine, and says things
like the above, that all that was ever okay with her was the
sex.
>>I don't really understand the connection (why would my number
>>of other relationship have any effect on how inclined he'd be
>>to leave her?),
>If you expect a great deal of support and time from your partner, to the
>point where it interferes with your partner's other relationship(s),
>someone might believe that if you had other relationships as well, you
>would not be making so many demands on that partner's energy.
Maybe, but then I'd see it as legitimate for her to bring up a
concern about the amount of time and energy he has "left" for
her, and about the number of demands I make on him, but not to
find fault with me for failing to have other partners.
>Also, if you've never had multiple partners, someone might believe that you
>don't understand some of the issues involved with juggling multiple partners.
But she knows I've had multiple partners in the past. And I
think I get about as good a view of the issues involved from
the end of the "V" as I would from the middle. And I don't
think she understands having multiple loves, herself; in
spite of what she said in the beginning, she seems to have a
problem now with the fact that it's anything more than sex,
and her own secondaries are more what I'd call tertiaries,
friends she has sex with. She seems to use the term "poly"
to refer to the state of having multiple sex partners, now.
Besides which, I juggle relationships with my three kids, my
lover, my job and school, and the few friends I occasionally
find time for. I don't have to have sex with people to be
doing a juggling act.
>It still wouldn't necessarily be true that you aren't poly. It might be
>true that you don't understand some of the dynamics involved in being poly.
Might it also be true that I don't understand some of the dy-
namics involved in being bisexual? You're apparently using
"being poly" in a different way from me. When I say I'm poly,
I mean that I retain the *freedom* to have multiple relation-
ships, that I don't place or accept monogamy restrictions on a
relationship. "Being poly" doesn't mean I *have* multiple
partners, any more than "being bisexual" does.
>>that he'll leave. It's more like she wishes I'd find somebody
>>else to make me "forget" him so I'd go away.
>Or maybe she wishes that you'd find somebody else to rely on too, so that
>you are not relying entirely on him for your social needs.
I rely on myself. I don't like the implication from her that
I should go looking to find somebody else to *use*.
>>Anyway, she *says* she doesn't have any problem with the kind
>>of relationship we have or the situation per se.
>But she has also said that he shouldn't form relationships, and that it
>would be OK for him to form relationships with people other than you.
>Which of these statements does she really believe?
I don't know what she believes; I can only suspect what the
truth behind her words is. What she's said is not that he
shouldn't form any relationships, but that he shouldn't have
formed one with *me*. I suspect that the truth is that it's
the relationship itself that's bothering her, and that she'd
feel the same way about anyone else who was in my role at
this point.
>If someone says something and then changes zir mind or decides it doesn't
>accurately represent zir attitudes, it's not really fair of you to keep
>repeating it as if it does. It could look like you're misrepresenting zir.
I'm talking about things she's saying now, repeating every
day (according to him). Yes, some of them are contradic-
tory and many of them don't make much sense. She brings up
that I don't have any other ongoing lovers, for example,
not to make any claim about how that's affecting her or him,
but to justify that I'm a *liar* and therefore untrustworthy
and a terrible person.
>>that after a couple years of being friendly to me, she's de-
>>cided she just doesn't want to share him with *me*. I don't
>>think she's being quite honest with herself, though. I know
>>we never had a whole lot in common, but we used to get along,
>>and I know I haven't done anything to earn the degree of dis-
>>like and hatred she aims at me now.
>How can you "know" that? You claimed above that no one has direct access to
How can I know I haven't done anything to earn this kind of
hatred? Because she hasn't really justified it except with
vague references to things, like that I failed to "make her
comfortable" (when she was telling me that she *was* comfor-
table) and that "nobody" likes me (with no examples, when I
don't know anyone else I suspect of really disliking me). And
I can't think of a thing I ever did that would justify the way
she's feeling. When I told her that I would have been more
than willing to work something out to ease her feelings if she
had just come to me with them when she started having a prob-
lem, and that what I've always wanted, and still want, is for
*everybody* to be happy, and for us all to negotiate for that,
she just told me that I was lying.
So I really think her claim that *I'm* the problem because
I'm such a terrible person she just can't stand sharing a
lover with me is a cover. I think she's convinced herself of
that, but I don't think it's true. I think that if he broke
up with me and started another relationship with someone she
claimed to adore, she'd wind up changing her mind just like
she did with me and saying the same things about the other
person once it had gone on long enough.
>a person's feelings except zirself. Therefore you don't know whether she
>really dislikes and hates you. If you can care but be accused of hating,
>then so can others, right?
The dislike and hatred are from her own mouth, not my in-
ferences. As for not caring, she's told me directly that
she doesn't give a shit about my feelings or needs (or those
of my children) and that it would be pointless to talk about
negotiating something that we could all be happy with, since
she's not willing to do anything in the interest of my hap-
piness, period, and since the only thing that will make her
happy is if I'm gone. (And that was about the last thing
she told me, a few weeks ago, in email, before she stopped
talking to me altogether.)
>> (to radically change behavior I felt strongly about doing, I'd need)
>>>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>>>That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
>>>happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
>>I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship in which I
>>was expected to sacrifice my own wants at the whim of my
>>partner who has no better justification than "because
>>that's how it is."
>You're focusing on the most extreme form of Aahz's point. To understand
No, Aahz was responding to my point, which was about what
kind of justification I need to radically change behavior I
feel strongly about, not about what I'm willing to do when
asked to change behavior I *don't* feel strongly about.
>>If my partner wants me to quit wearing
>>pants and start wearing dresses all the time, "because
>>that's how I was raised, that's just how it is," and *I*
>>would be totally uncomfortable with that, I'm supposed to
>>automatically say, "okay, you asked for it, you get it, no
>>matter what I want," and then be happy?
>Milder form: your partner asks you to wear dresses occasionally. Just a
>preference -- zie likes the way you look in them. You don't particularly
>like dresses. Would you refuse ever to wear dresses unless you had a
>suitable justification?
That would depend on my own reasons for disliking dresses
and the strength of my own feelings. The amount of justi-
fication just has to be enough to override my own feelings.
If my feelings aren't strong about the matter in the first
place, then of course I don't need much justification.
(And I think I've said the same thing a dozen times now. I
keep saying that I'm only talking about requests to change
behavior that I have strong feelings against changing, situ-
ations in which there is a real conflict of wants. You keep
responding as if I was talking about requests to do things I
*don't mind* doing.)
Stef Jones
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Angi Long (angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>>Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
>>>not that of the person making the judgment.
>>But your feelings don't "count" in a sense unless the person they're
>>directed at knows about them.
>When the question is how *I* *feel*, I think my words should
>count a lot more than some conclusion the other person drew from
>some subtlety of my behavior, especially when I explain that I
>*was* acting in the way I *thought*, and from my own experience
>had every reason to believe, *would* make the person feel cared
>for.
Depends on what the intent is. Is the intent to convince an impartial judge
what is happening, or to make yourself feel better after you've been
attacked, or to try to mend fences with someone who's pissed off at you
(reasonably or not)?
If the latter, then explaining that you thought the person would feel cared
for may sound like an accusation that there is something wrong with zir for
not seeing your intent. That may make zir more angry. When someone is
actively angry, an apology often is better than an explanation.
>>I would take the accusation as an expression of feelings and I would try to
>>negotiate a solution. I would apologize for seeming uncaring and offer to
>>peel apricots for zir (or make a mental note to do so in the future) and
>>ask if I could do anything else that would help zir feel more cared for.
>And why should sie believe you mean any of that, when sie's al-
>ready convinced hirself that you *don't care*?
Usually, if someone goes to the trouble of accusing me of not caring
because I didn't do X, zie hasn't really permanently "convinced" zirself of
my callousness (or else zie would be out of my life, not bitching at me).
Zie might have convinced zirself temporarily, out of anger. Apologizing and
asking if there is anything I can do will often defuse anger and get us to
where we can talk.
It sounds as if what you did is much different from apologizing. It sounds
like you're the sort of person who employs an "ultra-rational" defense in
the face of someone else's hurt and anger. I do too. I have had to learn to
deliberately stifle the initial ultra-rational response such as "if you had
only *told* me." I have had to work at first addressing the feelings and
apologizing -- "you seem angry/disappointed in me. You seem to feel that I
don't care for you because of X. I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you."
And then wait until the hurt/anger fades. Which may take hours or days in
some cases. And *then* talk about how better to communicate in the future
so as to avoid such problems.
Note that this doesn't work with everybody, every time. But if anything is
going to work, this will usually work better than ultra-rational.
[...]
>>If you expect a great deal of support and time from your partner, to the
>>point where it interferes with your partner's other relationship(s),
>>someone might believe that if you had other relationships as well, you
>>would not be making so many demands on that partner's energy.
>Maybe, but then I'd see it as legitimate for her to bring up a
>concern about the amount of time and energy he has "left" for
>her, and about the number of demands I make on him, but not to
>find fault with me for failing to have other partners.
That makes sense if y'all are at the point of actually negotiating and not
just at the point of expressing your feelings. I think it's perfectly
legitimate for her to *feel* that part of the problem is with your not
having other partners, and to express that feeling. However, I think trying
to make you have other partners would not be a good solution.
Has she also brought up a concern about how much time her partner is
spending on you, and how many demands you are making on him? Or is she
finding fault only with you, and not with him at all?
[...]
>And I think I get about as good a view of the issues involved from
>the end of the "V" as I would from the middle.
You must have a lot better vision than I do, then. I know that I don't get
the same view from the end of a V as I do from the middle. I had to be in
the middle of a conflicted V before I understood what my partner was going
through being in the middle of another conflicted V.
>And I don't
>think she understands having multiple loves, herself;
If so, what is being done to help her understand and feel more comfortable
with a "multiple love" relationship?
>>It still wouldn't necessarily be true that you aren't poly. It might be
>>true that you don't understand some of the dynamics involved in being poly.
>Might it also be true that I don't understand some of the dy-
>namics involved in being bisexual? You're apparently using
>"being poly" in a different way from me. When I say I'm poly,
>I mean that I retain the *freedom* to have multiple relation-
>ships, that I don't place or accept monogamy restrictions on a
>relationship. "Being poly" doesn't mean I *have* multiple
>partners, any more than "being bisexual" does.
I should have said "you may not understand some of the dynamics involved in
living certain poly situations." I'm poly in your sense, but that doesn't
mean I know what it's like to live with several lovers, for example,
because I have never done that.
[...]
>I'm talking about things she's saying now, repeating every
>day (according to him). Yes, some of them are contradic-
>tory and many of them don't make much sense. She brings up
>that I don't have any other ongoing lovers, for example,
>not to make any claim about how that's affecting her or him,
>but to justify that I'm a *liar* and therefore untrustworthy
>and a terrible person.
I must admit that it sounds pretty awful to me that he is repeating to you
nasty things that she says to him about you. It can only serve to keep the
two of you apart.
>>>that after a couple years of being friendly to me, she's de-
>>>cided she just doesn't want to share him with *me*. I don't
>>>think she's being quite honest with herself, though. I know
>>>we never had a whole lot in common, but we used to get along,
>>>and I know I haven't done anything to earn the degree of dis-
>>>like and hatred she aims at me now.
>>How can you "know" that? You claimed above that no one has direct access to
>How can I know I haven't done anything to earn this kind of
>hatred? Because she hasn't really justified it except with
>vague references [...]
Some people are not so good at articulating exactly what they're feeling
and why. To me, that's not an excuse for deciding the feeling is
unjustified.
>I can't think of a thing I ever did that would justify the way
>she's feeling.
Sometimes my partner gets angry over something that I consider really
minor. I can't think of any justification for that anger either. But it
exists, and I can't make it go away by saying that it's unjustified. If I
try, that usually makes it a lot worse.
Once the anger has subsided, I can usually express my feelings and say "It
bothered me that you got so angry because to me it was a little thing."
Timing is everything, sometimes.
>When I told her that I would have been more
>than willing to work something out to ease her feelings if she
>had just come to me with them when she started having a prob-
>lem, and that what I've always wanted, and still want, is for
>*everybody* to be happy, and for us all to negotiate for that,
>she just told me that I was lying.
It sounds like there's a pretty serious disconnect between you.
You both believe the other is lying.
I think that telling you you are lying is out of line, but I can frankly
understand why she would be uncomfortable coming to you with her feelings,
if your response to hearing someone's feelings or wants is to tell them, or
to secretly believe, that the feelings are irrational or not described
properly; that you're not really the person who's not meeting their needs;
and/or that you know the real reasons for their feelings better than they do.
The way I see it, you have the choice of believing you are right or trying
to get what you want. I don't see a way for you to get what you want based
on your current beliefs/actions (if they're represented properly in this
thread).
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\
------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. -- Sartre
Ulrika O'Brien
You're still confusing "normative" with "moral". "Should" is,
without a doubt, a normative term, in many instances, but it isn't
necessarily always a moral term in all those instances. Morality claims
are a proper subset of the set of all normative claims. It is a perfectly
correct usage of the word "should" to say, "You should use a plural form
of that verb when your subject is plural." This is a grammatical
normative claim. It is equally a correct usage of "should" to
say, "You should not talk with your mouth full," or "You should only
wear white shoes between Memorial Day and Labor Day," or "You should
look both ways before crossing the street," or even "You should carry the
one into the tens place before adding the second column of figures."
Yet, I hope you'll agree, not one of these is a moral claim.
The word "should" is correctly used wherever there is a standard of
rightness or correctness in place for how something be done, and that
standard is enforced by some social mechanism or other. Thus, morality is
one realm where we use the word "should", but other such normative realms
include grammar, social manners and politeness, and arithmetic.
The case of crossing the street is unusual in this group because it
is, arguably, not a normative "should" at all, but a prudential one.
At any rate, if you insist that "inappropriate" is a term in all
cases pertinent only to morality, and not to other normative arenas,
then, yes, I use it differently. There are all sorts of subtle
gradations of normativity involved in human interactions and culture,
and wherever there is a norm, it is possible to violate that norm,
and thus behave inappropriately to the context, or the norm. Taking
inappropriateness to be a purely moral concept misses a great many
levels of subtlety and complexity, in my opinion. "Inappropriate,"
to me, is a term meant to indicate that something is in violation
of *some* normative behavioral standard, but not necessarily a moral
standard in particular.
--Ulrika
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>the second, I don't think I ever claimed that inappropriateness was a
>>*moral* issue, per se. Not all normative standards have anything whatever
>
>I don't see what else it could be. To say that something is "in-
>appropriate" is to say that it "shouldn't" be done (in the given
>time/place/circumstances). A "should" is a moral issue. Do you
>mean something completely different by "inappropriate?"
I see, so, "You shouldn't play in the traffic," is a moral issue? Fancy
that.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Maenad <mae...@aa.net> wrote:
>>
>>that means), I assume that both my partner(s) and I will have certain
>>unreasonable requests which I will nevertheless honor -- assuming that
>>what I am being asked to do doesn't directly conflict with my values
>>or basic needs.
>
>I'd say that "unreasonable" is the word that applies to requests
>which do conflict with your values or basic needs. "Irrational"
>is the word I'd use for requests which don't necessarily have a
>'logical' basis. Irrational does not mean wrong. It's only
>when there's a real conflict of wants that I think a partner's
>request needs to be somewhat rational and justified before I'll
>be motivated to give up what *I* want to satisfy it.
<scratch><scratch> Sounds to me as though you place such a high
priority on not being controlled by another person's needs/wants that
you call 'unreasonable' any need/want that conflicts with yours,
particularly if they aren't 'rational' by *your* definition.
I do think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I also think
it's a lot more complicated than that and (here's the main point) that
it's a counterproductive undertaking. If I want to go to parties with
my partner and cuddle with other people while we're there, and my
partner wants me to stay with zir, there's little point debating over
which request is unreasonable -- in fact, by your definition, we're
*both* being unreasonable. Ptui.
John Clark
+Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
+>Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
+>>the second, I don't think I ever claimed that inappropriateness was a
+>>*moral* issue, per se. Not all normative standards have anything whatever
+>
+>I don't see what else it could be. To say that something is "in-
+>appropriate" is to say that it "shouldn't" be done (in the given
+>time/place/circumstances). A "should" is a moral issue. Do you
+>mean something completely different by "inappropriate?"
+
+I see, so, "You shouldn't play in the traffic," is a moral issue? Fancy
+that.
Yes, Lev. 140:13, Play not amongst the ox-carts that art in the highways
of the land, as the egyptians do, for ye are a separate people, and I the lord
thy god have command you to remain as pedestrians upon the side-walks.
Angi Long
>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) writes:
>>When the question is how *I* *feel*, I think my words should
>>count a lot more than some conclusion the other person drew from
>>some subtlety of my behavior, especially when I explain that I
>Depends on what the intent is. Is the intent to convince an impartial judge
>what is happening, or to make yourself feel better after you've been
>attacked, or to try to mend fences with someone who's pissed off at you
>(reasonably or not)?
The latter two. When I've been attacked, fences can't be mended
until *my* hurt is healed, too. And when somebody is claiming
that the reason sie's angry is because sie believes I don't *care*,
I think if sie understands that my intention was fully caring, it
should clear up the misunderstanding.
>If the latter, then explaining that you thought the person would feel cared
>for may sound like an accusation that there is something wrong with zir for
>not seeing your intent. That may make zir more angry. When someone is
I do feel wronged when someone doesn't trust my intent. I want
to be given the benefit of the doubt, not accused of having bad
intentions when it's very possible that I just didn't know what
the expectation was.
>actively angry, an apology often is better than an explanation.
You're probably right. I've always thought of an explanation as
part of an apology. When I get an apology, I want an explanation
of the behavior, and assurance that the person's intent was good.
I guess other people have different expectations about apologies.
>>>negotiate a solution. I would apologize for seeming uncaring and offer to
>>>peel apricots for zir (or make a mental note to do so in the future) and
>>>ask if I could do anything else that would help zir feel more cared for.
>>And why should sie believe you mean any of that, when sie's al-
>>ready convinced hirself that you *don't care*?
>Usually, if someone goes to the trouble of accusing me of not caring
>because I didn't do X, zie hasn't really permanently "convinced" zirself of
>my callousness (or else zie would be out of my life, not bitching at me).
In the experiences I've had, the person has usually seemed totally
unwilling to believe I do care, and unwilling to tell me what I did
wrong or what I should have done right or what I can do to fix it.
And right now, my love's other seems pretty permanently convinced;
she says I don't deserve another chance, and now that if I went to
the counselor with them, she'd use it as a chance to "tear me apart."
>>explained that I did care and would have been happy to give
>>what he'd needed if I'd known what he needed, and he called me
>>a liar for contradicting him about my own feelings. I asked
>>what it was that he had expected of me, so I could try to live
>>up to it in the future, and he refused to tell me, claiming
>>that I should "know." (. . .) I explained how that kind of accusa-
>>tion hurt me, and asked him to please address my *actions* if
>>he had a problem with them next time, rather than make accusa-
>It sounds as if what you did is much different from apologizing. It sounds
>like you're the sort of person who employs an "ultra-rational" defense in
>the face of someone else's hurt and anger. I do too. I have had to learn to
When sie accuses me of bad intentions rather than talking about
hir own hurt and anger, I guess I do. When sie's said that the
problem is with my intent, I'm hurt that sie assumes my intent
was bad rather than that there's been a misunderstanding. This
person never did tell me what I'd *done* to offend him; he kept
saying that my feelings and intentions were "obvious" to him and
that it was my "hate" for him he had a problem with, not my ac-
tions. I kept saying "I'm sorry my feelings apparently didn't
come across right, but I don't hate you." He kept saying that
that wasn't an apology, since I hadn't apologized *for hating
him*. The first time he came out of the blue with that accusa-
tion, I think I said something like, "huh? I don't hate you.
Did I do something to make you think that? If so, I'm sure it
was a misunderstanding, and I'm sorry." But he came back with,
"Stop lying to me. You know damn well you hate me."
>deliberately stifle the initial ultra-rational response such as "if you had
>only *told* me." I have had to work at first addressing the feelings and
>apologizing -- "you seem angry/disappointed in me. You seem to feel that I
>don't care for you because of X. I'm really sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you."
That's hard, when I'm also hurt at being accused of something I
didn't do, especially when *all* I know is that sie thinks I have
bad intentions. And it doesn't sound like a complete apology to
me. When someone apologizes to me, I want to hear that sie un-
derstands what sie did that hurt me, that sie didn't intend to
hurt me, and that sie'll try not to do it again, or work with me
on ways to prevent it from happening again. If I don't even un-
derstand what it was I did that came across wrong, then how can
I apologize for it, or work to prevent it from happening again?
>And then wait until the hurt/anger fades. Which may take hours or days in
>some cases. And *then* talk about how better to communicate in the future
>so as to avoid such problems.
When I'm having bad feelings toward someone, I don't want hir to
walk out and leave me alone to let the feelings fester. If sie
does that, it says to me that I'm not enough of a priority for
hir to stay and take care of things when they need to be takend
care of, and that only makes me more hurt. By the time sie gets
around to coming back, the time that's passed with me hurting
and waiting for hir to be ready to work on things will only have
made the problem exponentially worse, and if enough time has
passed, unsolvable. If it can't be taken care of right now, I
need to hear that sie knows it's important and when sie intends
to come back, and then I can wait without feeling too hurt.
So when someone is mad at me, I'm always afraid that if I leave
hir alone, sie'll stay mad forever, and I'll lose the relation-
ship permanently. I'm afraid that "going to bed angry" (or go-
ing away angry) will only cause the anger to grow. I want to
talk things out *right now* to the point where the feelings are
headed in the positive direction again. I don't know whether
other people's anger would dissipate if they were left alone...
I've never understood how it *could*, without anything happening
to change the reason someone's angry in the first place.
>>>someone might believe that if you had other relationships as well, you
>>>would not be making so many demands on that partner's energy.
>>Maybe, but then I'd see it as legitimate for her to bring up a
>>concern about the amount of time and energy he has "left" for
>>her, and about the number of demands I make on him, but not to
>>find fault with me for failing to have other partners.
>That makes sense if y'all are at the point of actually negotiating and not
>just at the point of expressing your feelings. I think it's perfectly
I don't think fault-finding is appropriate when feelings are
being expressed. Either I'm at fault or not; that's a judg-
ment, not a feeling.
>legitimate for her to *feel* that part of the problem is with your not
>having other partners, and to express that feeling. However, I think trying
It's legitimate for her to say she'd be more comfortable if I
had other partners -- that's an expression of her feelings --
but not to say that I'm wrong or a hypocrite for not trying to
find other partners.
>Has she also brought up a concern about how much time her partner is
>spending on you, and how many demands you are making on him? Or is she
>finding fault only with you, and not with him at all?
To my knowledge, she only brings that up to justify that I'm a
terrible, untrustworthy, unlikable person. When she objects to
his spending time with me or doing something for me, she says
that she'd have no problem with his spending that time away
from her if he was spending it with anyone else but me.
>>And I think I get about as good a view of the issues involved from
>>the end of the "V" as I would from the middle.
>You must have a lot better vision than I do, then. I know that I don't get
>the same view from the end of a V as I do from the middle. I had to be in
I'm sure I don't get the same view, but I see the issues, and
I've been in the middle before. I don't think she's ever been
in the middle, so if anything I might have a better understand-
ing than hers.
>>And I don't think she understands having multiple loves, herself;
>If so, what is being done to help her understand and feel more comfortable
>with a "multiple love" relationship?
I don't know. I don't know what can be done. She claims she'd
be comfortable if it was with anyone but me. It's only because
I'm such an unlikable bitch that she's not happy.
>>relationship. "Being poly" doesn't mean I *have* multiple
>>partners, any more than "being bisexual" does.
>I should have said "you may not understand some of the dynamics involved in
>living certain poly situations." I'm poly in your sense, but that doesn't
I don't think anyone understands those dynamics, since they're
so different for each situation.
>>I'm talking about things she's saying now, repeating every
>>day (according to him). Yes, some of them are contradic-
>I must admit that it sounds pretty awful to me that he is repeating to you
>nasty things that she says to him about you. It can only serve to keep the
It does? If he wasn't telling me, then I'd have no way of
knowing what she was feeling at all. I'd rather have there
be communication between me and her, but since she refuses,
getting some communication through him is better than not
knowing. Maybe he knew about problems she was having in the
past that I could have *done* something about if he'd told
me about them. If he wasn't telling me about her feelings
now, I'd think things had settled down, and I'd be acting
like everything was fine, which seems to have been what got
her so angry in the first place -- my acting like everything
was fine when to her it wasn't.
>>>>and I know I haven't done anything to earn the degree of dis-
>>>>like and hatred she aims at me now.
>>>How can you "know" that? You claimed above that no one has direct access to
>>How can I know I haven't done anything to earn this kind of
>>hatred? Because she hasn't really justified it except with
>>vague references [...]
>Some people are not so good at articulating exactly what they're feeling
>and why. To me, that's not an excuse for deciding the feeling is
>unjustified.
Her belief that I never cared about her is unjustified. Her
judgment that I'm a selfish, spiteful, uncaring person is un-
justified. I *know* I'm not those things. Whether there are
really specific things I did which hurt her, I don't know, but
to *deserve* hatred I would have had to have had bad intentions,
and I know my intentions were never bad.
The level of resentment she's developed would only be justified
to me if it came after multiple attempts to work things out, af-
ter I'd been given a few chances to try to right whatever the
problems were. But there have been *no* such attempts. She
never even talked to me about her feelings or problems before
deciding I didn't deserve a chance to right anything. She'd
already decided she just hated me, period, end of story, by the
time I heard *anything* about there being a problem at all. I
don't think that's justified. I know I don't deserve it.
>>I can't think of a thing I ever did that would justify the way
>>she's feeling.
>Sometimes my partner gets angry over something that I consider really
>minor. I can't think of any justification for that anger either. But it
>exists, and I can't make it go away by saying that it's unjustified. If I
>try, that usually makes it a lot worse.
>Once the anger has subsided, I can usually express my feelings and say "It
>bothered me that you got so angry because to me it was a little thing."
This isn't a bout of anger that's going to subside. She sees
me as the epitome of evil. Anger and hurt I could understand,
and if she was willing to let me try to make things better at
all, I wouldn't fault her for it. That's not what this is.
For a couple *months* now, I've been hearing, from him and
earlier from her, her talk about me as if I was the antichrist.
>>When I told her that I would have been more
>>than willing to work something out to ease her feelings if she
>>had just come to me with them when she started having a prob-
>>lem, and that what I've always wanted, and still want, is for
>>*everybody* to be happy, and for us all to negotiate for that,
>>she just told me that I was lying.
>It sounds like there's a pretty serious disconnect between you.
>You both believe the other is lying.
I don't think she's lying. I just think she might not com-
pletely understand where her own feelings are coming from.
The irrational level of hatred she aims at me, when I know I
haven't sacrificed any children to Baal lately, says to me
that those feelings are probably coming a lot more from plain
jealousy than she'll let herself see. The way she alters the
past and reaches so far to justify her feelings says to me
that some part of her is trying awfully hard to keep her con-
vinced that the problem is that I'm Satan, rather than that
any of it could possibly be her own irrational feelings.
>I think that telling you you are lying is out of line, but I can frankly
>understand why she would be uncomfortable coming to you with her feelings,
>if your response to hearing someone's feelings or wants is to tell them, or
>to secretly believe, that the feelings are irrational or not described
>properly; that you're not really the person who's not meeting their needs;
>and/or that you know the real reasons for their feelings better than they do.
People don't always perfectly understand their own feelings,
and sometimes I'm justified in believing that that's what's
going on. If I accept that her feelings are really justified
the way she says they are, then I have to accept that I'm com-
pletely to blame for the way she feels, and the scum of the
earth. I've been this route before, doing *everything* in my
power to try to please someone who kept finding fault with me,
until I was pretty convinced that I was just incurable scum
and everything I did was wrong. Later that person finally
told me that she'd just been having problems of her own and
that the truth was that nothing I could have done would have
pleased her. I can't let myself fall into that trap again.
I need to believe what I know is true, that I *have* tried my
best and do have good intentions, and that I'm *not* to blame
for feelings of hers that I have no control over.
>The way I see it, you have the choice of believing you are right or trying
>to get what you want. I don't see a way for you to get what you want based
>on your current beliefs/actions (if they're represented properly in this
What I want is for her to stop believing I'm such an evil,
horrible person. She and he both say there's not a chance
in hell that that's going to happen, no matter *what* I do.
So I have two choices: to keep believing I'm an okay person,
or to accept her view of me as the antichrist. Accepting her
view isn't going to change her attitude or do me any good.
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>You're probably right. I've always thought of an explanation as
>part of an apology. When I get an apology, I want an explanation
>of the behavior,
I feel exactly the same way about this. I also tend to provide them
myself -- when I apologize to someone else, I also provide an
explanation for my behavior (a la "I'm late because I was stopped in the
hall by a colleague, but I should have insisted on leaving, and I'm
sorry about that.").
I have, however, run into problems with people who don't feel that way
about apologies and think I'm "just making excuses". My advisor is,
unfortunately, one of these people. <sigh>
---
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain |
jenn...@umich.edu | Quidquid latine dictum
http://www.intranet.org/~jenniedo/ | sit altum viditur.
U of Michigan Germanic Linguistics |
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>caring. So I was doing something I believed was polite and re-
>>>spectful, and doing it because I *cared*, and some others were
>>>thinking I felt the opposite, some going so far as to accuse me
>>>of *lying* when I said I cared.
>>
>>Well, it's true: you *don't* care, not from the perspective of the
>>person making the judgment. Feelings mean very little, in the end, only
>>what we *do* counts. And if you aren't doing things to demonstrate
>>caring in a way that makes the other person feel cared for, well, you
>>don't really care, do you?
>
>Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
>not that of the person making the judgment. I'm the only one
>who has any direct insight into my feelings.
Yes and no. We have no direct insight into your feelings, but we do
have the ability to judge whether your actions agree with your stated
feelings. If your actions don't agree, many people will judge you to be
incorrectly stating your feelings -- perhaps even lying.
Just as you seem to have great difficulty understanding that jealousy
doesn't necessarily derive from insecurity, there are people who have
equal difficulty understanding that you really do care when none of your
actions indicate that you do.
>>The only way to get somewhere when someone accuses you of not caring is
>>to ask, "What *would* make you feel cared for?" Then you start the
>
>Making someone feel cared for is one thing. Caring is quite
>another. If someone doesn't feel cared for by my actions,
>there could be any number of reasons, among them the possibi-
>lity that I misunderstand or don't *know* what sie needs or
>expects. The conclusion that I necessarily *don't care* just
>because my actions don't meet hir expectations isn't valid.
But your conclusion that jealousy is caused by insecurity is valid?
Fascinating.
>>clear to me based on what I know of your relationship that your love's
>>other sees some signals that your lover may be acting in a serially
>>monogamous fashion. Rightly or wrongly, zie is taking some of it out on
>
>Hmm... no, I don't think it's serial monogamy that she sees;
>I think it's just plain polyamory. She has said things like,
>"It was okay for you to have sex, but not to form a relation-
>ship." (Which is not what she said in the beginning; if it
>had been, I wouldn't have been interested in getting involved.)
>She hasn't really talked as if she thought he was "replacing"
>her with me, I think... in fact, she says that if he acted the
>same way toward "anyone else," it would be okay, just not *me*.
From an outsider's perspective, there has been extremely poor
communication all around. I'm trusting my instincts based on what I
know of the actions of the three of you combined with several year's
experience observing poly relationships, rather than what the three of
you are *saying* is going on for you.
As I said before, I could be wrong, but the only way I see for any of
you to make any progress is to try wrapping your minds around some
different perspectives.
>>you, partly in the belief that if you were clearly and unequivocally
>>poly, there would be less concern that zir primary would leave.
>
>I don't really understand the connection (why would my number
>of other relationship have any effect on how inclined he'd be
>to leave her?), but I also don't think she really has concern
>that he'll leave. It's more like she wishes I'd find somebody
>else to make me "forget" him so I'd go away.
It has sounded to me as though you rely significantly on your lover,
much the way I would only expect to do with a primary. If your lover's
partner got suddenly frightened of him becoming your primary, but felt
unable to articulate it, I would not be surprised to see her acting
precisely the way you describe.
>>That's probably true. But people get angry regularly in ways that don't
>>cause real problems; why should jealousy be any less real if it's not
>>causing damage to a relationship?
>
>I didn't say it was less real; I said it was less of a prob-
>lem, and less to be focussed on when there are more basic un-
>derlying problems, and therefore less worthy a topic of dis-
>cussion.
Excuse me? "Less worthy"? Come back when you want to be less
condescending.
> (to radically change behavior I felt strongly about doing, I'd need)
>>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>
>>That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
>>happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
>
>I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship in which I
>was expected to sacrifice my own wants at the whim of my
>partner who has no better justification than "because
>that's how it is."
Tsk, Angi, I saw you palm that card. Here's the actual paragraph I was
responding to:
>If I was your partner, I wouldn't accept "because that's how it
>is" as reason enough for me to sacrifice, to change behavior I
>don't want to change. If it was something I didn't have strong
>feelings about in the first place, that's one thing. But if
>it's enough of an issue to cause a real conflict in the first
>place, I assume it's a case where my wants differ from yours,
>and if you expect me to give up my wants, you've got to have
>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
Notice that it says nothing about 'radically change'. It also says
nothing about 'whim'. Now, maybe you want to have a fucking debate
society for a relationship, but I like being in a relationship where I
don't have to justify everything that I want that my partner doesn't
want. I like trusting that my partner won't ask for things that I don't
want to do unless zie really does want it, regardless of the
justification.
>>Is it really so hard for you to understand that a sense of loss does not
>>need to be based on insecurity? How many times do people have to tell
>
>Huh?? Yes, it is. What definition of "insecurity" are you
>using? I've already explained that what I mean is "a feeling
>or belief of impending probable loss; the sense that some-
>thing is not secure, not safe, threatened." Are you saying
>that if the loss has already occurred, the term "insecurity"
>doesn't rightly apply? I dunno... I think I'd feel even
>*more* unsafe in the jaws of the crocodile than just before
>I fell.
So if you felt sad and/or angry because one of your kids died, that
would be 'insecure'?
In any event, your usage of 'insecure' is inconsistent both with general
usage as I understand it as well as the dictionary definition, and if
you continue using 'insecure' in conjunction with 'jealousy', you're
going to continue to receive a negative reaction. I guess we could say
that you just don't *care* enough.
>>>other wants. For example, I feel wronged when the request
>>>is "stop spending so much time with hir" rather than "start
>>>spending more time with me."
>>
>>That's a reasonable position, and normally I agree with you, but it does
>>ignore one crucial factor: a person's behavior changes depending on who
>>or what zie spends time on. And what the jealous person really wants
>
>Indirectly, yes. But it's still less offensive to me for
>the request to be that the directly relevant behavior change,
>rather than that something the other thinks might be causing
>the behavior change. "You don't pay as much attention to me
>lately. Can you please try to be more focussed on me when
>you get here?" is better than "Stop seeing X, because it
>makes you neglect me." Leave it up to the person being
>asked to make a change to decide how that change needs to be
>implemented. If the problem really is the lack of attention,
>and that can be changed with some simple concentration with-
>out cutting off time sie wants to spend with another, then
>that solution should be perfectly acceptable.
What you describe only works easily when there is a well-defined lack.
If a person has changed in a number of ways as a result of a new
relationship, or if those changes are subtle and difficult to describe,
it may in fact be more efficient for that person's partner to request
less involvement with the new lover.
>>Unfortunately, the jealous person who feels this way often isn't able to
>>articulate the feeling, which leads to 'irrational' demands.
>
>Yes, that makes sense. People don't always understand what
>it is they really want.
That's not what I said. There's a difference between being able to see
something inside oneself and the ability to use words to express that
feeling or want to other people.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu> wrote:
Oh, Angi? I have this friend I want you to meet. His name is Morden.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Angi Long
>>time/place/circumstances). A "should" is a moral issue. Do you
>I see, so, "You shouldn't play in the traffic," is a moral issue? Fancy
Why shouldn't I play in traffic? Of course it's a moral issue.
If you said, "If you don't want to risk your life, you shouldn't
play in traffic," that would be simply a warning of possible
consequences (although I'd still say it would be badly worded).
I suspect that underneath your "you shouldn't play in traffic"
is the opinion that I shouldn't take unnecessary risks with my
life. A moral judgment.
Angi Long
>Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>which do conflict with your values or basic needs. "Irrational"
>>is the word I'd use for requests which don't necessarily have a
>>'logical' basis. Irrational does not mean wrong. It's only
>>when there's a real conflict of wants that I think a partner's
>>request needs to be somewhat rational and justified before I'll
>>be motivated to give up what *I* want to satisfy it.
><scratch><scratch> Sounds to me as though you place such a high
>priority on not being controlled by another person's needs/wants that
>you call 'unreasonable' any need/want that conflicts with yours,
>particularly if they aren't 'rational' by *your* definition.
No, I think you're reading something that I'm not saying. A
request is reasonable if granting it wouldn't carry too huge a
cost. When the cost would be so large that the request isn't
reasonable, then a request for a compromise would almost always
be reasonable. When there is no compromise, and it's a ques-
tion of one person or the other having to make a real sacrifice,
then the want with the better justification is probably the one
that should be fulfilled. And very strong feelings *are* a
justification, to a reasonable extent.
Would you say it was reasonable for me to request that my part-
ner cut off hir left hand, because I have such strong feelings
against left hands? I think I'd need a hell of a lot stronger
justification than "because I want you to" to expect someone to
go chopping off valued and useful body parts.
>I do think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I also think
>it's a lot more complicated than that and (here's the main point) that
>it's a counterproductive undertaking. If I want to go to parties with
>my partner and cuddle with other people while we're there, and my
>partner wants me to stay with zir, there's little point debating over
>which request is unreasonable -- in fact, by your definition, we're
>*both* being unreasonable. Ptui.
If you're both requesting that the other completely give up
what sie wants for the sake of what you want, then yes, I
think you're both being unreasonable. What you seem to be
advocating is:
A: "I want you to stop cuddling other people at parties."
B: (thinks: 'But I really really like cuddling others.')
"Okay. Whatever you want."
What I'm advocating is:
A: "I want you to stop cuddling other people at parties."
B: "But I really like cuddling others at parties. If it
was less important to me, I wouldn't mind giving it up.
Can you tell me why you want me to stop?"
A: "Because when you cuddle other people, I don't get enough
attention. I feel neglected."
B: "Oh. If I make sure to pay lots of attention to you, too,
and maybe we set up a signal so you can let me know when
you especially need some, would you be okay with me cud-
dling other people?"
A: "Yes, that sounds reasonable."
In the first scenario, B gives up more than sie needs to, which
probably doesn't serve A's best interests, either. It's win-
lose. And even the win is dubious. In the second scenario,
it's Win-Win. The first request wasn't reasonable as it stood.
Maybe if A had had strong justification for wanting the request
to be granted ("When my ex did that, it was to deliberately rub
his cheating in my face. It brings back all those bad feelings.")
then the request would have become more reasonable. Asking *why*
the request was made helped uncover the real need, and it turned
out that that could be met without B having to give up anything
sie really wanted at all.
Ulrika O'Brien
>>I must admit that it sounds pretty awful to me that he is repeating to >>you nasty things that she says to him about you. It can only serve to >>keep the
>
>It does? If he wasn't telling me, then I'd have no way of
>knowing what she was feeling at all. I'd rather have there
>be communication between me and her, but since she refuses,
>getting some communication through him is better than not
>knowing. Maybe he knew about problems she was having in the
>past that I could have *done* something about if he'd told
>me about them. If he wasn't telling me about her feelings
>now, I'd think things had settled down, and I'd be acting
>like everything was fine, which seems to have been what got
>her so angry in the first place -- my acting like everything
>was fine when to her it wasn't.
Nonetheless, IME, hearing somebody else's bitching about one, second
hand, is generally an anti-constructive event in a poly relationship
like yours. Getting dissed second-hand is not going to improve
your sympathy for your lover's other SO, or help you understand
her fears, or her insecurities any more clearly, IMO, and it is precisely
those things (being more genuinely sympathetic, understanding, and
empathetic towards her) that you are most going to need in order to
have the best shot at getting a peaceful resolution (again, IMO).
It sounds like nothing you're currently doing is making the situation
any better (not to say that this is your fault, mind), whereas hearing
this second hand bitching, IMO, actively makes the situation *worse*
by making *you* feel bad.
--
Allison Floyd
: When I'm having bad feelings toward someone, I don't want hir to
: walk out and leave me alone to let the feelings fester. If sie
: does that, it says to me that I'm not enough of a priority for
: hir to stay and take care of things when they need to be takend
: care of, and that only makes me more hurt. By the time sie gets
: around to coming back, the time that's passed with me hurting
: and waiting for hir to be ready to work on things will only have
: made the problem exponentially worse, and if enough time has
: passed, unsolvable. If it can't be taken care of right now, I
: need to hear that sie knows it's important and when sie intends
: to come back, and then I can wait without feeling too hurt.
: So when someone is mad at me, I'm always afraid that if I leave
: hir alone, sie'll stay mad forever, and I'll lose the relation-
: ship permanently. I'm afraid that "going to bed angry" (or go-
: ing away angry) will only cause the anger to grow. I want to
: talk things out *right now* to the point where the feelings are
: headed in the positive direction again. I don't know whether
: other people's anger would dissipate if they were left alone...
: I've never understood how it *could*, without anything happening
: to change the reason someone's angry in the first place.
This section rang several bells with me. I think I'm going to jump
up and down and yell "guilty!" while pointing at my head for a
while.
When there are problems between me and my significant other(s), my
usual response is to sit everybody down and try to figure out what
happened, why it happened, and how to make it not happen again.
In pursuit of these goals, I tend to ignore the idea that some
people may need "cooling off" time before they can rationally discuss
the issue. This means me, too; I usually feel that I *should*
be able to calm down to the point where discussion is fruitful
more or less immediately, and get rather frustrated with myself
when that's not possible. (which can lead to a rather nasty
vicious circle -- I'm upset at whatever, and frustrated because
I'm upset and can't communicate properly, and upset because I'm
getting frustrated, and...)
The result of the above mess is that on more than one occasion, I've
spent an evening in a lengthy self-and-other analysis session
working through bizarre psychological trauma that has nothing to
do with the original problem, when a simple back-off-for-a-
minute and figure out that we've just got a misunderstanding here,
not a full-scale riot would have sufficed and gotten everybody
back on track with minimal tears shed.
I usually feel better afterwards, and it's possible that the full
treatment helps in preventing further misunderstandings in some
cases, so I haven't decided if this tactic is a generally good
or bad thing. It would be nice to know a priori whether it's going
to be necessary or not, though.
Side note: I've had relationships where the "fix the whole problem,
immediately" tactic didn't work at all, because the whole problem
tended to devolve upon one partner's long-term insecurity and fear
of abandonment and we'd end up discussing that all night long and
not doing anything about the immediate issue. On the other hand,
my current relationship responds quite well to this tactic; the
immediate problem, and a whole host of other possible problems, gets
solved and doesn't come up again.
Not sure how my experience relates to Angi's vee problems, though.
I guess I'm sympathetic to her plight, in that I take many of the
same approaches to relationship problems. But my problem-solving
strategy presupposes that the people involved are actually speaking
to each other. I don't have any idea how I'd handle a situation where
the people involved weren't speaking.
ttfn,
Allison
George A. Stathis
>rightness or correctness in place for how something be done, and that
>standard is enforced by some social mechanism or other. Thus, morality
>is one realm where we use the word "should", but other such normative
>realms include grammar, social manners and politeness, and arithmetic.
>The case of crossing the street is unusual in this group because it
>is, arguably, not a normative "should" at all, but a prudential one.
>
>At any rate, if you insist that "inappropriate" is a term in all
>cases pertinent only to morality, and not to other normative arenas,
>then, yes, I use it differently. There are all sorts of subtle
>gradations of normativity involved in human interactions and culture,
>and wherever there is a norm, it is possible to violate that norm,
>and thus behave inappropriately to the context, or the norm. Taking
>inappropriateness to be a purely moral concept misses a great many
>levels of subtlety and complexity, in my opinion. "Inappropriate,"
>to me, is a term meant to indicate that something is in violation
>of *some* normative behavioral standard, but not necessarily a moral
>standard in particular.
I more-or-less agree... To show another facet of this, however:
There is a tendency among many people (as regards 'shoulds' and
'shoulds-nots') to assume that some magical "Set of Rules" can be
found, appropriate to a situation, which will define very exactly,
precisely, and to the relief of all doubts and all... responsibility.
Then, if only everyone... followed and obeyed the Rules, magically
happiness would be attainable. You can see this tendency in so many
fields and realms, that it's superfluous of me to justify it...
However, there is another way, one that probably makes lawyers and
other legally-educated persons frown with suspiciousness:
That ANY set of 'Rules' about behaviour, about society, about a great
number of things, is by nature imperfect, and the SPIRIT of serving
the original purpose of the Rules, does imply _sometimes_ to DEFY
them...
Pick rule, any rule, and sooner or later some valid exception can
be found. (This is how rules evolve, BTW...)
The rest is easy for you to guess. I don't have to spell it out.
I will only give two short quotes from a poet I adore... who died
a few days ago, a Nobel-prize winner in fact:
(Quote 1) "We live by the exceptions, not by the Rules".
(Quote 2) "The Law that I Am, will not subjugate me".
(Odysseas Elytes, "Maria Nephele").
The second quote, in particular, was a statement of the poet's Muse,
a woman called "Maria Nephele", who is an archetype evolved out of
a _real_ woman in the poet's life, and it covers the deep feelings
of Ecstasy and Freedom that she experienced, discovering that her
own Innermost Being, was the ONLY Law...
and THEN... thereby discovering the ULTIMATE transcendence:
That once she "became" the "Law", she now... 'had to'... defy it!! :-)
Enough ramble for now... but this subject is VAST.
After all, "love for more than one person" was originally conceived
as a _defiance_ of the Rule of Monogamy, wasn't it? (by Heinlein at
least)...
Namaste
George
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain
>: When I'm having bad feelings toward someone, I don't want hir to
>: walk out and leave me alone to let the feelings fester. If sie
>: does that, it says to me that I'm not enough of a priority for
>: hir to stay and take care of things when they need to be takend
>: care of, and that only makes me more hurt.
I am exactly the same way on this. I resonate with this very, very strongly.
>: If it can't be taken care of right now, I
>: need to hear that sie knows it's important and when sie intends
>: to come back, and then I can wait without feeling too hurt.
If I know exactly how much time the other person is going to take, and
know that they'll actually take ONLY that amount of time (and not a
minute longer), I can actually focus my mind on something else for that
amount of time and not combust. For example, if the person I'm fighting
with says: "I'm too angry to talk. I'll be back in an hour.", I'm not
*happy* about it, but I can deal with it. I realize that some people
need that break in order to keep talking -- I don't understand it, but I'm
aware of it. If the person says: "I'm too angry to talk now. I'll be
gone for a while.", I get hysterical.
Ulrika O'Brien
>Why shouldn't I play in traffic? Of course it's a moral issue.
>If you said, "If you don't want to risk your life, you shouldn't
>play in traffic," that would be simply a warning of possible
>consequences (although I'd still say it would be badly worded).
>I suspect that underneath your "you shouldn't play in traffic"
>is the opinion that I shouldn't take unnecessary risks with my
>life. A moral judgment.
This is getting nonsensical. I don't give a darn what risks you
take, and whether they're necessary or not. The "should" in "You shouldn't
play in traffic," is either prudential, in the case of one adult
addressing another, or rule-following normative, in the case
of an adult addressing a child. In the latter case, the intent
is still prudential, i.e. it would be imprudent for the child
to play in traffic, however the force of the "should" is on the
order of teaching a set of rules that children are expected to
obey in the parent/child learning relationship. It is no more
*moral* than the should in the sentence, "You should carry the
two before adding the tens column." This, I think, is a case where
your rather bizarre "words have only one meaning" stance is leading
you rather deeply into misunderstanding of the normal, complex
operations of the common English word "should." You may continue
to believe that "should" should only be used in moral contexts
(and, by the way, would that, too, be a "moral" should?), but you
would continue to be mistaken if you insist that this is the way
the word actually operates.
--Ulrika
John Clark
Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
+Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
+
+>part of an apology. When I get an apology, I want an explanation
+>of the behavior,
+
+I feel exactly the same way about this. I also tend to provide them
+myself -- when I apologize to someone else, I also provide an
+explanation for my behavior (a la "I'm late because I was stopped in the
+hall by a colleague, but I should have insisted on leaving, and I'm
+sorry about that.").
+
+I have, however, run into problems with people who don't feel that way
+about apologies and think I'm "just making excuses". My advisor is,
+unfortunately, one of these people. <sigh>
I tend to the camp of 'when your late, your late, and that's the
fact of the matter'. But then I'm also in the camp of 'in most
cases so what, either I stay, read my book(*) patiently, or leave'...
(* I have a backpack full of reading material most of the time...)
My wife on the other hand is of the 'well, I got delayed by X, Y, and
Z... and of course if I'm late for her"... what was that you said about
anal retension and tardiness...
Angi Long
>>Caring is a feeling. My feelings are part of *my* perspective,
>>not that of the person making the judgment. I'm the only one
>>who has any direct insight into my feelings.
>Yes and no. We have no direct insight into your feelings, but we do
>have the ability to judge whether your actions agree with your stated
>feelings. If your actions don't agree, many people will judge you to be
>incorrectly stating your feelings -- perhaps even lying.
And I'm saying that it's wrong for them to judge me a liar
rather than accepting my own explanation of my feelings and
my actions. If I say that bumping into you was an accident,
and explain that I was looking where I was going but that my
lack of depth perception makes me a little klutzy that way,
and apologize, then it is wrong for you to judge me a bad-
intentioned liar.
>>expects. The conclusion that I necessarily *don't care* just
>>because my actions don't meet hir expectations isn't valid.
>But your conclusion that jealousy is caused by insecurity is valid?
I've yet to hear anything to the contrary, really. People
keep saying things like, "it's not always insecurity, some-
times it's ..." and then giving another definition of inse-
curity, or something so close as to not matter.
>>I don't really understand the connection (why would my number
>>of other relationship have any effect on how inclined he'd be
>>to leave her?), but I also don't think she really has concern
>>that he'll leave. It's more like she wishes I'd find somebody
>>else to make me "forget" him so I'd go away.
>It has sounded to me as though you rely significantly on your lover,
>much the way I would only expect to do with a primary. If your lover's
He is a main source of emotional support for me. If that's
something you only do with a primary, then what do you do
with friends?
>partner got suddenly frightened of him becoming your primary, but felt
>unable to articulate it, I would not be surprised to see her acting
>precisely the way you describe.
What she says is that she doesn't want me to be a "steady
secondary." This relationship has lasted longer than his
past ones, and I think that's much of what she's responding
to. Once it had passed the stage where she could consider
it a short fling, she started seeing it as a different kind
of relationship, even though it was the same as it had al-
ways been. I think that when she said things were okay in
the beginning, it may have been with the expectation that
it wouldn't last long.
Do you have some level of "commitment" with your secondaries
-- do you intend them to be long-term relationships? Or are
they intended to be disposable? She seems to be saying that
she didn't want him to have any commitment to maintaining
this relationship in any form, not even to staying friends.
To me, any friendship takes some degree of commitment.
>>>cause real problems; why should jealousy be any less real if it's not
>>>causing damage to a relationship?
>>I didn't say it was less real; I said it was less of a prob-
>>lem, and less to be focussed on when there are more basic un-
>>derlying problems, and therefore less worthy a topic of dis-
>>cussion.
>Excuse me? "Less worthy"? Come back when you want to be less
>condescending.
Excuse me. I didn't think I was under obligation to discuss
anything here that didn't particularly interest me, and what
interested me was problems caused by jealousy.
>> (to radically change behavior I felt strongly about doing, I'd need)
>>>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>>>That sounds like a nice principle. Too bad most of the people I know in
>>>happy relationships don't seem to subscribe to it.
>>I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship in which I
>>was expected to sacrifice my own wants at the whim of my
>>partner who has no better justification than "because
>>that's how it is."
>Tsk, Angi, I saw you palm that card. Here's the actual paragraph I was
>responding to:
Sorry; I clipped too many lines and then couldn't remember
the exact wording.
>>If I was your partner, I wouldn't accept "because that's how it
>>is" as reason enough for me to sacrifice, to change behavior I
>>don't want to change. If it was something I didn't have strong
>>feelings about in the first place, that's one thing. But if
>>it's enough of an issue to cause a real conflict in the first
>>place, I assume it's a case where my wants differ from yours,
>>and if you expect me to give up my wants, you've got to have
>>stronger cause than "because that's how it is."
>Notice that it says nothing about 'radically change'. It also says
It doesn't? If it's a "sacrifice," "behavior I don't want to
change," "something I have strong feelings about," "enough of
an issue to cause a real conflict," that seems pretty well
summed up by "a radical change" to me.
>nothing about 'whim'. Now, maybe you want to have a fucking debate
I didn't say it did.
>society for a relationship, but I like being in a relationship where I
>don't have to justify everything that I want that my partner doesn't
>want. I like trusting that my partner won't ask for things that I don't
>want to do unless zie really does want it, regardless of the
>justification.
And what if you really really don't want to do what sie really
does want you to do? And what if it's not your partner, but
your coworker, or your partner's other, or your neighbor?
>>Huh?? Yes, it is. What definition of "insecurity" are you
>>using? I've already explained that what I mean is "a feeling
>>or belief of impending probable loss; the sense that some-
>>thing is not secure, not safe, threatened." Are you saying
>>that if the loss has already occurred, the term "insecurity"
>>doesn't rightly apply? I dunno... I think I'd feel even
>>*more* unsafe in the jaws of the crocodile than just before
>So if you felt sad and/or angry because one of your kids died, that
>would be 'insecure'?
It wouldn't be the best (most complete) descriptor, but yes,
it would still apply.
>In any event, your usage of 'insecure' is inconsistent both with general
>usage as I understand it as well as the dictionary definition, and if
It agrees well with my dictionary. General usage seems to
add the connotation that the insecurity is irrational, but I
specified earlier that I was talking about both rational and
irrational feelings of unsafeness. "exposed to danger; un-
safe." "subject to fear, doubt, etc." What else does the
word mean? I'm not familiar with any other usage.
>you continue using 'insecure' in conjunction with 'jealousy', you're
>going to continue to receive a negative reaction. I guess we could say
>that you just don't *care* enough.
Don't care? Are you saying I'm hurting someone by believing
that in all the cases I've seen and heard about so far,
jealousy has been rooted in the feeling or belief that some-
thing is unsafe or threatened (or lost, which amounts to the
same thing simply taken to extreme)? Or by not undertanding
the workings of psychology that might bring about jealousy
through any other mechanism besides some fear of loss?
>>Indirectly, yes. But it's still less offensive to me for
>>the request to be that the directly relevant behavior change,
>>rather than that something the other thinks might be causing
>>the behavior change. "You don't pay as much attention to me
>What you describe only works easily when there is a well-defined lack.
>If a person has changed in a number of ways as a result of a new
>relationship, or if those changes are subtle and difficult to describe,
>it may in fact be more efficient for that person's partner to request
>less involvement with the new lover.
More efficient for whom? I think the person making the re-
quest has an obligation to consider the feelings of the new
lover and the hinge partner, too.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Angi Long <angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>priority on not being controlled by another person's needs/wants that
>>you call 'unreasonable' any need/want that conflicts with yours,
>>particularly if they aren't 'rational' by *your* definition.
>
>No, I think you're reading something that I'm not saying. A
>request is reasonable if granting it wouldn't carry too huge a
>cost. When the cost would be so large that the request isn't
>reasonable, then a request for a compromise would almost always
>be reasonable. When there is no compromise, and it's a ques-
>tion of one person or the other having to make a real sacrifice,
>then the want with the better justification is probably the one
>that should be fulfilled. And very strong feelings *are* a
>justification, to a reasonable extent.
I'll admit to being slightly hyperbolic, which makes it sound as though
I did state your definition of 'reasonable' correctly: you say that as
soon as a request carries "too huge a cost", it is by definition
unreasonable.
>Would you say it was reasonable for me to request that my part-
>ner cut off hir left hand, because I have such strong feelings
>against left hands? I think I'd need a hell of a lot stronger
>justification than "because I want you to" to expect someone to
>go chopping off valued and useful body parts.
Well, that's a bit of hyperbole, too. Let's continue down to my
example.
>>I do think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I also think
>>it's a lot more complicated than that and (here's the main point) that
>>it's a counterproductive undertaking. If I want to go to parties with
>>my partner and cuddle with other people while we're there, and my
>>partner wants me to stay with zir, there's little point debating over
>>which request is unreasonable -- in fact, by your definition, we're
>>*both* being unreasonable. Ptui.
>
>If you're both requesting that the other completely give up
>what sie wants for the sake of what you want, then yes, I
>think you're both being unreasonable. What you seem to be
>advocating is:
>A: "I want you to stop cuddling other people at parties."
>B: (thinks: 'But I really really like cuddling others.')
> "Okay. Whatever you want."
<chuckle> Nice try, but no.
>What I'm advocating is:
>A: "I want you to stop cuddling other people at parties."
>B: "But I really like cuddling others at parties. If it
> was less important to me, I wouldn't mind giving it up.
> Can you tell me why you want me to stop?"
>A: "Because when you cuddle other people, I don't get enough
> attention. I feel neglected."
>B: "Oh. If I make sure to pay lots of attention to you, too,
> and maybe we set up a signal so you can let me know when
> you especially need some, would you be okay with me cud-
> dling other people?"
>A: "Yes, that sounds reasonable."
Let's try a compressed version of what actually did happen:
A: I want you to stop cuddling other people at parties.
B: But I *like* cuddling other people. What's wrong with that?
A: Well, I go to a party with someone, and if you leave me by myself I
don't like it, and watching you cuddle someone else just makes it worse.
B: So what if I just do some cuddling and pay lots of attention to you?
A: No, that won't work. If you want to cuddle, you'll have to go to
parties by yourself. If you want me along, you can't cuddle.
B: .... Okay.
>In the first scenario, B gives up more than sie needs to, which
>probably doesn't serve A's best interests, either. It's win-
>lose. And even the win is dubious. In the second scenario,
>it's Win-Win. The first request wasn't reasonable as it stood.
>Maybe if A had had strong justification for wanting the request
>to be granted ("When my ex did that, it was to deliberately rub
>his cheating in my face. It brings back all those bad feelings.")
>then the request would have become more reasonable. Asking *why*
>the request was made helped uncover the real need, and it turned
>out that that could be met without B having to give up anything
>sie really wanted at all.
In your scenario, yes, but it doesn't always work that way in real life.
Sometimes people do make requests that tie pretty directly to what they
want, even if it doesn't really make sense to you. Sometimes you have
to make a choice between two unpalatable alternatives, as B now has to
choose for every party whether zie wants zir partner or whether zie
wants to cuddle with other people. And this scenario was pretty easy,
with an obvious compromise.
Gene Wolf
<Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
> angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) wrote:
>
> >Why shouldn't I play in traffic? Of course it's a moral issue.
> >If you said, "If you don't want to risk your life, you shouldn't
> >play in traffic," that would be simply a warning of possible
> >consequences (although I'd still say it would be badly worded).
> >I suspect that underneath your "you shouldn't play in traffic"
> >is the opinion that I shouldn't take unnecessary risks with my
> >life. A moral judgment.
>
> This, I think, is a case where
> your rather bizarre "words have only one meaning" stance is leading
> you rather deeply into misunderstanding of the normal, complex
> operations of the common English word "should." You may continue
> to believe that "should" should only be used in moral contexts
> (and, by the way, would that, too, be a "moral" should?), but you
> would continue to be mistaken if you insist that this is the way
> the word actually operates.
>
> --Ulrika
*chuckles* I had to laugh a few minutes after reading this. I was
called out of my ofice to help an employee with a web page problem and we
were both stumped at something that was not happening. My first words
were, "Well, that *should* work." He didn't understand at all when I
started laughing.
As Always,
Gene
Angi Long
>correct usage of the word "should" to say, "You should use a plural form
>of that verb when your subject is plural." This is a grammatical
>normative claim. It is equally a correct usage of "should" to
>say, "You should not talk with your mouth full," or "You should only
>wear white shoes between Memorial Day and Labor Day," or "You should
>look both ways before crossing the street," or even "You should carry the
>one into the tens place before adding the second column of figures."
>Yet, I hope you'll agree, not one of these is a moral claim.
I don't agree. Underlying all those statements I see moral
claims. Underlying the grammatical "should" is the idea that
one should use correct grammar, for example. If you don't be-
lieve that I should add correctly, then the last example is an
informal wording of a warning of possible effects, which would
be better worded: "if you don't carry the one before adding the
second column, you won't get a correct answer."
"Is morally right" and "should be done" are equivalent, as far
as I can see, and as far as my dictionary will tell me. "Rape
is morally wrong" and "rape should not be done" say exactly
the same thing, don't they?
>The word "should" is correctly used wherever there is a standard of
>rightness or correctness in place for how something be done, and that
"Rightness" and "correctness" are either about morality or
about truth. "16 is the right answer" is clearly about truth
rather than morality. "X is the correct thing to do" is
about morality.
>At any rate, if you insist that "inappropriate" is a term in all
>cases pertinent only to morality, and not to other normative arenas,
I don't see the difference between "moral" and "normative,"
except that "normative" seems to mean the subset of morality
which is justified only by "majority rule," by the concept
that it is right to follow the norm and wrong to be "abnormal."
Ulrika O'Brien
>>All that is true, but it's still true that the only way to *get* >>somewhere with the person, presuming it matters to you that zie=
knows >>you care, is to apologize and ask what would make zir feel cared for.
>
>I've tried that in the past, and in the worst situation, those
>efforts did nothing but waste my time and frustrate me more.
Of course, even the best technique will not work in every instance.
Every situation will have its own unique features, and so one
has to be prepared to try different tactics until something works.
Obviously, one also has to have limits beyond which one will not
go, but the more liberal your limits and the more extensive your
toolbox, the likelier it is that something you do will meet with
success.
[snip]
>The big contradiction is between what she says now and what she
>said in the beginning. Then, she said she had no problem with
>our relationship. From the time she was saying that explicitly
>to me to the time she started trying to push me away, nothing
>substantial about our relationship changed. We kept the same
>schedule, had the same feelings, did all the same things. Now
>she denies ever saying that things were fine, and says things
>like the above, that all that was ever okay with her was the
>sex.
Saying one thing at one time and another at a later time is not
necessarily contradictory. One can make an honest mistake in
projecting how well one will cope with some situation, and therefore
what one says before it happens, and after one is in it, will
differ. This is not a bona fide contradiction. People change
their minds, or find that how they envisioned some event is not
how it actually feels to them, or that there were elements of
the situation that they hadn't previously considered. And,
extreme emotional distress (along with lots of other stuff) plays
with human memory, so that if two people already started understanding
the same sentence somewhat differently then time, upset, and faulty
memory can lead to very different recollections of what was originally
said or meant.
Finally, from some of your posts, I take it that the primary source
of your information about your partner's other partner is through
your partner. Even with the best of intentions, working through
an intermediary is not the most accurate way to get an idea of
someone else's opinions and feelings. All of these may be giving
you a somewhat distorted sense of "contradiction" where none
may actually exist. Just a thought...
Ulrika O'Brien
> *chuckles* I had to laugh a few minutes after reading this. I was
>called out of my ofice to help an employee with a web page problem and we
>were both stumped at something that was not happening. My first words
>were, "Well, that *should* work." He didn't understand at all when I
>started laughing.
Obviously, Gene, you *really* believe that the web ware has a
*moral* obligation to operate a certain way...:)
Selene@nowhere
>In article <4jrs4b$o...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>Angi Long <angi...@bunuel.math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Yes, that makes sense. People don't always understand what
>>it is they really want.
>
>Oh, Angi? I have this friend I want you to meet. His name is Morden.
Meow, darling! Aren't you about 300 years ahead of yourself, here?
Not to mention possibly in the wrong newsgroup? };> Seriously,
though, B5 is a great show.
And I think Angi's got the right of it. Not everybody is able to know,
much less articulate, just what they want... I know I was one of them
for a long time (I got better...).
ObPoly (sorta): wouldn't it be interesting to see Delenn get together
with both Sinclair and Sheridan...?
"You are what you think you are." - Velvet Hammer
http://www.eden.com/~velvet
** All opinions here are mine. My employer doesn't pay me for opinions.
Elf Sternberg
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> writes:
>angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) wrote:
>
>>I suspect that underneath your "you shouldn't play in traffic"
>>is the opinion that I shouldn't take unnecessary risks with my
>>life. A moral judgment.
>This is getting nonsensical. I don't give a darn what risks you
>take, and whether they're necessary or not. The "should" in "You shouldn't
>play in traffic," is either prudential, in the case of one adult
>addressing another, or rule-following normative, in the case
>of an adult addressing a child. In the latter case, the intent
>is still prudential, i.e. it would be imprudent for the child
>to play in traffic, however the force of the "should" is on the
>order of teaching a set of rules that children are expected to
>obey in the parent/child learning relationship. It is no more
>*moral* than the should in the sentence, "You should carry the
>two before adding the tens column."
Au, contraire, Ulrika. Both sentences describe an underlying
set of values that the speaker is acting upon, and in those cases those
values may well be moral. "You should carry the two before adding"
carries with it the unstated, "Because you want to get the right value,"
or more preciesly, "Because I want you to get the right value" or
"Because you should want to get the right value." Here, the customary
desire for mathematical precision is being transmitted along with the
basic rule-following normative. In the case of "You shouldn't play in
traffic," the semantic of "Because I don't want you to get hurt" or
"Because you shouldn't want to get hurt," are likewise being transmitted
to the listener. (Either that or "I don't want others to get their cars
dirty with your blood.")
I don't think this has anything to do with the word "should" at
this point ("you shouldn't play in traffic" and "don't play in traffic"
are conceptually the same in intent) but rather with digging at the
underlying axioms on which speaker and listener operate when trying to
communicate.
General semantics points out that society uses "morality" (along
with "law", "rule", "ettiquete," "sanity" and others) as one of the many
tools to encourage conformity in that social animal homo sapiens. "You
should carry the two before adding the tens column because if you don't
there will be bad consequences--" falls down the long chain of
associated "shoulds" to the most basic, "if you can't do math, you won't
be able to get a job, you won't fit in, you won't be one of us. You
won't be anything." And that tugs on the basic human axiom, "I want to
be somebody."
"You shouldn't play in traffic" has underlying axioms of
conformity that you ignore at your own peril.
Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg FUCK THE CDA! (Cohen vs. California, 1971)
e...@halcyon.com Nos numerus sumus et fruges consumere nati.
Public key available http://www.halcyon.com/elf/index.html
Allison Floyd
: One thing that works for us is to use a "talking feather" ... an idea
: which I believe originates with Indian councils, where some object is
: passed around, and only the person holding the object may speak. It
: is valuable to do this with a physical object (preferably something
: like a Koosh Ball that you can fidget with! ;-) ) because it makes it
: much harder to interrupt. We have been using this approach lately and
: it has produced a much better discussion than we would have had
: without the "talking feather".
Hey, I like this idea! "The Sacred Koosh of Civilized Speech!" Or
you could use Nerf things, and work off frustrations by flinging
them forcefully at the wall/your partner/the computer/the cat...
I can think of several arguments which would have benefited from
degenerating into Koosh Wars... It's incredibly difficult to get
too serious about something when there's a fuzzy rubber dayglo-
colored thing involved.
Allison,
contemplating running by the toystore on the way home...
songbird
>Angi Long (angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu) wrote:
>
>: When I'm having bad feelings toward someone, I don't want hir to
>: walk out and leave me alone to let the feelings fester. If sie
>: does that, it says to me that I'm not enough of a priority for
>: hir to stay and take care of things when they need to be takend
>: care of, and that only makes me more hurt. By the time sie gets
>: around to coming back, the time that's passed with me hurting
>: and waiting for hir to be ready to work on things will only have
>: made the problem exponentially worse, and if enough time has
>: passed, unsolvable. If it can't be taken care of right now, I
>: need to hear that sie knows it's important and when sie intends
>: to come back, and then I can wait without feeling too hurt.
yes! then at least at a minimum i know that i've been heard and it
is a constructive response that i can hold on to for a while.
>: So when someone is mad at me, I'm always afraid that if I leave
>: hir alone, sie'll stay mad forever, and I'll lose the relation-
>: ship permanently. I'm afraid that "going to bed angry" (or go-
>: ing away angry) will only cause the anger to grow. I want to
>: talk things out *right now* to the point where the feelings are
>: headed in the positive direction again. I don't know whether
>: other people's anger would dissipate if they were left alone...
it really depends upon why i am angry to begin with. if i'm angry
because i'm feeling very insecure and neglected or unheard then leaving
me alone will make it worse. then when it does get beyond the initial
anger then the best thing to do is leave me alone. by then it is too
late and i'm majorly pissed and i'll start taking shots at anyone close
to push them away from me. *yuck*
>: I've never understood how it *could*, without anything happening
>: to change the reason someone's angry in the first place.
>
>This section rang several bells with me. I think I'm going to jump
>up and down and yell "guilty!" while pointing at my head for a
>while.
*chuckle* me too. not as much guilt as a recognition of
what i tend to do. :) (feeling bad about getting angry doesn't
help and the anger is usually a handful as it is)
>When there are problems between me and my significant other(s), my
>usual response is to sit everybody down and try to figure out what
>happened, why it happened, and how to make it not happen again.
>In pursuit of these goals, I tend to ignore the idea that some
>people may need "cooling off" time before they can rationally discuss
>the issue. This means me, too; I usually feel that I *should*
>be able to calm down to the point where discussion is fruitful
>more or less immediately, and get rather frustrated with myself
>when that's not possible. (which can lead to a rather nasty
>vicious circle -- I'm upset at whatever, and frustrated because
>I'm upset and can't communicate properly, and upset because I'm
>getting frustrated, and...)
*grin* yup.
>The result of the above mess is that on more than one occasion, I've
>spent an evening in a lengthy self-and-other analysis session
>working through bizarre psychological trauma that has nothing to
>do with the original problem, when a simple back-off-for-a-
>minute and figure out that we've just got a misunderstanding here,
>not a full-scale riot would have sufficed and gotten everybody
>back on track with minimal tears shed.
people issues are not always easily recognised at first. i think the
fact that you see different methods might help in different circumstances
is a decent start. for one you might be able to take a quick poll to
determine if people think it wise to cool off first or deal with it
right away.
>I usually feel better afterwards, and it's possible that the full
>treatment helps in preventing further misunderstandings in some
>cases, so I haven't decided if this tactic is a generally good
>or bad thing. It would be nice to know a priori whether it's going
>to be necessary or not, though.
it depends upon how the people feel coming out of these sessions.
if i feel i have been heard and understood (even though nobody agrees
with me) it will still have been worth it. but if i leave feeling
that i have not been heard then it will have fed the problem more
energy and it will take me longer to back out of a defensive stance
to where negotiation or being more flexible is possible.
>Side note: I've had relationships where the "fix the whole problem,
>immediately" tactic didn't work at all, because the whole problem
>tended to devolve upon one partner's long-term insecurity and fear
>of abandonment and we'd end up discussing that all night long and
>not doing anything about the immediate issue.
my sarcastic response would be that it looks like those fears were
justified if you did indeed move on to another relationship. (and
saying a problem devolved is really downgrading a major issue, so
i can see where that person would continue to feel insecure) you might
not understand these fears, but to someone wrapped up in them any
mention like the above would probably make them feel even more
fearful. that would be pretty consistent with how i'd react when i
am in one of those streaks. word choice becomes very critical at
times like this, so the best thing is to keep mouth shut and listen
very closely and for me it does wonders if the person is sitting
close enough to touch me. at the gut level it is the kind touch
that communicates that feeling to me.
> On the other hand,
>my current relationship responds quite well to this tactic; the
>immediate problem, and a whole host of other possible problems, gets
>solved and doesn't come up again.
sounds great to me! you've found fairly compatible partners.
>Not sure how my experience relates to Angi's vee problems, though.
>I guess I'm sympathetic to her plight, in that I take many of the
>same approaches to relationship problems. But my problem-solving
>strategy presupposes that the people involved are actually speaking
>to each other. I don't have any idea how I'd handle a situation where
>the people involved weren't speaking.
about all you can do is encourage the non-speaking partners to
talk if there are problems, but you can't force it. in my experience
if someone doesn't like you no amount of talking to them is going to
change that and it tends to backfire in that they'll find more about
you not to like as more communication happens. i'd prefer polite and
respectful indifference to trying to force something that won't work
to the point where the partners have reasons for disliking each other.
>ttfn,
>Allison
songbird
Ulrika O'Brien
>In article <4kc5v8$f...@news.service.uci.edu>
> Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>angi...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Angi Long) wrote:
>>
>>>I suspect that underneath your "you shouldn't play in traffic"
>>>is the opinion that I shouldn't take unnecessary risks with my
>>>life. A moral judgment.
>
>>This is getting nonsensical. I don't give a darn what risks you
>>take, and whether they're necessary or not. The "should" in "You >>shouldn't
>>play in traffic," is either prudential, in the case of one adult
>>addressing another, or rule-following normative, in the case
>>of an adult addressing a child. In the latter case, the intent
>>is still prudential, i.e. it would be imprudent for the child
>>to play in traffic, however the force of the "should" is on the
>>order of teaching a set of rules that children are expected to
>>obey in the parent/child learning relationship. It is no more
>>*moral* than the should in the sentence, "You should carry the
>>two before adding the tens column."
>
> Au, contraire, Ulrika. Both sentences describe an underlying
>set of values that the speaker is acting upon, and in those cases those
>values may well be moral.
I'm afraid I don't see any contradiction, actually. The key phrase here,
as I see it is "*may* be moral". I don't believe I've ever claimed that
these sorts of normative values cannot be moral, only that they *need* not
be moral. Angi appears to be claiming that all instances of normative
statements will be moral (whether the word should appears or not), and the
thrust of my examples is to suggest cases where most ordinary users will
regard the usage as normative but not moral. This does not preclude some
users from regarding it, in their own idiolect, as normative and moral,
but since I'm only trying to find plausible counter examples to
a universal claim, I don't need that preclusion.
>"You should carry the two before adding"
>carries with it the unstated, "Because you want to get the right value,"
>or more preciesly, "Because I want you to get the right value" or
>"Because you should want to get the right value." Here, the customary
>desire for mathematical precision is being transmitted along with the
>basic rule-following normative. In the case of "You shouldn't play in
>traffic," the semantic of "Because I don't want you to get hurt" or
>"Because you shouldn't want to get hurt," are likewise being transmitted
>to the listener. (Either that or "I don't want others to get their cars
>dirty with your blood.")
Yes, absolutely there is an underlying assumption of shared values
incorporated in a normative claim, but I really don't see a desire
for mathematical precision as a moral preference. Nor the desire
not to be hurt. In each case, I'd regard these as fundamentally
prudential preferences, rather.
> I don't think this has anything to do with the word "should" at
>this point ("you shouldn't play in traffic" and "don't play in traffic"
>are conceptually the same in intent) but rather with digging at the
>underlying axioms on which speaker and listener operate when trying to
>communicate.
Fine, agreed. But so far I don't see you offering any argument
as to why these underlying "axioms" as you style them (I think I'd
prefer "background assumptions" or "shared values" as being less
misleadingly mathematical sounding) should be supposed to all
be moral ones. If I live in the Hamptons and share a micro-cultural
value for not wearing white shoes after Labor Day, is that a
moral value?
>
> General semantics points out that society uses "morality" (along
>with "law", "rule", "ettiquete," "sanity" and others) as one of the many
>tools to encourage conformity in that social animal homo sapiens.
Yes, I don't have a problem with this assertion. These are all what
I would call normative regulatory devices. I still don't see any
reason to suppose that the the set of moral normative devices
is not a proper subset of all normative devices, though. If you
have some argument as to why we should regard norms of grammar,
fashion, and sanity as fundamentally moral in nature, I'd be interested
to hear it.
>"You
>should carry the two before adding the tens column because if you don't
>there will be bad consequences--" falls down the long chain of
>associated "shoulds" to the most basic, "if you can't do math, you won't
>be able to get a job, you won't fit in, you won't be one of us. You
>won't be anything." And that tugs on the basic human axiom, "I want to
>be somebody."
Yep. Agreed. Is the desire to be somebody, to fit in the herd,
to gain positive social recognition, a moral one?
>
> "You shouldn't play in traffic" has underlying axioms of
>conformity that you ignore at your own peril.
Yes, both prudential and herd-acceptance concerns are activated.
Where is the morality component?
Ryk
>gw...@future.dreamscape.com (Gene Wolf) wrote:
>> *chuckles* I had to laugh a few minutes after reading this. I was
>>called out of my ofice to help an employee with a web page problem and we
>>were both stumped at something that was not happening. My first words
>>were, "Well, that *should* work." He didn't understand at all when I
>>started laughing.
>Obviously, Gene, you *really* believe that the web ware has a
>*moral* obligation to operate a certain way...:)
Of course it does! All software has a soul, except perhaps that
created by committee...... OTOH I have a long list of programs (and
programmers) who should be banished to hell for all eternity, and of
course a goodly collection that should have been whipped straight into
limbo ;-)
Ryk
--
Sometimes you're the windshield,
and sometimes you're the bug......
Elise Matthesen
>In <4k9adr$e...@pravda.aa.msen.com> jenn...@kira.intranet.org (Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain) writes:
>>I feel exactly the same way about this. I also tend to provide them
>>myself -- when I apologize to someone else, I also provide an
>>explanation for my behavior (a la "I'm late because I was stopped in the
>>hall by a colleague, but I should have insisted on leaving, and I'm
>>sorry about that.").
>>I have, however, run into problems with people who don't feel that way
>>about apologies and think I'm "just making excuses". My advisor is,
>>unfortunately, one of these people. <sigh>
>I've had my share of run-ins on *this* one... I explain, and then I get
>to the apology. For more than one of my intimates, the way that i do
>this doesn't work especially well.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
>It seems to work better if I run the
>*exact* same words, in a different order. To wit,
> "I'm sorry I'm late. I was stopped in the hall by a colleague, but I
> should have insisted on leaving."
>It's made a world of difference at times.
*Smart* mammal! Um, I guess what's going on is that the apology is the
most important thing to me. I want to know that you gave a shit that you
didn't keep your agreement with me. (Hmm. Hmmm. This fits into another
conversation, doesn't it?) And the apology works for me as long as it
isn't diluted by "it wasn't my fault, I didn't do it, somebody else done
it" stuff *or* preceded by situation-explaining that looks like dilution
to people like me. I've mellowed out to the point that
situation-explaining immediately after the apology is something that no
longer feels like justifying to me.
>YMMV, of course.
Yup.
At the risk of being inflammatory (and if I am, well, I'm sure we'll
discuss it, yah?), I am beginning to wonder if the "explain first" mode
of apology comes from one of two main places:
1) people who explain first in hopes that their partner will see why any
Reasonable Person would have done what they did. These folks seem to
work more on a logic economy than on a feelings economy. ("I'll trade you
two valid premises and one WFF for a warm fuzzy feeling and some French
Silk pie, ok?")
2) people who explain first because they're afraid they'll get hit.
The first operate from the position of needing to make their partner's
objections go away in order to make themselves Right In The First Place.
Plain apologies might mean they were wrong.
The second operate from the position of knowing in their gut that being
wrong equals they're gonna hit me. Plain apologies are never enough,
although piling enough prior suffering into the explanation might slow
them down and distract them from hitting.
One's power-up and one's power-down. Neither is good as a long-term
strategy. :-/
Anyhow, I really really respond well to the "clear apology first, then
whatever else is context" model. As you have no doubt noticed. ;-)
Elise,
looking at this list of Stuff To Do This Morning that seems to be on the
computer and wondering whether the next list could have chocolate or
small bits of jewelry attached to it as a lure......
--
--
The insistence upon certain forms of "realistic" fiction
is the compulsion to turn gold into lead
because lead is more familiar.
Elise Matthesen
>The second quote, in particular, was a statement of the poet's Muse,
>a woman called "Maria Nephele", who is an archetype evolved out of
>a _real_ woman in the poet's life, and it covers the deep feelings
>of Ecstasy and Freedom that she experienced, discovering that her
>own Innermost Being, was the ONLY Law...
>and THEN... thereby discovering the ULTIMATE transcendence:
>That once she "became" the "Law", she now... 'had to'... defy it!! :-)
>Enough ramble for now... but this subject is VAST.
Indeed so. But I think you may have stopped a little bit too soon.
Aceepting the Law, then defying it, yes....but the learning inherent in
that one seems to me to be that defying something reinforces it in
different way but often as strongly as accepting its yoke. The "prize"
one gets for that defiance is often the booby prize of understanding how
much one was still bound by the beliefs underlying the law even at the
height of rebellion. Only after the temper tantrums of for-and-against
can we get to the place where the so-called Law is no longer relevant, is
no longer the very ground beneath our feet. (Which is pretty funny, when
you think about it: standing firmly on the worldview of that law and
trying to find a place to put the lever to get rid of it.)
>After all, "love for more than one person" was originally conceived
>as a _defiance_ of the Rule of Monogamy, wasn't it? (by Heinlein at
>least)...
I don't know. Heinlein didn't invent it.
In one sense, each of us invented it for ourselves.
Mine is not defiance. I don't love monogamy enough to waste time defying
it. Nor do I hate it enough to waste time casting stones at those who
practice it.
I have a life.
Elise, thinking in her lingonberry-mouthed moments that, for a
polyamorist, having the time to think up nasty things to say about
monogamy and monogamists is Nature's way of telling you that you don't
have enough lovers.
Ulrika O'Brien
>> >>So if somebody *thinks* something is inappropriate, then it *is*
>> >>inappropriate?
>> >
>> >What, did you suppose that there was some sort of single,
>> >univocal, solid platinum metric standard of inappropriateness
>> >kept at some Ecole in Paris? Inappropriateness is, indeed,
>> >determined by what people think; is neither monolithic
>> >nor absolute, but rather determined in a fuzzy way by the
>> >shared, intersubjective entity called culture.
>
>Have to disagree here. What people think is only what they think. Only >if there is some basis for what they think, can such thin=
king have any >meaning. The only possible basis for appropriateness can be agreement >between two or more parties.
Right. Okay. This is what my using "intersubjective" and "culure"
alludes to. An agreement or tacit belief held by two or more people is
still, in the end, nothing more than what those people think. They may
have arrived at that thinking by prolonged negotiation, by cultural
inculcation,or by hasty agreement, but it isn't floating out there in the
Realm of Forms, waiting to be grasped. That's all that I meant to say.
There is no objective, non-ethnocentric metric to adjudicate between
clashes in conflicting cultural norms, IMO.
[rest of a well-considered post snipped due to vast agreement.] :)