Sex and moral judgements
illecebra
messages that have hit the "Problem-morning sex" thread, mostly regarding
Orlando and toramjero's defense of cheating as a morally acceptable
option. I won't sink hours into responding to posts individually, but I
think that whole tangent centers on a basic question:
*What factors contribute to a particular sex act being moral or immoral?*
On its own, I consider sex to be a generally neutral act with but one
moral question: that of consent. Are all parties involved consenting,
and are they capable of giving or denying consent?
Now, there are certain other moral rules that can be broken when having
sex that aren't directly related to the sex: lying, promise-breaking,
stealing, etc. However, these are more general in that they apply just
as well to other areas of life, such as money, motorcycles, or family
relationships.
There are those who have argued (in general, not neccessarily on SSG let
alone a particular thread) that particular acts are immoral in
themselves, (oral sex, homosexual sex, etc.). Some have even argued that
a sex is somehow so different than every other human experience that
general moral rules such as honesty, keeping one's word, and not stealing
don't apply.
I've yet to hear a substantive logical argument for either of those two
positions. So, consider this a challenge. Set aside your whining, your
ad hominem attacks, your flimsy excuses, and provide a solid logical
argument for your position. I'll listen.
toramjero
I am sorry, but I can't answer your question. My whole point was NOT
that cheating is morally acceptable, but that a blanket statement that
cheating is morally unacceptable is wrong. My whole point is that
nothing can be judged "moral" or "immoral" without knowing the
particulars (quite in line with the judicial systems of most
democratic countries).
Your question amounts to ask for a blanket statement on morality (in
rather vague and unclear terms on top of that). Therefore I cannot
answer it.
The point of "consent", which you raise "in passing" would deserve a
whole book.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
I like your question. I think. That is, I like it if it's what I
think it is. Your challenge, given in the last paragraph, mentions
"either of those two positions"--I'm uncertain what the positions in
question are. (I'm reasonably sure they're not in the Kama Sutra)
I *think* that one of the positions is: sex is a matter to which
normal human rules can't apply.
I *guess* that the other is: some particular sex acts, regardless of
informed consent's being given or not given, are themselves immoral.
For this challenge/discussion, shall we define 'moral' and 'immoral'?
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Denny Wheeler
<tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I am sorry, but I can't answer your question. My whole point was NOT
>that cheating is morally acceptable, but that a blanket statement that
>cheating is morally unacceptable is wrong. My whole point is that
>nothing can be judged "moral" or "immoral" without knowing the
>particulars (quite in line with the judicial systems of most
>democratic countries).
Please cite the post or posts (I don't believe there's even one) in
the "Problem -- morning sex" thread in which anyone makes the blanket
statement you're disputing.
I'll dispute your final parenthetical. Judicial systems--systems of
law, that is--rarely (if ever) operate on the "circumstances alter
cases" principle. When or if they do, you no longer have the rule of
law, but the rule of men. We've seen far too much of that, and have
too much of it now. (North Korea and Zimbabwe spring to mind)
You--in a part of the post I snipped--take issue with illecebra's
"tossing off" the matter of consent. She stated "with consent" as a
given. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to play games with 'what
is consent' and questions of 'who can give consent'--I'm good with
that, but it's not to the point in this specific thread.
As for word-quibbling: define "cheating" in both the sexual and
non-sexual contexts. You use the term twice above; before we can
discuss whether it's a "moral" (I prefer "ethical" but I'm a finikin
about some things) action or not, we first have to know what it is.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>*What factors contribute to a particular sex act being moral or immoral?*>
>On its own, I consider sex to be a generally neutral act with but one
>moral question: that of consent. Are all parties involved consenting,
>and are they capable of giving or denying consent?
Here is the central question in a nutshell. If a man in a monogamous
relationship cheats, we cannot assume that his monogamous partner is a sexual
participant in each and every sex act that man commits. For an obvious example,
if the man masturbates alone, he need not ask his partner's consent before
doing it because it is assumed that she is not a sexual participant and
therefore does not get a vote. I contend that a monogamously committed man's
sexuality is, to a certain extent, independent of his partner's sexuality; he
can therefore make informed sexual decisions without giving his partner a vote.
However, in my moral lexicon, he is obligated to ensure his partner's safety
from sexually transmitted diseases either by protecting and testing himself or
informing her of the risks he has taken, risk to which she would become exposed
by continuing to have sex with him.
>Now, there are certain other moral rules that can be broken when having
>sex that aren't directly related to the sex: lying, promise-breaking,
>stealing, etc. However, these are more general in that they apply just
>as well to other areas of life, such as money, motorcycles, or family
>relationships.
I would be careful here because many of your analogies involve property. My or
my partner's sexuality cannot be "stolen" by anyone except a gun toting rapist.
>There are those who have argued (in general, not neccessarily on SSG let
>alone a particular thread) that particular acts are immoral in
>themselves, (oral sex, homosexual sex, etc.). Some have even argued that
>a sex is somehow so different than every other human experience that
>general moral rules such as honesty, keeping one's word, and not stealing
>don't apply.
>I've yet to hear a substantive logical argument for either of those two
>positions. So, consider this a challenge. Set aside your whining, your
>ad hominem attacks, your flimsy excuses, and provide a solid logical
>argument for your position. I'll listen.
I already did some of that in a previous post, to which you have yet to
respond. For me, the central issue here is not honesty or keeping one's word
but rather autonomy. Even in the most traditional monogamous relationships, a
marriage contract does not convert every individual action into a communal one.
In that sense, a monogamous person who cheats is acting upon his human sexual
autonomy, an autonomy that is never revoked by a monogamy agreement or marriage
contract.
Orlando
JustGB
>
> For me, the central issue here is not honesty or keeping one's word
> but rather autonomy. Even in the most traditional monogamous relationships, a
> marriage contract does not convert every individual action into a communal one.
> In that sense, a monogamous person who cheats is acting upon his human sexual
> autonomy, an autonomy that is never revoked by a monogamy agreement or marriage
> contract.
Finally a fresh perspective, that of autonomy. The dilemma faced by a
person who loves hir partner, appreciates and respects hir, and shares
children, grandchildren, love and life -- a home in the broadest
sense, who is still sexual and whose partner has become non-sexual and
has no "good" choices.
JustGB
Serene Vannoy
One can assert one's autonomy in an open and honest fashion, without
cheating. In point of fact, I come into relationships with the explicit
caveat that I will never agree to monogamy, or to giving my partners a
vote in who I date/love/fuck. (That doesn't mean they don't get input;
just that my vote is the only one that carries the weight of law, as it
were.)
Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue March '09!
http://42magazine.com
"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Finally a fresh perspective, that of autonomy. The dilemma faced by a
>person who loves hir partner, appreciates and respects hir, and shares
>children, grandchildren, love and life -- a home in the broadest
>sense, who is still sexual and whose partner has become non-sexual and
>has no "good" choices.
Moralizing may make the moralizer feel self righteous, but it rarely improves
the bad choices that so often plague these situations. It's easy to advise
anyone that breaking up a relationship is better than cheating, strictly on
ethical grounds. But, what happens when there's too much good in the
relationship to throw away over sex?
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>One can assert one's autonomy in an open and honest fashion, without
>cheating. In point of fact, I come into relationships with the explicit
>caveat that I will never agree to monogamy, or to giving my partners a
>vote in who I date/love/fuck. (That doesn't mean they don't get input;
>just that my vote is the only one that carries the weight of law, as it
>were.)
That only works when everyone involved is on board with polyamory. When that
isn't the case, the only ethical options, according to your ilk, are repair,
resignation or rupture.
Orlando
toramjero
As I said in the other thread, being in an impossible situation does
not morally justify lying (that was the example with breaking in the
landlord's house), but your example
show the problem: people put themselves in impossible situations.
I think that the right question here may be: "why do people agree to
monogamy?".
JustGB
That was my point. And believe me, I have no good answers.
JustGB
JustGB
That might be a good question for couples making commitments today,
but it was most certainly not a question or even a thought when I got
married in the 60s of the previous century (as someone recently
referred to those glorious years of my youth <shudder>). After 40-odd
years of an on-the-whole good marriage that neither partner has any
intention of dissolving, the question is not 'why monogamy', but how
does one navigate this mine field called sex when the partners are on
different pages.
This is not my situation and I don't have such an agonizing problem,
but it is a question some people must unfortunately ponder.
JustGB
toramjero
As far as I know, it still was the same 30 years after that time, when
the question arose for me, and it is still the same today for most
people. IMHO, that puts the concept of "choice" or "consent" in a
slightly different light than the one usually presented. Sure, nobody
is forced to marry at gunpoint. That does not render possible some of
the options presented here as a choice.
If you consider the consequences of our society's attitude on sex, you
will probably find out that it is all smoke and mirrors. Everyone is
against cheating (almost), yet it appears that more than half the
couples cheat at some point.
Maybe the solution would indeed to put the contradiction of our
attitudes in the open. Let us jail the cheaters or, as used to be the
case, stone them to death in public. Make sure that anyone engaged
assists and contributes to an execution right before committing to
marriage. Maybe people will start to think more of their commitment
and demand more open marriages then.
(The latter paragraph is not to be taken literally of course.)
> After 40-odd
> years of an on-the-whole good marriage that neither partner has any
> intention of dissolving, the question is not 'why monogamy', but how
> does one navigate this mine field called sex when the partners are on
> different pages.
>
> This is not my situation and I don't have such an agonizing problem,
> but it is a question some people must unfortunately ponder.
>
The question asked here is a question of morality. As I pointed out, I
don't think that the question of morality can be answered. As far as I
can tell, one could even argue that requiring a monogamous commitment
is in itself immoral. Why not? Requiring from your partner a blanket
statement to perform some sex acts would be thought as immoral by many
people (and is against the law in many countries), why wouldn't
requiring a blanket statement NOT to perform some sex acts any less
immoral?
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>That was my point. And believe me, I have no good answers.
Moralists urging you to fix things or leave rather than cheat fail to realize
that therapy or breakups don't ease the ache of sexual drought with the one you
love most.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>That might be a good question for couples making commitments today,
>but it was most certainly not a question or even a thought when I got
>married in the 60s of the previous century (as someone recently
>referred to those glorious years of my youth <shudder>). After 40-odd
>years of an on-the-whole good marriage that neither partner has any
>intention of dissolving, the question is not 'why monogamy', but how
>does one navigate this mine field called sex when the partners are on
>different pages.
I'm saying that the possibility of sex with other partners should enter into
such a discussion. My preference would be for supplementary or external
relationships to coexist with the primary one in an open manner. But, if the
primary partner is categorically unwilling to entertain such relationships and
unable to get on the same sexual page, there could be some justification to
unilateral infidelity.
>This is not my situation and I don't have such an agonizing problem,
>but it is a question some people must unfortunately ponder.
It seems that with my relationship luck, I have always had to ponder it in one
way or another. I am currently in the midst of a sexual drought in which every
other aspect of our relationship is going ideally well.
Orlando
Remus Shepherd
> I'm back from a couple days' respite, and I skimmed the deluge of
> messages that have hit the "Problem-morning sex" thread, mostly regarding
> Orlando and toramjero's defense of cheating as a morally acceptable
> option. I won't sink hours into responding to posts individually, but I
> think that whole tangent centers on a basic question:
> *What factors contribute to a particular sex act being moral or immoral?*
Ah-hah. Something I have actually studied a bit.
Ethicists do not group things into just moral and immoral. They
recognize that morality depends on circumstances, and the right circumstances
can change an immoral act into a moral one, or vice versa. Thus, they group
things into 'Always Immoral', 'Typically Immoral', 'Typically Moral', and
'Always Moral'. That said, very few actions fall into the 'always'
categories.
Now, the tricky part is how you determine what falls into which category.
I prefer the simple test, 'Does it harm anyone?'
(Note that every example I use here is going to get someone upset. :)
I'm not trying to start arguments, and I *will not participate in any*.
I'm just showing examples.)
Few things fall into the 'Always Immoral' category, but Rape and
Necrophilia are pretty easy to place here. Both acts always harm someone
or put someone at risk. (Necrophilia puts the necrophile at risk; dead
bodies are not safe to be in close contact with, and there are harmful
psychological consequences.)
Many, many things fall into the 'Typically Immoral' category. These
acts usually cause harm (sometimes catastrophic harm), but that harm can
be avoided given special circumstances or extreme care by the participants.
Pedophilia, bestiality, and BDSM fall here.
'Typically Moral' is also a wide category, which includes normal sex,
homosexual acts, fetishism, etc. There's nothing wrong with any of these,
but circumstances can make them immoral. It's immoral if you do any of
these acts in public, for example, or if one is cheating, etc.
I can't think of any 'Always Moral' sex acts, unless you specify a
typically moral act's boundaries. (Normal sex with two willing, married
partners with no health issues in private -- that's a typically moral act
that, when performed within the given boundaries, is always moral.)
Most fantasies should be considered 'Always Moral'. Fantasies don't
harm anyone, although some extreme fantasies might cause psychological harm
to the person envisioning them. (Anyone who doesn't know what I mean here
has never frequented a Furry MUCK. ;) )
> There are those who have argued (in general, not neccessarily on SSG let
> alone a particular thread) that particular acts are immoral in
> themselves, (oral sex, homosexual sex, etc.).
Most arguments along those lines are religious in nature. I believe all
cases of consensual sex between adults are 'Typically Moral' -- there's
usually nothing wrong with them, but circumstances may change that.
> Some have even argued that
> a sex is somehow so different than every other human experience that
> general moral rules such as honesty, keeping one's word, and not stealing
> don't apply.
In the right circumstances lying and stealing can be the right thing to
do. But they're Typically Immoral -- without extenuating circumstances,
they're immoral acts.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Serene Vannoy
Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
Dave
<ser...@serenepages.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
>person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
>necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
I was planning on posting similar, but you beat me to it. To me, moral
and ethical decisions only come into play when considering impact on
others, choosing to take a personal risk isn't a moral issue at all,
it's just a simple risk:benefit analysis.
Denny Wheeler
<re...@panix.com> wrote:
> Ethicists do not group things into just moral and immoral. They
>recognize that morality depends on circumstances, and the right circumstances
>can change an immoral act into a moral one, or vice versa. Thus, they group
>things into 'Always Immoral', 'Typically Immoral', 'Typically Moral', and
>'Always Moral'. That said, very few actions fall into the 'always'
>categories.
There are things which, for me, are moral, but in some circumstances I
wouldn't do them because I'd find them unethical in those circs.
I'm a lot more of a stickler about my ethics than my morality, though
generally they are coincident. I tend to dislike the term 'moral'
because there's such a strong implication of religious connection to
morals. Not for me, there isn't, but in general.
Denny Wheeler
I think there is, for starters, the very good choice of communication
between the partners in such a case. Granted, the discussion which
arises may lead to impasse--but not always, and (IMO) certainly not as
often as the 'I don't want to stray but I don't want to be without sex
either' person may fear.
Remus Shepherd
Yeah, a lot of people feel that way. But the ethicists I've read have
all been of the opinion that harming oneself is immoral. Don't take me as
an authority or anything, though. I'm just a deviant who was researching
excuses to feel better about myself. :)
Serene Vannoy
> Dave <calga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <ser...@serenepages.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>> Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
>>> person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
>>> necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
>
>> I was planning on posting similar, but you beat me to it. To me, moral
>> and ethical decisions only come into play when considering impact on
>> others, choosing to take a personal risk isn't a moral issue at all,
>> it's just a simple risk:benefit analysis.
>
> Yeah, a lot of people feel that way. But the ethicists I've read have
> all been of the opinion that harming oneself is immoral.
And very few of the ones I've read have been of that opinion. In fact,
it's commonly held in the ethics texts I'm aware of that allowing
oneself to come to harm in order to prevent harm to others (I know
that's not what we're discussing) is a very high moral good indeed.
> Don't take me as
> an authority or anything, though. I'm just a deviant who was researching
> excuses to feel better about myself. :)
Heh.
Denny Wheeler
<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
(he who herds wolves)
>> Yeah, a lot of people feel that way. But the ethicists I've read have
>> all been of the opinion that harming oneself is immoral.
>
>And very few of the ones I've read have been of that opinion. In fact,
>it's commonly held in the ethics texts I'm aware of that allowing
>oneself to come to harm in order to prevent harm to others (I know
>that's not what we're discussing) is a very high moral good indeed.
Sorta the human version of the Three Laws of Robotics.
(the hierarchy is that the lower number trumps the higher number)
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow
a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Denny Wheeler
You start making value judgments. But first you find out some things.
Which usually comes back to--wait for it--communication.
If the no-longer-sexual partner says, "if you go elsewhere it's over"
that's a datum. If the still-sexual partner has an investment of self
in the commitment heesh made, that's a datum. Obviously, how much
that still-sexual person desires sex is another datum. Once the data
are in, you start weighing things.
Every factor has weight--the individual has to figure out the relative
weights. There are a *lot* of factors involved, but--if the nonsexual
partner is adamantly against the idea of t'other one going elsewhere
for that aspect only--it comes down to 'which matters more to me: sex
or the relationship'. Ain't nobody can answer that for you, or for
me, or for Joe Bfstplk--except the person(s) involved.
But what I've been seeing a lot of in this newsgroup looks a very
great deal to me like rationalizing. The "I want to do this, so how
do I justify it to myself and others" sort of thing. To me, in fact,
the sort of thinking which winds up at, "It's not my fault. <fitb>
made me do it." IOW, claiming no personal responsibility.
Which is--IME--virtually always bullshit.
toramjero
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:12:39 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol
>
> <of...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>Finally a fresh perspective, that of autonomy. The dilemma faced by a
> >>person who loves hir partner, appreciates and respects hir, and shares
> >>children, grandchildren, love and life -- a home in the broadest
> >>sense, who is still sexual and whose partner has become non-sexual and
> >>has no "good" choices.
>
> >Moralizing may make the moralizer feel self righteous, but it rarely improves
> >the bad choices that so often plague these situations. It's easy to advise
> >anyone that breaking up a relationship is better than cheating, strictly on
> >ethical grounds. But, what happens when there's too much good in the
> >relationship to throw away over sex?
>
> You start making value judgments. But first you find out some things.
> Which usually comes back to--wait for it--communication.
>
> If the no-longer-sexual partner says, "if you go elsewhere it's over"
> that's a datum. If the still-sexual partner has an investment of self
> in the commitment heesh made, that's a datum. Obviously, how much
> that still-sexual person desires sex is another datum. Once the data
> are in, you start weighing things.
>
> Every factor has weight--the individual has to figure out the relative
> weights. There are a *lot* of factors involved, but--if the nonsexual
> partner is adamantly against the idea of t'other one going elsewhere
> for that aspect only--it comes down to 'which matters more to me: sex
> or the relationship'. Ain't nobody can answer that for you, or for
> me, or for Joe Bfstplk--except the person(s) involved.
>
But that is not the question. The question was not "is it ethical to
divorce if your partner refuses sex?". The question was about lying.
And even then: the question is not about ANY lie, it is about people
lying to get something when they see no other solution.
Lying is bad. Nobody disputed that, not even Orlando. The matter is
when people see no other way out. Even Orlando explicitly said that he
would like to have other choices, and that Illecebra should feel lucky
to have them (I am not discussing whether Orlando and Illecebra have
choices or not, I am just stating that this is the problem as it is
discussed.)
Someone on another forum where I saw this discussion put it nicely in
a nutshell: "Of course, I would prefer to tell my partner! Certainly,
I don't like to have an affair in hiding. But the problem with my
partner is that I only have two options: either I don't do it or I
don't do it. Even discussing it is not an option: by discussing it, I
would acknowledge that I consider it. And I don't have the right to
consider it, it should not even exist."
It is not about sex, it is about communication or rather the absence
of it. It is about power and control. One wants and the other
doesn't.
It doesn't even have to be in a relationship. For example: men lie to
get sex. Some of them promise eternal love and leave the next morning.
Is it bad? Sure. But I can insure you that they would far prefer a
woman who would just jump into the sack with them no question asked.
It is just that they believe they can't find any. Whether it is true
or not, that's what they believe and they behave accordingly. Of
course, women lie just as much. They just tell different fables.
Back to the relationship problem. It doesn't have to be lack of sex,
it may be that one partner (male or female) wants something that the
partner is not prepared to give: sex, romance, a particular kink,
bisexuality, anything. Something that someone else could offer. What
are the real options?
You can accept the partner diktat. Because people cannot live with
open, burning, unsatisfied desires in front of their eyes for too
long, usually they respond by trying to pretend that they had no such
desire in the first place. You can go really crazy doing that.
You can say no, pack your stuff and leave. That's expensive
(emotionally) and the most important point: it does not solve the
problem. You remove an obstacle, but that is only the first step. And
the remaining steps may never materialize. I have seen more than one
divorced man or woman who realized that they could still not find the
kind of partner they wanted and leave alone.
You can do it openly. No lie: you tell your partner that you will not
do as he or she pleases. Then the partner has to chose to divorce or
stay.
You can lie and make the impossibles meet. You will have to live with
the internal conflict.
It is a choice between bad and evil. C'est la vie.
> But what I've been seeing a lot of in this newsgroup looks a very
> great deal to me like rationalizing. The "I want to do this, so how
> do I justify it to myself and others" sort of thing. To me, in fact,
> the sort of thinking which winds up at, "It's not my fault. <fitb>
> made me do it." IOW, claiming no personal responsibility.
> Which is--IME--virtually always bullshit.
>
Agreed. Not only in the newsgroups.
Norton
Good to see you back here.
I'll try to keep this short.
When one marries, one promises to do several things, some stated
explicitly, some not. Being faithful is one. Providing sexual
satisfaction to one's partner is another. Taking out the garbage
is a third, but let's not go there since that is too deep and
complex a problem for mere mortals to solve.
Marriage is far more complex than simply keeping, or not keeping,
a set of promises. Sometimes the overall good requires violations
of promises made. For instance it is today considered OK to have
multiple partners if all are informed and all agree. Fifty years
ago it was NOT considered OK and in some states subjected folks
who did so to criminal penalties.
Marriage is a very complex situation. One does not enter into
it with the expectation that saying "I do" meant a vow of chastity
or having to continence infidelity.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Or even ethical ones, in the older sense of the word.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>JustGB wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 11:29 pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For me, the central issue here is not honesty or keeping one's word
>>> but rather autonomy. Even in the most traditional monogamous relationships, a
>>> marriage contract does not convert every individual action into a communal one.
>>> In that sense, a monogamous person who cheats is acting upon his human sexual
>>> autonomy, an autonomy that is never revoked by a monogamy agreement or marriage
>>> contract.
>>
>> Finally a fresh perspective, that of autonomy. The dilemma faced by a
>> person who loves hir partner, appreciates and respects hir, and shares
>> children, grandchildren, love and life -- a home in the broadest
>> sense, who is still sexual and whose partner has become non-sexual and
>> has no "good" choices.
>One can assert one's autonomy in an open and honest fashion, without
>cheating. In point of fact, I come into relationships with the explicit
>caveat that I will never agree to monogamy, or to giving my partners a
>vote in who I date/love/fuck. (That doesn't mean they don't get input;
>just that my vote is the only one that carries the weight of law, as it
>were.)
Consider: what is moral is either decided by society or by
the individual. If by the society then you are living, by
their standards, in a highly immoral way. If by the individual,
then you are quite properly asserting your morality.
But if by the individual, then Mr. (or Mrs.) X is still being
moral making there own choices about who they date/love/fuck.
--
--- Norton
Norton
I'd not quite agree. The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Quite possibly because there *are* no good answers.
I think that most folks, violators of the standard moral code or
not, feel that they are operating in a way that minimizes pain for
the people they care about -- and to society at large.
Sometimes that doesn't work out. Often it does.
--
--- Norton
Norton
But Serene, informed consent is hard to obtain... ;-)
--
--- Norton
Norton
I agree, except that it isn't simple...
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Dave <calga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <ser...@serenepages.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>> >Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
>> >person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
>> >necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
>> I was planning on posting similar, but you beat me to it. To me, moral
>> and ethical decisions only come into play when considering impact on
>> others, choosing to take a personal risk isn't a moral issue at all,
>> it's just a simple risk:benefit analysis.
> Yeah, a lot of people feel that way. But the ethicists I've read have
>all been of the opinion that harming oneself is immoral. Don't take me as
>an authority or anything, though. I'm just a deviant who was researching
>excuses to feel better about myself. :)
Feel fine about yourself Remus. It wasn't very long ago
that "unnatural acts" included anything *other* than the
missionary position, and directly included oral sex of
any sort.
I don't expect that the practitioners of that black art
(and other similar ones such as "rimming" or "reverse
cowgirl") felt sorry for themselves -- unless they were
arrested for it.
I believe that the last such arrest in the US was within the
last 20 years for homosexual behavior, which we all know is
abhorrent, immoral, and deviant. ;-)
--
--- Norton
Desideria
I'd be really interested in knowing what the non-sex-interested
partner says if asked this:
"I really can't live without sex in my life. After <fitb> with none, I
know this. How do you suggest WE handle this problem?"
Desideria
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
> The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
>an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
Nor do I. Now, how about the young whippersnappers?
(better not snap MY whipper)
JustGB
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:00:48 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
> >an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
>
> Nor do I. Now, how about the young whippersnappers?
I suspect the younger the whipper, the clearer the answers.
JustGB
toramjero
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 05:29:23 -0700 (PDT), toramjero
>
>
>
> <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 2, 4:06 am, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH)
> ><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:12:39 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol
>
> >divorce if your partner refuses sex?". The question was about lying.
> >And even then: the question is not about ANY lie, it is about people
> >lying to get something when they see no other solution.
>
> >Lying is bad. Nobody disputed that, not even Orlando. The matter is
> >when people see no other way out. Even Orlando explicitly said that he
> >would like to have other choices, and that Illecebra should feel lucky
> >to have them (I am not discussing whether Orlando and Illecebra have
> >choices or not, I am just stating that this is the problem as it is
> >discussed.)
>
> >Someone on another forum where I saw this discussion put it nicely in
> >a nutshell: "Of course, I would prefer to tell my partner! Certainly,
> >I don't like to have an affair in hiding. But the problem with my
> >partner is that I only have two options: either I don't do it or I
> >don't do it. Even discussing it is not an option: by discussing it, I
> >would acknowledge that I consider it. And I don't have the right to
> >consider it, it should not even exist."
>
> >It is not about sex, it is about communication or rather the absence
> >of it. It is about power and control. One wants and the other
> >doesn't.
>
> I'd be really interested in knowing what the non-sex-interested
> partner says if asked this:
>
> "I really can't live without sex in my life. After <fitb> with none, I
> know this. How do you suggest WE handle this problem?"
>
>
This depends on the partner, obviously. But the issue here is not what
the partner would really say, but what you believe he or she would
say. If you believe he or she would take out a gun and shoot you, you
are not very likely to ask the question (and some people really do
that, BTW). However, I would think that in most cases, the situation
has evolved to this point after a long time of conflict with one
partner having asked for sex a zillion times and the other having
refused more or less openly. The answer is therefore likely to be in
the line of "you are always interested in sex, what is wrong with
you?" or "why do you harass me all the time? Am I supposed to force
myself?".
The situation would not have evolved to the point of months without
sex if the partner wanted to suggest a way to handle the problem. That
is the work of a marriage counselor, BTW: find a way to restore that
communication so that both can find a way to handle the problem.
As a side note, I would like to point that we already have one answer
in this discussion. It was "you CAN live without sex, nobody dies from
lack of sex alone".
I would also like to point out that lack of sex is a very limited
example. What if you had plenty of sex but:
-were bisexual and had needs of having sex with somebody of the same
sex that your primary partner obviously can't offer and your partner
could not talk from homosexuals in different terms than fagots and
dikes?
-had sadomasochistic fantasies when your partner thinks that BDSM
people should be treated for mental illness?
-suddenly felt in love with someone you met a short time ago, but
still had feelings for your partner and realized that indeed you can
love two persons at the same time when your partner always talked
about love as being exclusive?
-had profound longings for sex with multiple partners (it is not only
men, think about a woman who had fantasies of acting a gang-bang and
being the center of attention of a crowd of men for example) and your
partner remarked a few times during the years together that swingers
are below the scum of humanity?
I guess that you have realized now what I wanted to say: usually
people have day to day knowledge of their partner's opinion. When they
have not, they usually try to find out by asking abstract questions
without outing themselves ("I've heard that Tom and Louise are
swingers"). They may also use as a source of knowledge what the
partner has said 20 years ago and is long forgotten, except by the
person who was hurt in their feelings ("masochists should be put in a
mental institution"). Partners are under constant scrutiny one from
the other, and acute scrutiny when one wants something that the other
won't give. The knowledge may indeed not be accurate, the partner may
have evolved or could evolve and change their opinion. But the
knowledge is the base for fear, and fear changes communication into
aggression.
Remus Shepherd
> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
> >Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
> >person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
> >necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
> But Serene, informed consent is hard to obtain... ;-)
Nah, the hard part is cleaning the lube off the Ouija board afterwards.
;)
Desideria
Sigh. That phrase is still a valid one, for a person saying :"This is
not a way that I can live". And the phrase is valid for ANY thing that
one partner really strongly needs, cannot have without the other's
cooperation/consent, and which the other has not provided. I *do*
think that in a committed relationship both partners are obligated to
consider and compromise on each others' needs.
Desideria
Norton
The answers can range from denial as in "What problem?", to
anger as in "Why do you always want to talk about sex?" to
simply ignoring the situation as in: "Could you pass me the
TV control wand?"
And that's not all. Most of the responses generate anger and
pretty soon there is a shouting match or somebody (not always
the woman) starts to cry. Then doors slam and one has to decide
whether to pack and move out right then or just let it drop.
The latter option usually wins until the next time, when the
scenario repeats.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>> >Interesting. I would put something that causes harm to no one except the
>> >person in question into the "Always Moral" category. In the case of
>> >necrophilia, I'd call it "Icky but not immoral".
>> But Serene, informed consent is hard to obtain... ;-)
> Nah, the hard part is cleaning the lube off the Ouija board afterwards.
>;)
There is that. Probably one should use telepathy or Tarot.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Sure. But what if one person (and it isn't always the woman
by a long shot) has really lost all sexual desire. What then?
And yes, this does happen. Sometimes it is reversible, sometimes
not.
--
--- Norton
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then real communication is not happening, and the couple may need help
to get actual communication going (accepting how the other person
feels, without defensiveness, and working together to come up with
solutions with which both partners can cope).
Desideria
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then I think they must decide *together* how to address the
problem--and I'm not dismissing it as a real problem. I think the one
who's lost all sexual desire has to understand that the other still
feels it, and not dismiss that feeling as unimportant (ideally, in all
committed relationships the other person's feelings are a strong
consideration).
Desideria
Norton
I think that's a good answer. But what if the person who has
lost all sexual desire denies that? That's when you start getting
the answer that "all you ever want to talk about is sex" or "you
don't love me", and so on.
If one is in this position of having a mate who has lost all sexual
desire and if one is willing to push it to a divorce if there is
no cooperation, then there ultimately is no problem. Yes, there will
be pain and hurt feelings, but if one will take a divorce, that will
end *this* problem because you hold the trump cards.
But what if one does NOT want a divorce? What is other aspects of
the marriage are great? What if your mate is in many ways your
best friend and you have been through a lot of life together? Then
the other person holds the trump cards and there is little you
can do, except cheat.
This does not make cheating right. What it is is a "solution" that
brings the least pain NOW. Sometimes one's mate suspects that you
are cheating but does not bring it up. That's a solution. But few
people want to have their faces rubbed in the fact that their mate
is cheating. So extreme discretion is called for, not even to protect
yourself, but to protect your mate.
And sometimes one's mate finds out that you are cheating and hits
the roof. What do you do then. I'd say that the cheater should have
their choices figured out before hand. But this is the worst possible
situation. Each case will be different.
--
--- Norton
Norton
What you are not facing is that there is NO SOLUTION with which
both partners can cope.
--
--- Norton
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Then I think they must decide *together* how to address the
>>problem--and I'm not dismissing it as a real problem. I think the one
>>who's lost all sexual desire has to understand that the other still
>>feels it, and not dismiss that feeling as unimportant (ideally, in all
>>committed relationships the other person's feelings are a strong
>>consideration).
>
>I think that's a good answer. But what if the person who has
>lost all sexual desire denies that? That's when you start getting
>the answer that "all you ever want to talk about is sex" or "you
>don't love me", and so on.
From such specific 'what ifs', I tend to wonder if you've been in such
a situation or seen it close up, Norton. Not asking you though, as
it's none of my business. If the person who's lost all sexual desire
denies they've lost all sexual desire? Then the couple *still* has a
problem, and one they have to address together: one person sees the
other as without desire, but the other sees the first as sex-crazed.
IOW, they still need communication and maybe help to get to the point
of real communication.
>If one is in this position of having a mate who has lost all sexual
>desire and if one is willing to push it to a divorce if there is
>no cooperation, then there ultimately is no problem. Yes, there will
>be pain and hurt feelings, but if one will take a divorce, that will
>end *this* problem because you hold the trump cards.
As others have said here, not necessarily. Being single does NOT
guarantee that one has sex. The only sex any of us is truly guaranteed
is masturbation.
>But what if one does NOT want a divorce? What is other aspects of
>the marriage are great? What if your mate is in many ways your
>best friend and you have been through a lot of life together? Then
>the other person holds the trump cards and there is little you
>can do, except cheat.
>
>This does not make cheating right. What it is is a "solution" that
>brings the least pain NOW. Sometimes one's mate suspects that you
>are cheating but does not bring it up. That's a solution. But few
>people want to have their faces rubbed in the fact that their mate
>is cheating. So extreme discretion is called for, not even to protect
>yourself, but to protect your mate.
>
>And sometimes one's mate finds out that you are cheating and hits
>the roof. What do you do then. I'd say that the cheater should have
>their choices figured out before hand. But this is the worst possible
>situation. Each case will be different.
Hmmm. I guess there MAY be cases where the couple has come to an
unspoken "don't ask, don't tell" agreement.
BUT, as far as I'm concerned infidelity in a relationship (by
'infidelity', I mean sex outside the relationship, without the
knowledge and consent of the other partner) is a sign of a broken
relationship--one that needs fixing. But then, I think that the lack
of sex in a relationship--SOME kind of sex, that both can agree on as
acceptable--is also a sign of a broken relationship.
As others have said elsewhere, if one person *strongly* needs a kind
of sex that the other can't/won't provide, they have to address that
together, as well. It may be that the only option is divorce in that
case, if one partner can't live with the other's sexual needs,
especially if they involve an act that the other just can't
accept---pedophilia, for instance.
Desideria
Denny Wheeler
Yeah. When I was 18, I knew all the answers.
But then they changed all the friggin' questions!!!
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I'd be really interested in knowing what the non-sex-interested
>>>partner says if asked this:
>>
>>>"I really can't live without sex in my life. After <fitb> with none, I
>>>know this. How do you suggest WE handle this problem?"
>>
>>The answers can range from denial as in "What problem?", to
>>anger as in "Why do you always want to talk about sex?" to
>>simply ignoring the situation as in: "Could you pass me the
>>TV control wand?"
>>
>>And that's not all. Most of the responses generate anger and
>>pretty soon there is a shouting match or somebody (not always
>>the woman) starts to cry. Then doors slam and one has to decide
>>whether to pack and move out right then or just let it drop.
>>
>>The latter option usually wins until the next time, when the
>>scenario repeats.
>
>
>Then real communication is not happening, and the couple may need help
>to get actual communication going (accepting how the other person
>feels, without defensiveness, and working together to come up with
>solutions with which both partners can cope).
I keep saying and saying that my sweetie is a Very Smart Girl. She
keeps proving it.
Denny Wheeler
<tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>The situation would not have evolved to the point of months without
>sex if the partner wanted to suggest a way to handle the problem. That
>is the work of a marriage counselor, BTW: find a way to restore that
>communication so that both can find a way to handle the problem.
It's a whole lot easier to start with a high level of communication
and then maintain it. (having experienced both the 'almost no
communication' and the 'lots of communication' relationships)
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:26:01 -0700 (PDT), toramjero
><tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The situation would not have evolved to the point of months without
>>sex if the partner wanted to suggest a way to handle the problem. That
>>is the work of a marriage counselor, BTW: find a way to restore that
>>communication so that both can find a way to handle the problem.
>
>It's a whole lot easier to start with a high level of communication
>and then maintain it. (having experienced both the 'almost no
>communication' and the 'lots of communication' relationships)
Of course, not every relationship has a high level of communication,
either. I've experienced both kinds, as well--and even the 'high
level' relationships seem to always have room for more.
Desideria
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:06:32 -0700 (PDT), JustGB
><getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 3, 5:39 am, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH)
>><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:00:48 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
>>> >an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
>>>
>>> Nor do I. Now, how about the young whippersnappers?
>>
>>I suspect the younger the whipper, the clearer the answers.
>
>Yeah. When I was 18, I knew all the answers.
>
>But then they changed all the friggin' questions!!!
I remember being that sure of myself, too. I wonder if it's just part
of being young--I remember knowing all the answers until I was about
30 or so, then things got more complicated.
Desideria
suzee
That must be when they changed the questions...
sue
toramjero
> Desideria <desideria1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 02:17:55 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
> >wrote:
So one could say that lying is a way to let your partner cope with the
solution... ;)
JustGB
Yup. Thirty is when I traded those killer high heals for more
comfortable shoes and also realized that faithfully smearing cream on
my face was not going to prevent sundry lines from forming. And my
parents started getting really smart about then, too.
JustGB
toramjero
> I would also like to point out that lack of sex is a very limited
> example. What if you had plenty of sex but:
> -were bisexual and had needs of having sex with somebody of the same
> sex that your primary partner obviously can't offer and your partner
> could not talk from homosexuals in different terms than fagots and
> dikes?
> -had sadomasochistic fantasies when your partner thinks that BDSM
> people should be treated for mental illness?
> -suddenly felt in love with someone you met a short time ago, but
> still had feelings for your partner and realized that indeed you can
> love two persons at the same time when your partner always talked
> about love as being exclusive?
> -had profound longings for sex with multiple partners (it is not only
> men, think about a woman who had fantasies of acting a gang-bang and
> being the center of attention of a crowd of men for example) and your
> partner remarked a few times during the years together that swingers
> are below the scum of humanity?
>
At the moment, this thread focuses on couples where one partner lost
desire. I would like to ask a few other questions about lying or not
lying.
First: suppose that you are a man who is not interested in a long term
commitment. You just prefer a series of ONS. "Radical honesty" says
that you should actively tell any prospective woman about it, just
ignoring the subject is not enough. How many women do you think will
accept to hear "yes, I would like to have sex with you, but won't stay
more than a night or two". I guess that even a woman who is interested
in short term relationships will not like to hear that... what do you
think?
Second: suppose that you are a woman in the same case and think about
how men would react.
Third: suppose that you are a man in a relationship. You never
promised exclusivity. Your wife, on the other hand, wants you for her
alone. You meet another woman and radical honesty means that you will
tell her the whole story. Do you think that you will still have sex
with her or do you think that she will side with your wife?
Fourth: same question for a woman.
Denny Wheeler
Yes, dear.
Norton
>On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:10:38 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Then I think they must decide *together* how to address the
>>>problem--and I'm not dismissing it as a real problem. I think the one
>>>who's lost all sexual desire has to understand that the other still
>>>feels it, and not dismiss that feeling as unimportant (ideally, in all
>>>committed relationships the other person's feelings are a strong
>>>consideration).
>>
>>I think that's a good answer. But what if the person who has
>>lost all sexual desire denies that? That's when you start getting
>>the answer that "all you ever want to talk about is sex" or "you
>>don't love me", and so on.
>From such specific 'what ifs', I tend to wonder if you've been in such
>a situation or seen it close up, Norton. Not asking you though, as
>it's none of my business. If the person who's lost all sexual desire
>denies they've lost all sexual desire? Then the couple *still* has a
>problem, and one they have to address together: one person sees the
>other as without desire, but the other sees the first as sex-crazed.
>IOW, they still need communication and maybe help to get to the point
>of real communication.
Old timers here know that Norton is an old timer. Yes, he's seen
that situation with a number of couples. The person in denial often
will simply refuse to talk to anyone who might help. Indeed, often
claims that the problem belongs to the other person, not them.
>>If one is in this position of having a mate who has lost all sexual
>>desire and if one is willing to push it to a divorce if there is
>>no cooperation, then there ultimately is no problem. Yes, there will
>>be pain and hurt feelings, but if one will take a divorce, that will
>>end *this* problem because you hold the trump cards.
>As others have said here, not necessarily. Being single does NOT
>guarantee that one has sex. The only sex any of us is truly guaranteed
>is masturbation.
<grin> Of course you are right. And when you get up into the rarified
ages around four score and ten you will learn that not even masturbation
is guaranteed.
>>But what if one does NOT want a divorce? What is other aspects of
>>the marriage are great? What if your mate is in many ways your
>>best friend and you have been through a lot of life together? Then
>>the other person holds the trump cards and there is little you
>>can do, except cheat.
>>
>>This does not make cheating right. What it is is a "solution" that
>>brings the least pain NOW. Sometimes one's mate suspects that you
>>are cheating but does not bring it up. That's a solution. But few
>>people want to have their faces rubbed in the fact that their mate
>>is cheating. So extreme discretion is called for, not even to protect
>>yourself, but to protect your mate.
>>
>>And sometimes one's mate finds out that you are cheating and hits
>>the roof. What do you do then. I'd say that the cheater should have
>>their choices figured out before hand. But this is the worst possible
>>situation. Each case will be different.
>Hmmm. I guess there MAY be cases where the couple has come to an
>unspoken "don't ask, don't tell" agreement.
>BUT, as far as I'm concerned infidelity in a relationship (by
>'infidelity', I mean sex outside the relationship, without the
>knowledge and consent of the other partner) is a sign of a broken
>relationship--one that needs fixing. But then, I think that the lack
>of sex in a relationship--SOME kind of sex, that both can agree on as
>acceptable--is also a sign of a broken relationship.
I agree.
>As others have said elsewhere, if one person *strongly* needs a kind
>of sex that the other can't/won't provide, they have to address that
>together, as well. It may be that the only option is divorce in that
>case, if one partner can't live with the other's sexual needs,
>especially if they involve an act that the other just can't
>accept---pedophilia, for instance.
Again, I agree. But I don't think we've been talking about pedophilia.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Wait until you are sixty.... ;-(
--
--- Norton
Norton
The range of possible answers for the situation (I'd not call them
solutions) is large. It runs from giving up sex to divorce in one
direction, from silence to continual fighting in the other.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and guess that the moral absolutists
among us are relatively young. That's 40 or under. In my opinion
marriage involves a whole bunch of "promises" and "agreements". One
stupid one is the famous "who takes out the garbage" question. It
isn't in any marriage contract I've seen.
But sex is perhaps the single most integral part of marriage. But
there are many others includine honesty, care, respect, and so on.
Problems involving sex cut across these lines. Many folks (because
there are a *huge* number of adulterers out there) seem to feel that
hiding the problem in cheating is the way that is the easiest or
the one leading to maximum happiness.
Each case is different.
And by the way, my feeling is that the number of male adulterers
is roughly the same as the number of female adulterers, or a very
few women are spending all their time having sex with married men.
But men seem to be more willing to discuss adultery openly -- not
admit it of course -- but to talk about it. The more typical response
from women is "you are cheating if you do it."
--
--- Norton
Norton
Hah! I'm ahead of you. My parents started having sex when I
was 22.
--
--- Norton
Norton
That's an entirely different story. The man has no real reason
to be dishonest except to trick the woman into having sex. If
you think that she's interested in a long-term relationship you
really have to tell her that that isn't now in your agenda.
If you mislead her into thinking that you are interested in a long
term relationship, she has the right to be very angry.
But in any case, with unmarried (i.e. uncommitted people) there
are no pre-established rules as there are in marriage.
>Second: suppose that you are a woman in the same case and think about
>how men would react.
Exactly the same.
>Third: suppose that you are a man in a relationship. You never
>promised exclusivity. Your wife, on the other hand, wants you for her
>alone. You meet another woman and radical honesty means that you will
>tell her the whole story. Do you think that you will still have sex
>with her or do you think that she will side with your wife?
Whoa. If you never promised exclusivity by simply not mentioning
it, but had it in mind all along, you are guilty of fraud because
modern marriage *assumes* exclusivity.
How a woman would react to such news once married depends on the
woman. But I'd not bet on her being happy.
>Fourth: same question for a woman.
Same answer.
--
--- Norton
Gordon
[snip]
> When one marries, one promises to do several things, some stated
> explicitly, some not.
Yep the real world situation.
> Being faithful is one. Providing sexual
> satisfaction to one's partner is another.
This is implied, as history/protcols does not allow the brdge and grom to
say we will ensure that we give the other satifaction during sex, most of
the time.
> Taking out the garbage
> is a third, but let's not go there since that is too deep and
> complex a problem for mere mortals to solve.
Now you have transferred the problems in the bedroom to the mundane.
>
> Marriage is far more complex than simply keeping, or not keeping,
> a set of promises. Sometimes the overall good requires violations
> of promises made.
As any partnership.
> For instance it is today considered OK to have
> multiple partners if all are informed and all agree. Fifty years
> ago it was NOT considered OK and in some states subjected folks
> who did so to criminal penalties.
Mixing the time line up her are we not Norton? Times change yes?
>
> Marriage is a very complex situation. One does not enter into
> it with the expectation that saying "I do" meant a vow of chastity
> or having to continence infidelity.
>
Back to the real world. Life is complex, as are people
Gordon
> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 29, 7:29 am, JustGB <gettingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 28, 11:29 pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > For me, the central issue here is not honesty or keeping one's word
>>> > but rather autonomy. Even in the most traditional monogamous relationships, a
>>> > marriage contract does not convert every individual action into a communal one.
>>> > In that sense, a monogamous person who cheats is acting upon his human sexual
>>> > autonomy, an autonomy that is never revoked by a monogamy agreement or marriage
>>> > contract.
>>>
>>> Finally a fresh perspective, that of autonomy. The dilemma faced by a
>>> person who loves hir partner, appreciates and respects hir, and shares
>>> children, grandchildren, love and life -- a home in the broadest
>>> sense, who is still sexual and whose partner has become non-sexual and
>>> has no "good" choices.
>>>
>>>
>
>>not morally justify lying (that was the example with breaking in the
>>landlord's house), but your example
>>show the problem: people put themselves in impossible situations.
>
>>I think that the right question here may be: "why do people agree to
>>monogamy?".
>
> I'd not quite agree. The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
> an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
>
"right" way.
The real imprtant point is, as long as it does not affect anyone one else,
live and let live. And try to understand why they do
Gordon
deal. Mark Twain.
Yes it is important that we have the youth, for with out the rebel, there
would be no progress.
Hint who suggested that recycling was the way to go, and nuclear weapons
were not?
I listen to today's youth for they are kicking at the gates which will swing
open soon
Gordon
> JustGB <getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yup. Thirty is when I traded those killer high heals for more
>>comfortable shoes and also realized that faithfully smearing cream on
>>my face was not going to prevent sundry lines from forming. And my
>>parents started getting really smart about then, too.
>
> Hah! I'm ahead of you. My parents started having sex when I
> was 22.
>
Desideria
wrote:
>Desideria <deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:27:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>>LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:06:32 -0700 (PDT), JustGB
>>><getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 3, 5:39 am, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH)
>>>><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:00:48 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > The problem lies, for me, in the concept of
>>>>> >an absolute morality. I don't believe there is such a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor do I. Now, how about the young whippersnappers?
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the younger the whipper, the clearer the answers.
>>>
>>>Yeah. When I was 18, I knew all the answers.
>>>
>>>But then they changed all the friggin' questions!!!
>
>>I remember being that sure of myself, too. I wonder if it's just part
>>of being young--I remember knowing all the answers until I was about
>>30 or so, then things got more complicated.
>
>Wait until you are sixty.... ;-(
What happens *then*, Norton? ;-) (Denny hasn't mentioned it yet...)
Desideria
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:26:13 -0700, Desideria
><deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:21:48 -0700, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>>LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:26:01 -0700 (PDT), toramjero
>>><tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The situation would not have evolved to the point of months without
>>>>sex if the partner wanted to suggest a way to handle the problem. That
>>>>is the work of a marriage counselor, BTW: find a way to restore that
>>>>communication so that both can find a way to handle the problem.
>>>
>>>It's a whole lot easier to start with a high level of communication
>>>and then maintain it. (having experienced both the 'almost no
>>>communication' and the 'lots of communication' relationships)
>>
>>Of course, not every relationship has a high level of communication,
>>either. I've experienced both kinds, as well--and even the 'high
>>level' relationships seem to always have room for more.
>
>Yes, dear.
Smart dear. <g>
Desideria
toramjero
This is not what I had in mind. This is not about tricking anyone
about something they do not want. There are women who are interested
in a short term relationship. But I think that even these women do not
want to hear it directly mentioned because in our culture saying "I
only want to have sex for a night with you" sounds too much like "you
are not good enough for me to be willing to commit to a life with
you". This is a direct consequence to the idea that "sex is something
that men want and women give".
So I think that, even with women who are interested in short term
relationships, men have to lie by omission and not mention that it is
what they want too.
But maybe I am wrong. As I said, I never ran across a woman who was
interested in a short term relation relationship. Just correct me if I
am wrong.
> But in any case, with unmarried (i.e. uncommitted people) there
> are no pre-established rules as there are in marriage.
>
> >Second: suppose that you are a woman in the same case and think about
> >how men would react.
>
> Exactly the same.
>
> >Third: suppose that you are a man in a relationship. You never
> >promised exclusivity. Your wife, on the other hand, wants you for her
> >alone. You meet another woman and radical honesty means that you will
> >tell her the whole story. Do you think that you will still have sex
> >with her or do you think that she will side with your wife?
>
> Whoa. If you never promised exclusivity by simply not mentioning
> it, but had it in mind all along, you are guilty of fraud because
> modern marriage *assumes* exclusivity.
>
Let us assume that the man mentioned it regularly.
> How a woman would react to such news once married depends on the
> woman. But I'd not bet on her being happy.
>
I don't think that it could work. Who would want to enter a
relationship with a person under these conditions? It is pretty clear
that the other member of the couple can cause lots of drama. And there
are plenty of unattached willing men to chose from.
The point is that it is far easier to prevent sex from happening than
it is to make it happen. We have been discussing promises and lying as
if people had a total liberty of choices. They don't.
Desideria
<tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>This is not what I had in mind. This is not about tricking anyone
>about something they do not want. There are women who are interested
>in a short term relationship. But I think that even these women do not
>want to hear it directly mentioned because in our culture saying "I
>only want to have sex for a night with you" sounds too much like "you
>are not good enough for me to be willing to commit to a life with
>you". This is a direct consequence to the idea that "sex is something
>that men want and women give".
>
>So I think that, even with women who are interested in short term
>relationships, men have to lie by omission and not mention that it is
>what they want too.
>
>But maybe I am wrong. As I said, I never ran across a woman who was
>interested in a short term relation relationship. Just correct me if I
>am wrong.
I'd have to disagree with you there. For a fair bit of my life, I did
one-night stands on occasion. I don't remember any of the men and I
ever carefully discussing "this will be only a one-night stand" but as
we barely knew each other it was a bit of a given. I never minded
that--I *was* furious with the man who turned out to be married and
had 'failed to mention' it, though!!!
Desideria
toramjero
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:45:28 -0700 (PDT), toramjero
>
>
>
> <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >This is not what I had in mind. This is not about tricking anyone
> >about something they do not want. There are women who are interested
> >in a short term relationship. But I think that even these women do not
> >want to hear it directly mentioned because in our culture saying "I
> >only want to have sex for a night with you" sounds too much like "you
> >are not good enough for me to be willing to commit to a life with
> >you". This is a direct consequence to the idea that "sex is something
> >that men want and women give".
>
> >So I think that, even with women who are interested in short term
> >relationships, men have to lie by omission and not mention that it is
> >what they want too.
>
> >But maybe I am wrong. As I said, I never ran across a woman who was
> >interested in a short term relation relationship. Just correct me if I
> >am wrong.
>
> I'd have to disagree with you there. For a fair bit of my life, I did
> one-night stands on occasion. I don't remember any of the men and I
> ever carefully discussing "this will be only a one-night stand" but as
> we barely knew each other it was a bit of a given.
Then we don't disagree. Not lying means that they should have
mentioned clearly that they were only interested in a one-night stand.
Would you still have considered it if they had mentioned it
explicitly?
> I never minded
> that--I *was* furious with the man who turned out to be married and
> had 'failed to mention' it, though!!!
>
Why? Because you assume he made you contribute in cheating? How do you
know whether his wife agreed or not? Would you have consider asking
his wife if he had told you to ask her what she thought about it?
Would you have still considered sex if you had asked and she would
have said that she did not agree? Would it have changed anything if
they had not been legally married, but just living together? How do
you know that there was a promise made in this case?
I am playing the devil's advocate here, presenting the case of "sexual
autonomy" brought forward by Orlando. If a man is married is married,
or even if a man is living together with a woman without being
married, it is automatically assumed that he has made the promise of
monogamy. He automatically loses his sexual autonomy: any prospective
lover will simply ask his wife's (or girlfriend's) opinion and act
according to HER decision. If the girlfriend believes in polyamory or
open marriages, he will be considered. If she does not, he won't. HIS
choices and promises are not relevant, they are assumed. Simply
because:
1: that is the default option in our society
2: men are believed to be potential cheaters in general.
You may answer that he should have chosen his girlfriend more
carefully. But she may have promised to keep the marriage open and
changed her mind. You cannot know. In any cases his choices are
monogamy or divorce.
toramjero
> Desideria <desideria1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:10:38 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> >>If one is in this position of having a mate who has lost all sexual
> >>desire and if one is willing to push it to a divorce if there is
> >>no cooperation, then there ultimately is no problem. Yes, there will
> >>be pain and hurt feelings, but if one will take a divorce, that will
> >>end *this* problem because you hold the trump cards.
> >As others have said here, not necessarily. Being single does NOT
> >guarantee that one has sex. The only sex any of us is truly guaranteed
> >is masturbation.
>
> <grin> Of course you are right. And when you get up into the rarified
> ages around four score and ten you will learn that not even masturbation
> is guaranteed.
>
>
I don't think that masturbation is guaranteed either. For masturbation
you need a minimum amount of privacy or a partner who agrees. That is
not a given. Sure, people can usually find a way to get a quick relief
in between moments, like under the shower or in the bathroom. But that
hardly qualifies as "having sex". I have seen masturbation described
as "making love to oneself" here. For that, and for exploring self
sexuality, one needs more than a few minutes in hiding. I don't think
that many people have this luxury, in particular young people still
living at their parent's or older people with a family.
Desideria
Probably--though we would likely also have had the 'are you sure
you're not married?' discussion at the same time. ;-)
>
>> I never minded
>> that--I *was* furious with the man who turned out to be married and
>> had 'failed to mention' it, though!!!
>>
>
>Why? Because you assume he made you contribute in cheating? How do you
>know whether his wife agreed or not? Would you have consider asking
>his wife if he had told you to ask her what she thought about it?
>Would you have still considered sex if you had asked and she would
>have said that she did not agree? Would it have changed anything if
>they had not been legally married, but just living together? How do
>you know that there was a promise made in this case?
Because *I* did not get a vote in whether I'd have sex with a married
man. It was something I didn't want to do.
Desideria
Dave
<deside...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Because *I* did not get a vote in whether I'd have sex with a married
>man. It was something I didn't want to do.
Assuming your intention going in didn't involve any commitments and was
otherwise a presumed one night stand, what difference does it make?
Denny Wheeler
>This is not what I had in mind. This is not about tricking anyone
>about something they do not want. There are women who are interested
>in a short term relationship. But I think that even these women do not
>want to hear it directly mentioned because in our culture saying "I
>only want to have sex for a night with you" sounds too much like "you
>are not good enough for me to be willing to commit to a life with
>you". This is a direct consequence to the idea that "sex is something
>that men want and women give".
I'm quite pleased that I do not live in the culture you believe you
live in.
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I never minded
>>> that--I *was* furious with the man who turned out to be married and
>>> had 'failed to mention' it, though!!!
>>>
>>
>>Why? Because you assume he made you contribute in cheating? How do you
>>know whether his wife agreed or not? Would you have consider asking
>>his wife if he had told you to ask her what she thought about it?
>>Would you have still considered sex if you had asked and she would
>>have said that she did not agree? Would it have changed anything if
>>they had not been legally married, but just living together? How do
>>you know that there was a promise made in this case?
>
>Because *I* did not get a vote in whether I'd have sex with a married
>man. It was something I didn't want to do.
I note--somewhat sadly--that this, which is to me blindingly obvious,
is not among the assortment of 'what if's toram posited.
(now I await his riposte of "you should have asked.")
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:00:53 -0700, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:26:13 -0700, Desideria
>><deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:21:48 -0700, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>>>LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:26:01 -0700 (PDT), toramjero
>>>><tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The situation would not have evolved to the point of months without
>>>>>sex if the partner wanted to suggest a way to handle the problem. That
>>>>>is the work of a marriage counselor, BTW: find a way to restore that
>>>>>communication so that both can find a way to handle the problem.
>>>>
>>>>It's a whole lot easier to start with a high level of communication
>>>>and then maintain it. (having experienced both the 'almost no
>>>>communication' and the 'lots of communication' relationships)
>>>
>>>Of course, not every relationship has a high level of communication,
>>>either. I've experienced both kinds, as well--and even the 'high
>>>level' relationships seem to always have room for more.
>>
>>Yes, dear.
>
>Smart dear. <g>
As my cats could tell you, I *am* trainable.
Denny Wheeler
Norton was never that young?
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>I'm going to stick my neck out here and guess that the moral absolutists
>among us are relatively young. That's 40 or under. In my opinion
>marriage involves a whole bunch of "promises" and "agreements". One
>stupid one is the famous "who takes out the garbage" question. It
>isn't in any marriage contract I've seen.
It does. And it's remarkable how many of those are way under the
radar until such time as they crop up well after the ceremony.
Perhaps there should be a 'guide to married life'[1] with a test--and
a certain score required--in order to obtain a wedding license,
somewhat like there is for a driving license. Comparatively, learning
to drive is dead simple.
'Course, in both cases, the newly-licensed have only just begun to
learn how it's really done.
[1] And 'matters sexual' along with 'matters affected by sex and
sexuality' would by no means be all that's in it. One thing
that'd--IMO/IME--have to be covered is "what to do when you're having
a major fight over "where do we plant the rosebush."
(that last referring to big fights over absolutely trivial matters)
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
(I'm unsure of all the attribs here)
>>>The answers can range from denial as in "What problem?", to
>>>anger as in "Why do you always want to talk about sex?" to
>>>simply ignoring the situation as in: "Could you pass me the
>>>TV control wand?"
>>>
>>>And that's not all. Most of the responses generate anger and
>>>pretty soon there is a shouting match or somebody (not always
>>>the woman) starts to cry. Then doors slam and one has to decide
>>>whether to pack and move out right then or just let it drop.
>>>
>>>The latter option usually wins until the next time, when the
>>>scenario repeats.
>
>
>>Then real communication is not happening, and the couple may need help
>>to get actual communication going (accepting how the other person
>>feels, without defensiveness, and working together to come up with
>>solutions with which both partners can cope).
>
>What you are not facing is that there is NO SOLUTION with which
>both partners can cope.
Last time I looked, that described a number of life-situations.
What I kinda wonder, Norton--and as I may be the next oldest (after
you) of those in this discussion, it struck me--are the couples of
whom you speak in your/my generation, or are they younger? I think a
lot of the intractable 'no real communication about sex' situations
are far less likely for the generations which followed ours. Yes,
there still are folks who just don't manage to actually discuss such
matters--there's still a bunch of baggage hanging on the topic--but I
think they're a significantly lower percentage now than they were 20
or more (especially 'or more') years ago.
Desideria
wrote:
I did not want to commit adultery, that's what difference it made. He
had no right to decide for me that I was committing adultery.
Desideria
Denny Wheeler
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
(Illecebra)
>>There are those who have argued (in general, not neccessarily on SSG let
>>alone a particular thread) that particular acts are immoral in
>>themselves, (oral sex, homosexual sex, etc.). Some have even argued that
>>a sex is somehow so different than every other human experience that
>>general moral rules such as honesty, keeping one's word, and not stealing
>>don't apply.
>>
>>I've yet to hear a substantive logical argument for either of those two
>>positions. So, consider this a challenge. Set aside your whining, your
>>ad hominem attacks, your flimsy excuses, and provide a solid logical
>>argument for your position. I'll listen.
>
>I like your question. I think. That is, I like it if it's what I
>think it is. Your challenge, given in the last paragraph, mentions
>"either of those two positions"--I'm uncertain what the positions in
>question are. (I'm reasonably sure they're not in the Kama Sutra)
>
>I *think* that one of the positions is: sex is a matter to which
>normal human rules can't apply.
>I *guess* that the other is: some particular sex acts, regardless of
>informed consent's being given or not given, are themselves immoral.
The above-quoted paragraphs of illecebra's are most of her OP to the
"Sex and moral judgements" thread.
Is anyone interested in discussing the question(s) she asked? I think
the questions are fascinating--am I the only one?
Denny Wheeler
Ah, but as you aren't yet sixty, you can't be told.
Dear.
Norton
Nothing, if you are lucky. ;-)
Over time married partners change. The change is slow but real.
And their energy levels and hormonal levels change. So what was
once a perfect match can now be foundering on the rocks of real
sex drive imbalance (and other things not relevant in this
newsgroup.
At the same time by then many couples have 30 or more years
invested in the relationship. And children possibly already
in their twenties. Folks often feel that there is too much
here to be sacrificed. So divorce stops being a cure for
problems, though divorce at that age still happens.
Imagine trying to explain to your 25 year old child that you
and your partner are getting divorced because of sex problems.
Since most young folks seem convinced that nobody over 45 has
sex, the news will send their eyes rolling around in their
heads.
On the other hand, being sixty has the advantage of allowing
you to finally *reallY* understand your parents.
--
--- Norton
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:56:42 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm going to stick my neck out here and guess that the moral absolutists
>>among us are relatively young. That's 40 or under. In my opinion
>>marriage involves a whole bunch of "promises" and "agreements". One
>>stupid one is the famous "who takes out the garbage" question. It
>>isn't in any marriage contract I've seen.
>
>It does. And it's remarkable how many of those are way under the
>radar until such time as they crop up well after the ceremony.
>
>Perhaps there should be a 'guide to married life'[1] with a test--and
>a certain score required--in order to obtain a wedding license,
>somewhat like there is for a driving license. Comparatively, learning
>to drive is dead simple.
>
>'Course, in both cases, the newly-licensed have only just begun to
>learn how it's really done.
>
>[1] And 'matters sexual' along with 'matters affected by sex and
>sexuality' would by no means be all that's in it. One thing
>that'd--IMO/IME--have to be covered is "what to do when you're having
>a major fight over "where do we plant the rosebush."
>(that last referring to big fights over absolutely trivial matters)
And I strongly suspect that the fights over trivial matters turn out
to involve huge 'emotional landmines', that is, they for some reason
trigger major emotional reactions that may have nothing to do with the
subject at hand.
Desideria
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
Oh.
We're going to have to discuss this, sometime after we get the
restraints and I find that feather... ;-)
<EG>
Desideria
Desideria
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
Go ahead and start discussing, dear. :-)
Desideria
Norton
Sorry to have misunderstood you. I think that much of our
behavior (and a woman's too) is based on societal norms. After
all this person you are trying to seduce doesn't really know
you nor do you know her, so you are reduced to the common denominator
of social contact -- societal norms.
So the problem of discussing the one-night stand is that it can
make the women feel cheap. So they don't mention it. But I do
think it unfair to use that as a means of imposing a one-night
stand on them.
As for your never having run across a woman interested in a short
term relationship, how can I say that you are wrong? *YOU* say
you have not run into such a person and I believe you.
But I do believe they exist.
>> But in any case, with unmarried (i.e. uncommitted people) there
>> are no pre-established rules as there are in marriage.
>>
>> >Second: suppose that you are a woman in the same case and think about
>> >how men would react.
>>
>> Exactly the same.
>>
>> >Third: suppose that you are a man in a relationship. You never
>> >promised exclusivity. Your wife, on the other hand, wants you for her
>> >alone. You meet another woman and radical honesty means that you will
>> >tell her the whole story. Do you think that you will still have sex
>> >with her or do you think that she will side with your wife?
>>
>> Whoa. If you never promised exclusivity by simply not mentioning
>> it, but had it in mind all along, you are guilty of fraud because
>> modern marriage *assumes* exclusivity.
>>
>Let us assume that the man mentioned it regularly.
I think that you really have to be honest with the second woman
and tell her how you feel and how your wife feels. I think it
dishonest here keeping the fact that you are married a secret.
Indeed, she has a right, in our society, to assume that you are
not married.
>> How a woman would react to such news once married depends on the
>> woman. But I'd not bet on her being happy.
>>
>I don't think that it could work. Who would want to enter a
>relationship with a person under these conditions? It is pretty clear
>that the other member of the couple can cause lots of drama. And there
>are plenty of unattached willing men to chose from.
Yup.
>The point is that it is far easier to prevent sex from happening than
>it is to make it happen. We have been discussing promises and lying as
>if people had a total liberty of choices. They don't.
>> >Fourth: same question for a woman.
>>
>> Same answer.
I gather that you want a detailed analysis of my opionion of a
married man meeting another woman, being interested in her sexually,
and not being honest about his situation.
I can't give one. There are reasons, good or bad, why some folks
cheat on their spouse. Usually it is to preserve an otherwise OK
marriage. But the only reason for not being honest with the other
woman is to get her into bed. I'm not cool with that.
--
--- Norton
Norton
No. You have carefully skipped the third option. Tell the
other woman the truth that you are married. What happens
next is up to her.
Why is this not an option?
--
--- Norton
Norton
Ha. Another young one. The problem with masturbation among the
ancient is that it can take a LONG time to get off. This can be
an advantage in vaginal sex, but not in masturbation.
I did specify four score and 10, not 15 years total...
--
--- Norton
Norton
We are all different. I don't like to sleep with people who
are necrophiliacs. Just a personal preference.
--
--- Norton
Desideria
wrote:
(snip)
>I gather that you want a detailed analysis of my opionion of a
>married man meeting another woman, being interested in her sexually,
>and not being honest about his situation.
>
>I can't give one. There are reasons, good or bad, why some folks
>cheat on their spouse. Usually it is to preserve an otherwise OK
>marriage. But the only reason for not being honest with the other
>woman is to get her into bed. I'm not cool with that.
Thank you, Norton. I wasn't either, as I've stated elsewhere in this
thread. The man I had this situation with DID give me reason to
believe that he was single beyond not mentioning that he was married.
I can respect any 'tomcat' out there, so long as he's honest--though
some have approaches that don't appeal to me in particular. I can't
respect any married man who runs around behind his wife's back and
lies about it to get screwed. That man is asking for trouble.
BTW: the idiot who didn't mention his marriage *did* make the mistake
of giving me his real name, and this in a small town, back when most
folks were in the telephone directory.... <EG>. No, my revenge did not
involve messing with his wife, at all.
Desideria
Desideria
wrote:
>toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I think because he assumes that if he tells the other woman he's
married, he won't get screwed.
Desideria
Desideria
wrote:
>Dave <calga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In message <losht4ppoeki3gd6p...@4ax.com> Desideria
>><deside...@gmail.com> was claimed to have <written>:
>
>>>Because *I* did not get a vote in whether I'd have sex with a married
>>>man. It was something I didn't want to do.
>
>>Assuming your intention going in didn't involve any commitments and was
>>otherwise a presumed one night stand, what difference does it make?
>
>We are all different. I don't like to sleep with people who
>are necrophiliacs. Just a personal preference.
Fair enough. I have other squicks as well, but yours certainly has a
place on my list ;-). In these days of STDs, I'd think that folks
might well have a variety of partner-types they'd rather not sleep
with.
Desideria
Norton
I hope that is true. Certainly my generation was totally screwed
up on sex. My feeling is that those 30 or more years younger may
not have this problem.
However, I know a number of such younger couples who have had
sex problems in their marriage. Several things seem to affect
sex drive: one is marital sameness. It often results in one
partner turning over and going to sleep -- every time.
Another is children. They *do* change your life. You no longer
can count on an hour or two of privacy unless it is midnight,
and by then you or your partner may be exhausted. And they don't
leave home for YEARS.
Others are age and sickness. Being overweight, diabetic, or having
heart problems can cut one's sex drive (or not, sometimes).
Perhaps they can talk better than my generation. But it doesn't
always seem to help.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>>On 2009-04-05, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hah! I'm ahead of you. My parents started having sex when I
>>> was 22.
>>>
>>What is wrong with this statement?
>Norton was never that young?
I'm curious as to why Gordon found that statement curious?
It fit in quite well with its context (about Mark Twain's
father learning so much as Mark Twain grew older.)
At least in my generation (and I think it is still true)
it was very difficult when I was young to imagine that my
folks actually had S*E*X.
I came to terms with it at some point in my 20s.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On 2009-04-02, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> When one marries, one promises to do several things, some stated
>> explicitly, some not.
>Yep the real world situation.
>> Being faithful is one. Providing sexual
>> satisfaction to one's partner is another.
>This is implied, as history/protcols does not allow the brdge and grom to
>say we will ensure that we give the other satifaction during sex, most of
>the time.
Huh? In some religions refusal to have sexual relations will
void the marriage. One concludes that at least in those,
having sex is implied by marriage.
>> Taking out the garbage
>> is a third, but let's not go there since that is too deep and
>> complex a problem for mere mortals to solve.
>Now you have transferred the problems in the bedroom to the mundane.
You have obviously never had this argument. You will.
>> Marriage is far more complex than simply keeping, or not keeping,
>> a set of promises. Sometimes the overall good requires violations
>> of promises made.
>As any partnership.
>> For instance it is today considered OK to have
>> multiple partners if all are informed and all agree. Fifty years
>> ago it was NOT considered OK and in some states subjected folks
>> who did so to criminal penalties.
>Mixing the time line up her are we not Norton? Times change yes?
Huh? Did I not say "Fifty years ago"? And times change, but not
as much as you think.
But by the way, I know of no state in the US in which polyamorous
marriages are recognized. So the times have not changed that much.
>> Marriage is a very complex situation. One does not enter into
>> it with the expectation that saying "I do" meant a vow of chastity
>> or having to continence infidelity.
>>
>Back to the real world. Life is complex, as are people
I'd heard that.
--
--- Norton
Desideria
wrote:
>Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) <den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>>What I kinda wonder, Norton--and as I may be the next oldest (after
>>you) of those in this discussion, it struck me--are the couples of
>>whom you speak in your/my generation, or are they younger? I think a
>>lot of the intractable 'no real communication about sex' situations
>>are far less likely for the generations which followed ours. Yes,
>>there still are folks who just don't manage to actually discuss such
>>matters--there's still a bunch of baggage hanging on the topic--but I
>>think they're a significantly lower percentage now than they were 20
>>or more (especially 'or more') years ago.
>
>I hope that is true. Certainly my generation was totally screwed
>up on sex. My feeling is that those 30 or more years younger may
>not have this problem.
>
>However, I know a number of such younger couples who have had
>sex problems in their marriage. Several things seem to affect
>sex drive: one is marital sameness. It often results in one
>partner turning over and going to sleep -- every time.
I can understand that happening, especially after a LOT of years
together.
>
>Another is children. They *do* change your life. You no longer
>can count on an hour or two of privacy unless it is midnight,
>and by then you or your partner may be exhausted. And they don't
>leave home for YEARS.
Understood.
>
>Others are age and sickness. Being overweight, diabetic, or having
>heart problems can cut one's sex drive (or not, sometimes).
Definitely.
>
>Perhaps they can talk better than my generation. But it doesn't
>always seem to help.
Agreed, Norton. But at least conversation means that people can
discuss problems, which means that maybe they can discuss potential
solutions. Ignoring problems pretty much guarantees that solutions
won't be found--especially not joint solutions.
Desideria
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Wait until you are sixty.... ;-(
>>>
>>>What happens *then*, Norton? ;-) (Denny hasn't mentioned it yet...)
>>>
>>
>>Ah, but as you aren't yet sixty, you can't be told.
>>Dear.
>
>Oh.
>
>We're going to have to discuss this, sometime after we get the
>restraints and I find that feather... ;-)
>
><EG>
>Desideria
ooops.
Denny Wheeler
<deside...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The above-quoted paragraphs of illecebra's are most of her OP to the
>>"Sex and moral judgements" thread.
>>
>>Is anyone interested in discussing the question(s) she asked? I think
>>the questions are fascinating--am I the only one?
>
>Go ahead and start discussing, dear. :-)
I shall. But probably not tonight, Beautiful.