Philosophy of adultery

[Mapraputa Is]

I already asked this question, but didn't get any good answer and I cannot find the thread now.
Let's see if there are more deep thinkers around this time...
The question that puzzles me is: why is it considered a bad bad thing for a married person to have um... another passion? To be more specific, look at this thread. A guy had relationships with other women, and what are the consequences? "Do not tell your wife because she will be hurt and this will damage your relationships." My question is: why is this supposed to hurt her feelings?
It's considered a good thing to stretch other kinds of love to as many people as possible. The more friends you have the better person you are. Parents are not blamed if they have several kids. Teachers aren't doomed to one single learner forever...
In this light, what sense does "sexual fidelity" make? What is spiritual value of it? Definitely it is good for selfishness and insecurity of the other party, anything besides it? If kids are expected to realize they are not the center of the Universe and to share their mother and father's love with their siblings, cannot we, adults, be about as mature? If your loved one found another person to admire, how come is it supposed to hurt your feelings and damage relationships?
I do not advocate "free love" for the heck of it, but this thing, love, happens just too seldom to spoil it with unnecessary feelings of "guilty" or "offense" :roll:

[sona gold]

hmmmmmmmmmm
tough one...............
one reason is to save urself of diseases
second .... is a question u shd answer for urself.... will u be able to laugh it out.. if you were to share your woman
third .... why shd u get married and take all those vows if you can't stick to one...
fourth ...we are one level above animals.. and thus should be able to control our animal instincts
five .... do you want to have ur family scattered all over the world.... one son here, one daughter there... ..
six ... this is called civilization... society.. which has some rules and regulations to protect.. the society..
seven ... u will ask why rules, well why do u have rules in Java or any other language...

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: sona nagee ]

[LadyMahler]

It depends what value you add to this "love" - perhaps you have not found the type of love that ties you with another person in such a way that your lives become one? There is no place for a third person in that union. If someone does enter it, your connection with your partner is negotiated, whether you're aware of it or not - as your partner's loyalty to this combined life is broken. (And it is broken, believe me, I think there is enough evidence out there in the "real world" to support that statement).
Agreed, if you're out there to explore physical love in as much variety as you can get, you should probably not try the marriage or even relationship thing. I don't know for how long that will remain fulfilling - perhaps if one doesn't mature to a higher level of need where intimacy of emotion and spirit and intellect becomes a foundation for one's physical attraction to someone it will always be sufficient. And one probably just has to find someone with the same level of understanding.
And that won't be me and a lot of other people who's views and friendship I truly value. I guess it lies in accepting that people think different about these things and it is best to keep your love relationships to those that either respect or agree with your values and keep the rest as just friends?

[Johnson Chong]

Why think so much until all your hair turn white overnight? Just be true to yourself......

[Pradeep bhatt]

I AGREE WITH U!!
[unnecessary full quote of Sona's post deleted - Jim]
[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[lusha tak]

I am so surprised...i feel what Maraputra says should be an O.k. thing..i mean YES!! but on the other hand i may be the last person to expect this from my partner

[Matthew Phillips]

I think that it really is a personal choice. Some couples are able to accept other partners into their lives. Some are not.
The real question seems to be what is the difference between the two. I think different people have different expectations out of a romantic partnership. I expect to be faithful to my wife, and I have the same expectations of her. I wish I could tell you why, but I am not quite sure myself. I guess it is just the way I was brought up.

[Anonymous]

I think one of the main reasons that we sojurn here on this planet is to have a chance to gain self mastery. To overcome the "natural man", if you will.
The natural man wants to mate with anyone to whom he is physically attracted. When he is hungry, he wants to eat. When he is tired, he wants to sleep. If he gets angry, he wants to strike.
The antethesis of the natural man, we'll call him the "enlightened man" will be able to keep these appetites and passions within certain bounds. For example, it is not always appropriate to sleep when you are tired. Your boss would not be happy to find you sleeping in your cube. You are expected to overcome the natural man in this respect.
WARNING:
Here I move from the philosophical and take on more of a personal bent.
I have no respect for those that are motivated entirely by the natural man. They drink to excess, they use drugs compulsively, they yield to their violent and angy natures, they sleep with anyone they want. They are essentially satisfying their basest desires to the best of their ability in much the same way as animals do. Men and women are capable of so much more than that.
Now to the crux of the issue.
If people sought other partners because of love and a desire to share it, I would agree with you, Map. But they don't.
Studies have shown consistently that people in committed relationships are getting roughly 80% of their needs met by their partner. They typically seek other partners in an effort to fulfil the missing 20%. Unfortunately, those other partners are much worse then the orignial, taken by themselves, because they only meet a fourth of the needs that the original partner was meeting.
So why do people seek them anyway? Because of a desire for self-gratification. Above the value of a marriage vow, above the value of a family, above the value of a job, or whatever else may need to be sacrificed, people seek out other sex partners to satisfy the natural man. Selfish desire. Not a desire to share love. A desire to recieve love. Not even emotional, spiritual, or even intellectual love. Just physical love. Animal passion.
If we all did that, it would lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it. The family unit would disintegrate, and civilized society would follow close on its heels. Who would bear the responsibility for raising the progeny of this "love free from conscience"? How could you even know who was the father of a particurlar child? If your partner could just select someone that he or she would also like to sleep with, wouldn't we be back to an animal pack system where only the smartest, strongest, and most physically attractive among us would be able to win mates? If you gained 40 lbs. after giving birth your mate could leave for someone more attractive and you would just accept this?
In conclusion, it's a bad precedent to advocate submission to the desires of the natural man in any of their myriad forms. They must be controlled first. Only then can they safely be satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Thats an Excellent answer..!!
[unnecessary full quote of Bodie's post deleted - Jim]
[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Thomas Paul]

Map is the kind of woman you don't want to marry... but you do want to live next door to!

[Anonymous]

Map - what happened to that relationship you had with the guy that slept around?
Just asking...

[Jason Menard]

Looking at the title of this thread, is there anybody else who thinks this sounds like an upper-level undergraduate college course?
<pre>
Schedule of classes:
...
PHIL 410 Philosophy of Adultery 3 credits
Grade Method: REG/P-F/AUD Section 0601
will meet in ECS 022.
[1629] 0101 MW........11:00am-12:15pm (MP 012) MAPRAPUTA, I
</pre>

[Cindy Glass]

Then what love we are talking about?

Oh - but marriage and monogamy have very little to do with love - they have more to do with providing a "society reinforced" survival of the species mechanism.
The only part that might relate to love is WHO you pair up with. Long term mating is in the species. The pairing itself is survival.
Man has a deep terriorial instinct. There is this need to mark the land that he "rules" and acquire as big a "herd" (also known as harem) as he can. Most guys feel a need to go out and make a "mark in the world". Most men prefer to go out and conquor dragons and etc. but very little need to set up a nest (at least as young men). That dates back to Mother Nature insuring that the strongest and fittest pass on their genes to the most offspring and that the genetic pool gets mixed with other family groups. Therefore there is a deep need for a man to know that he is the sole "possessor" of a woman to insure that those are his offspring. You can talk about womans lib all you want - but you will NOT eliminate a mans innate desire to fulfill this territorial need for possesion. Marriage for him is a means of insuring that he has at least ONE female to himself (in theory anyway).
Of course man has no deep need to keep HIMSELF to one female - in fact just the opposite.
On the other hand until VERY recently a woman basically could not survive (or rarely could) without a man to ward off attacks from preditors (including the two legged kind). A woman has a basic need to feel secure and cared for (but very little urge to go fight dragons). It is to her benefit to insure that her man does not wander off with another woman and continues to provide for the offspring.
Society has devolped the concept of Marriage to enforce what is mutually desirable for both parties.
Even if you convince yourself that we should behave differently than "natural man" you will not remove those parts of us that still feel those needs.
If a woman feels that her man has strayed - she is going to feel threatened - her security in jeopardy, and her nest violated. Even if she KNOWS that she is perfectly able to provide for herself and her children. Even if she KNOWS that he really loves her in some ways while he is straying.
Therefore the benefits of being without a man have to outweigh the hurts and insecurities that it brings.
While there might be those few that can learn to hide or overcome those hurts and insecurities and be happy when their mate strays, for the most part it will take several tens of thousands of years for the species to rid itself this particular set of inbred needs.

[Rob Ross]

I think it's more basic than most people will admit. We humans like shiny new things...but after a while, even the shiniest things get old and boring.
Lifelong commitment shouldn't force you into route boredom. Some couples can successfully continuously reinvent the relationship so it never gets dull. Others seek thrills outside of the relationship. It rarely has anything to do with not wanting to be in the relationship any more. It just has to do with a basic human need to seek out new experiences. Maybe it's time to start admitting this is the "normal" state of affairs instead of trying to deny how we are.

[Anonymous]

I dont think there is anything "dirty" about loving someone you are not married to. The guilt probably comes from doing something your spouse may percieve as a wrong.

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
Just physical love. Animal passion. etc. etc.

Not necessarily true. Are you saying "The love you have for A is good, but the love you have for B is animal passion". Is this because you have signed a legal contract with A ? Perhaps A is just honouring her end of the contract whereas B is giving you her love with no strings attached.

[R K Singh]

very true..physical love .. animal passion...
is adultry is all about sexual relationship?
I wont take much time but .. adultry is not only abt sex.
Can you share your Room with ANYone, forget abt body?
and agian its not all abt body.

[Michael Ernest]

Map
Hm... I l believe one has to have at least a Master in corresponding field to teach even on Community College level... So I am not qualified Can we delegate Michael Ernest instead?
After some better thinking: I can hold a Lab Assistant position
Aaaaahhh...
You do not take me seriously, do you? Who speaks about "conjugal infidelity" a lot, wont do that in practice. Look at Michael Ernest, for example. In spite of all his frivolities, I am sure he is faithful to his wife as a drunker to a bottle of Whisky.

How did I get dragged into this discussion?
If you're in need of a course instructor, Cindy has offered a compelling statement of principles. I say we look no further. I don't need to explain the drawing power an adultery course would have if a woman taught it, do I? And if Map wants to be Cindy's lab assistant, I'll bring the video equipment....muhahaha. (We need a pervert graemlin for this forum...)
As a matter of full disclosure, though, I have in fact expressed to Map her need to be my secretary. I'll have you all know she declined with a sense of graciousness and delicacy that offered no possible way to feel any sting of rejection. She's quite a woman.
Comparing my marital fidelity to a drunk's grip on the bottle (or is it the other way around?). Hm. Not sure how to read this. I don't drink that much, but I am particular about Scotch when I have it. And, being in MD for this chat, I'm not inclined to explore the topic much further.
[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Cindy Glass]

The idea that your mate is @#$%^& if he strays has no other origin but woman's insecurity.
Insecurity is not the correct word to use here. That would imply that with enough character or therapy she could change her thinking.
If fact it might be better phrased as "The idea that your mate is @#$%^& if he strays has no other origin but woman's inbred instincts."
Mother Nature has TAUGHT us that he is a @#$%^& if he strays, and that is part of our deepest beliefs.
Think of all of the women who stick with a man even if he abuses her. These are not stupid women. They are just listening to Mother Nature tell them that as bad as this guy is - it is better that not surviving at all. That is why Womens centers have such a problem getting these women to kick the guy out or press charges against them. To do this requires ignoring basic instincts, and this is NOT an easy thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the animal passion remark:
Yes. That is what I'm saying. Because in situation A, you have controlled your instincts and have not mated outside of the bond of marriage. In other words, you have gained self mastery, and so self gratification is acceptable.
In situation B, if you can't control yourself, then you are acting like an animal: on instinct. I don't ever want anyone to say that about me. I can't think of many things that I would find more insulting than for someone to tell me that I exercise no control over my natural instincts.
Now, if you'll excuse me, an attractive woman just walked past my cube. Since I can blame my lack of self control on others, on society, or on millions of years of evoloution, I'm going to go hit on her. NOT!

[Cindy Glass]

Well, Bodie, I agree with you.
Just because a guy FEELS an attraction to another woman does not mean that he has to act on it.
Just because a woman FEELS that she should stay with an abusive man does not mean that she should do that.
Just because a woman (or man) FEELS upset when their partner strays does not mean they automatically get a divorce or shoot each other.
The difference between what we feel and what we DO is what makes civilization.
However Map was insinuating that it might be wrong for a woman to FEEL upset if her man strays. I don't think that you are going to change much how a woman feels in that situation just because you have a good argument why she should not feel that way. You can only change how she might act.
That would be like saying that a man should not FEEL an attraction to another woman once he is married. That is ridiculous. You can only expect him not to ACT on it.

[Michael Ernest]

Bodie -
How do you account for flirting? I'm curious to hear where it stands in your view.

[LadyMahler]

Cindy - you speak with much wisdom.
Map - this is just it: if I have a partner in my life, I'm the only woman allowed in his intimate space. If he's not ok with that, then he is welcome to be my very much non-intimate friend. That's my standard. I am secure enough to state that and strong enough to stick with that value. I think it is insecurity that keeps you clinging to a guy that does not treat you with that respect and exclusivity.
In the same breath, I will say that I respect your view and I am sure you have enough guys eager to meet you & share your standard...???!!!
But I think you're worth more. Why do you want to waive that instinct - to seem strong and secure?

[R K Singh]

In the end I can only say What is the NEED of marriage?
You can do what you want when you are not in the bond of marriage.
There are two ways one can live. Either follow society OR go against it. You have a choice. You can do what you want.
When I was young I will also raise question against society rules and there assumption. But when grew up then I found that they are very true.
There rules are very practicle. But yes choice is yours.
You can deny all rules and live as you want.
Feeling bad when someone cheats you is more emotionally then anything else. If one dont have emotion for one's spouse then YES who cares!
Its all abt LOVE & SHARING honey !
Serious advise
Map you can become like Budha, who run away from society to get enlighten. (Though his reason was different). Once you will be enlightened then everyone will listen you and follow you.
[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Zakaria Haque]

I pretty much agree with Cindy.
I would consider morality highly correlated with society and time period. West has affected much of the rest of the world in last 500 years, and the western values has been gradually pervading these cultures. Today, in a world highly affected by typical western values, adultery might be considered bad. But this is not necessarily true in all socities and all time period. Even today in some socities adultery is the norm. The further you go back in time, you would find a world with more divarsified cultures and morality.
Society itself is not a homogeneous entity as well. We have classes and those class can deviate from the norm of other classes. Is adultery considered equally bad among the extreme poors and extreme riches?

[R K Singh]

Map ::
What is your definition of Love and Faithfulness?
I believe that everyone has different definition for these terms.
Now I am trying to understand what you want to say but to understand you one need to know these definition.
Map(thinking) ->Who the f%^& is Ravish? who wants to know abt my definitions.

[LadyMahler]

Map, you seem like a very angry person. (*duck*)
I am trying to get to the underlying current here somewhere... where does this originate from? Come on, tell us.
I do recognise the symptoms and arguments of someone that is frustrated because he/she can not get someone because that person "belongs" to someone else, or is trying to justify certain actions which are not accepted by society. I'm sure it is not the case of you, but that is usually the case.
Perhaps I can ask you this: have you ever seen someone's once undying love crumble in front of your eyes because he has fallen in love with another? It is as if you have not experienced this loss that you can speak with such overwhelming confidence on this topic. Also, how much of history do you know? Are you aware of the path societies follow that adopt this very convincing trail of thought that you are arguing?
And, yes, of course you love someone for the person they are, but most definitely also for the way they behave. Love is not some feeling in your tummy or a thought in your mind: it is action.
[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Adi du Toit ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Definition of Love and Faithfulness!
There is no way I can give these definitions. All I can say is that love made me feel as deep as never before, it changed all my personality, what I thought was important and what was not. Love is the only important thing in our lives.

Very true

"Faithfulness" is a false concept to me, a surrogate, an epyphenomenon.
Love surpass any faithfulness, it is above any faithfulness.

Yes my Map, you are very true. But it is idealism. Let me put in other words, "It is expectations which hurts".
Spouse expect that he/she wont cheat(cheat is in very broad sense) so when they find it they get hurt, they feel angry.
And expectations will be there, how ever we can try to avoid it. Yes if 'Love' is really without expectations then I would love to have that kind of love.
We as human being have some expectations.
Don't you feel frustrated when something is not going as per your expectations ?
We(if anyone minds then 'I') mean people do not have that Pure Love, so we feel hurt.
Even pure gold is of no use, to use Gold you have to put some impurity.
To shine diamond you have to cut it.
You are 'Pure' Map.
You are 'Pakiza'. In Urdu means Clean like God.
But in this materialistic world no one would like to have pure gold which cant be wear and pure diamond which does not shine.

If you have love in your heart, you can do whatever you want, and you will be right.

Can I kill anyone to meet my lover??
I know you did not mean that.
and to all female out here ... its not only abt females
And its not 'all' abt society and what we are taught from the childhood.
back to normal...
.....but Map is great.
[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

But it is idealism.
You are absolutely right! Idealism in its purest form called logic.

Hi Map,
In this world one can try to (or should tend to)achieve idealism.
This human is trying to achieve it from centuries.
Ideally conductor should have Zero resistence but .. even Super conductors have resistence.
Ideally there should be no friction but ... even if you roll marble on glass floor it will stop after some time.
Accepting reality is very difficult when once you accepted Idealism.

back to normal...
Drat. You want to fail my mission here!
No Map...
One has two choices either leave this jungle and go to another jungle like Budha OR live in this jungle.
When I could not dare to go that jungle and living in this jungle. I would not like to change this jungle in to that jungle.
Logic lives in paper. If you are science student then you must be knowing that to formulate any theory (Logic) you need some practical constants
till now I am confuse between love and sex. But now I try to accept....
I think we have discussed this thread enough.
Again back to normal ....
Do you live in this world ?
U R great.

[ersin eser]

a must read, The Double Flame : Love and Eroticism by Octavio Paz

[Fyodor Myshkin]

Originally posted by Adi du Toit:
Perhaps I can ask you this: have you ever seen someone's once undying love crumble in front of your eyes because he has fallen in love with another?

Should love be conditional? "I love you if you love me" ? Isn't that a selfish kind of love ?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Fyodor Myshkin:

Should love be conditional? "I love you if you love me" ? Isn't that a selfish kind of love ?

Don't you mean sensible?

[Jim Bertorelli]

Map, conceptually what you are saying is valid but i think your application is wrong. The reason is you are applying your concept to "change" another concept called MARRIAGE.
The concept of MARRIAGE, as very correctly explained by Cindy, is nothing but a contract that promotes a sense of security in both the parties. Now, this contract is being used almost in the same form all over the world. And this IS MARRIAGE.
Now, just as there are different kind of companies such as LLC, Inc. etc. you can have different kind of contracts for relationship as well. Choose what ever suits you the best. In your case, you are defining a new type of contract. But you can't change MARRIAGE. If it were a variable, you could call your contract as MARRIAGE2 but not MARRIAGE.
The contract of MARRIAGE == Love + Fidelity + Expectations + other things.
The contract of MARRIAGE2 == Love.

People of the world have overwhelmingly chosen to enter the contract of The contract of MARRIAGE. However, that does not mean it is 100% correct/without flaws. But then, so is the contract of MARRIAGE2. It will have it's own deficiencies.
So what I want to say is set an example by entering your contract and propagate it...who knows, 10 or 50 or whateever years down the line, the contract of MARRIAGE might become obsolete!
And again, you cannot redefine MARRIAGE.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Don't you mean sensible?

This is a good point. Sensible love is indeed mutual and obligatory. One just wonders if this is love, though. Isn't it just a contract based on emotional well-being? What's harder to understand is the American love-hate relationship with monopolistic practices. Many people approve of unconditional marriage, and look at the potential for emotional and physical abuse as an element that the marriage must survive. I see many people describe their company's relationship with Microsoft the same way. Whatever the heck it is, all sides agree that analyzing the problem is bad for everyone.

Originally posted by Adi du Toit:
It depends what value you add to this "love" - perhaps you have not found the type of love that ties you with another person in such a way that your lives become one? There is no place for a third person in that union.

So if you got a joined bank account, you do not need any more money?
[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[LadyMahler]

If you got a joined bank account, you don't need another person to go spend out of it.

[Michael Ernest]

From OOD point of view, conjugal fidelity is little more than a bad design. "Design to interfaces, not to implementations!"

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jim Bertorelli:
The concept of MARRIAGE, as very correctly explained by Cindy, is nothing but a contract......And this IS MARRIAGE.
....you cannot redefine MARRIAGE.

First of all, marriage is not contract/bussiness..
where you give something and take something....
No. No .. I am not able to make myself agree on this point

[Fyodor Myshkin]

A lot of people here seem to consider love as some kind of contract. A contract is a tangible agreement. Love is an abstract thing.
Have you ever fallen in love ? It's got nothing to do with animal insticts.Sex is probably the last thing on your mind when you are in love. Love begins when everything about her begins to affect you. The way she walks. The way she smiles. The way she does her hair. The way she talks.You would not even want to take away the things about her that annoy you.You begin to love her in totality.She begins to disturb your tranquility. Then she drives you to distraction. Her presence floods your senses. The first time it happens you probably end up marrying her. But it is not necessary this can only happen once. Love is the most noble emotion known to man. How can you dismiss it so callously?
Let me tell you about the time I met the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. It was in a hospital. I walked into the room and she was in a crib next to my wife's bed. I looked at her and my heart stopped beating. She probably looked like any other baby. But what made her special to me was the paternal instinct, which is very much an "animal instinct". So you can't really knock animal insticts either.
[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Fyodor Myshkin ]

[R K Singh]

Fyodor.. where have you been ??
Actually he is right. When you are in luv u like each and everything abt him/her.
Even if s/he is doing things which u did not like earlier but now u like on him/her.(exa: uu did not like short hair ..but now u like short hair on her...)

[Nigel Browne]

If children are supposed to be secure and happy in their childhood, why aren't adults supposed to be secure and happy in their adultry?

[Shura Balaganov]

So many deep thoughts, so little time to read... I think I lost 5 good thoughts by the time I finished reading it....
What about Central Asia and their polygamy? Don't tell me their culture failed, PLEASE
Shura