Sexual Ethics

Yeah I'm sorry dude, I am just not going to ever come to a point where a person could convince me that EVEN IF you take possible breeding problems off the table, and EVEN IF people are perfectly willing, it's perfectly fine for close blood relatives to be getting it on.

And most of the people I have ever heard of in my life who have enacted incest, were NOT perfectly reasonable consenting adults, they were molestation cases between someone in a position of power and someone who was a minor. Even granting that the age of majority is very arbitrary, the position of familial power is still an issue, the matter that if the relationship is coercive or abusive or becomes unhealthy, one cannot easily escape it or terminate it, because likely they live in the same dwelling and have nowhere else to go...

I would say this is probably the large majority of incest cases that happen.

What is in porn, the whole "Mommy has her boyfriend teaching daughter how to do the sexytime" is just silliness made up to push men's buttons in my opinion. It is not real. I don't think anyone needs to be shamed if they are into that taboo in fantasy, but to try and argue that incest is ok in reality because there is nothing wrong with the idea in fantasy...

Rape fantasies are fine.

Actual forcible rape is not.

There is a difference.

If the vast majority of "relationships" or sex were rape, then I would say it needs to stop. If the vast majority of incest is coercive and involving unequal authority and power of a nonconsensual variety, the kind that comes by default with a parent/child or older/younger sibling situation... It might make a nice porno but in the real world it is wrong.

That is a far greater argument than "maybe health problems if a baby happens" because after all, what if it's a man and his son? Or a woman and her son, and she has had a tubal ligation? I am no longer able to breed but I most goddamn certainly would NOT consider sex with my teenage sons. I believe that if another woman of my age were to get involved with one of my sons and they both consented, that would be ok, but the notion of me doing so isn't just a matter of me not being attracted, it's a matter of me believing in the most unshakable parts of my core self that it is SO WRONG.

What is wrong with murdering a baby right after it's born?

No seriously, what evidence do you have that it is a problem? Why?

It just is.

I don't believe in religion, but I know some things are wrong.
I don't believe that the laws are always just, fair, or right, but I know some things are wrong.

Maybe I've got a different calibration on my moral compass than some people, but I suppose we all get to figure these things out for ourselves.

My criteria generally has to do with the affects on lives, in the case of incest, when it happens it's usually damaging to at least one of those involved. Often enough that to my thinking, it deserves to be labeled as "Not A Good Idea, Ethically."
 
... it's a matter of me believing in the most unshakable parts of my core self that it is SO WRONG.

This is what I was looking for.

Thank you for being honest.
 
This is what I was looking for.

Thank you for being honest.

Thank YOU for understanding that I felt a need to state my position in a firm way...but at the same time, I do not wish to be judgmental or attacking of you for discussing this from a different position.

Sometimes at the end of the day I just have to be like "Ya know, this is what I think and that's just how it is" even if I don't have the best empirical data to support it...but I also support your right to think otherwise, if you do. The agreeing to disagree thing, even though I feel rather strongly, is there.

If that makes any sense?
 
Thank YOU for understanding that I felt a need to state my position in a firm way...but at the same time, I do not wish to be judgmental or attacking of you for discussing this from a different position.

Nah, defensiveness doesn't mean much to me in a conversation like this. I'm just glad you were willing to be honest about what your position was based on.

Bringing it back to the OP: For me, this is one of the costs of the concept of "social discouragement"; people follow their 'gut' about a position and are content to stand by that decision because they have the power of the masses behind them. The masses can be wrong all day long, but the popularity of an idea is very powerful.
 
If we have any geneticists on board, please feel free to correct me, but I have never seen any evidence of the anti-incest gene that causes mutation. To my knowledge, no such function exists. People get the "if you inbreed you get mutations" idea from entertainment, because it's a cool addition to a horror story.

No doubt there have been mutations displayed by many, many generations of exclusive inbreeding but that's the same as a pure bred dog. If the genes of a family are almost exclusively bred, then whatever genetic liabilities that family line has will have less chance of being bred out and introduced to other healthy genes. This would then promote a family line carrying down whatever defect is associated with their genes. It should be noted that this is the same with healthy genes being kept within the line.

Breeding with a mix of lines of genetics isn't any kind of guarantee that genetic deficiencies won't follow us around and cause all manner of problems (obviously), but it does at least lower the risk of it being predictably reproduced.

The "if you impregnate your sister it will come out a fish" stuff is just fun fiction made to socially enforce the idea that incest is evil. It is a perfect example of the "social discouragement" the OP was asking about.

So you're saying that fragile X syndrome and the host of disorders that accompany it don't exist? Or that the F2P variants don't also exist? Or the plethora of recessive cancer genes? I'm confused as there are several recessives that, in prime tier relatives would result in severe impairment, and these are only the ones that I, as a layman, know of. There are several others I can't name that produce extremes in deformity, social aggression, communication and cognitive impairment.

Your argument, sir, is false and it does not take a geneticist to disprove it.

If we're talking about first cousins that's something entirely different. Research has shown increases in familial loyalty, increases in number of children per pairing, and increases in wealth protection and accumulation.
 
Seems like in any discussion of consanguinous sex, someone says "this isn't about reproduction, just sexual contact," & then everyone drags it back to the horrors of inbreeding. :rolleyes:

Complicated questions, multiple answers....

I strongly doubt that fears of genetic collapse underly anti-incest taboos in any way.

Sure, it's a modern rationalization, & (as Marcus says) makes for all sorts of sensationalist opportunities, not significantly unlike Reefer Madness & such Anslinger-era propaganda.

Such official banning didn't really seem to occur until like the 1500s, & I suspect that's in part from local burghers observing how freakish some of the royal lines were getting. :eek:

But looking back through history, I am amazed that humans managed to even link intercourse to pregnancy -- they don't appear smart sometimes. And given that (well founded) bias, I can't believe a significant portion of the population worried about human inbreeding. The "scientific method" is anathema to being human. :eek:

Look into the history of postpartum infections. In the 1840s, Semmelweis found a rather simple way for doctors to stop killing women. For this, he was ridiculed, fired, hounded, & died a broken man in 1865. The "germ theory" gained credence only slowly into the 1880s; a prominent surgeon in 1916 snidely stated that it was absurd to believe that disease could be cause by animalcules... by which he meant bacteria.

Anyway. Yes, genetic diversity is certainly lost when genetic relatives breed, & recessives brought to the fore, & these become much more significant with closer genetic relationship.

But that still leaves us with questions. (1) how ACTUALLY prevalent is sexual contact between close relatives? (2) how ACTUALLY prevalent were incest & inbreeding in the less-populous regions of North America in the past three or four centuries?

For #2, large swathes of the continent made finding a suitable sexual partner, much less a potential spouse, really unlikely in the first place. If you weren't wealthy enough to have a riding horse or a coach ticket, then even visiting a nearby village would mean walking a half-dozen miles or more, maybe with some popular dirt paths but largely cross-country, during which you weren't milking the cows.

And how would you KNOW you weren't hooking up with a genetic half-sibling? Maybe your father walked the same road to the same town all those years ago, & was attracted to similar-looking women.

With #1, I have to wonder how many sex neuroses & anxieties stem from repression of genital play with siblings or guilt over early sexual arousals. (I had a whole bunch of VERY attractive first cousins &, though I was never interested in acting on their desirability, I didn't see any reason to feel guilty about our occasional playful flirting.)

Besides, most people don't believe that inbreeding has ANY negative consequences possible. Look at what's happening around the world with genetic fixes amongst "purebred" dogs. Ask any breeder, & they'll tell you that there's no way any such thing is happening with THEIR animals, nosirree!! ;)
________________

Follows a loosely related tale that'll probably only be interesting to cat fans. :p

I'm a fan of "point" cats. Though not Siamese, points have the Siamese markings, personalities, & intelligence, so I really don't see the... um, point. :D Anyway, the common "Siamese" tends to have a chunky or muscular ("cobby") body, muscular tail, & large squarish head, so we call them "appleheads." That's pretty much what the first Siamese brought to the UK & US looked like.

But in the 1880s, the Walker sisters (UK) imported a breeding pair that was slimmer, longer, & had a slightly more wedge-shaped head & long thin tail, & others brought in a few more with similar characteristics... & that formed the entire breeding pool of "real" Siamese for decades. Remember: cats breed proficiently, very like rabbits, & demand was high, especially for ever-slinkier cats. Breeders were probably cranking out three or more generations per year.

As a result, the breed was dying out by the 1930s, & importing cats from Thailand was unlikely due to World War II. The breed was saved (well, salvaged) by crossbreeding the Siamese with the robust Russian blue, a natural breed not brought to the UK until 1875.

But I've also heard it told that this crossbreeding was done to fill a sudden (& unexplained) demand for Russian blues. This leads me to suspect it's a whitewash tale to avoid making breeders look like greedy idiots.
________________

The common "American blue" still carries Siamese traits. I once rescued a pregnant "tuxedo" female from a neighborhood with easily a dozen roaming blues, & she gave birth to a tuxedo girl, a blue boy, a lilac point boy, & a chocolate-point snowshoed boy. Genetically, these coats seem to indicate hardiness; that lilac, Winston, lived well until just short of his 18th birthday.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying that fragile X syndrome and the host of disorders that accompany it don't exist?

Nope. Never said anything like this.

No idea how this is what you took out of this exchange.

Your argument, sir, is false and it does not take a geneticist to disprove it.

It may very well not take a geneticist to disprove my assertion, sir. However, to disprove my assertion, one would actually need to join the conversation.
 
Nah, defensiveness doesn't mean much to me in a conversation like this. I'm just glad you were willing to be honest about what your position was based on.

Bringing it back to the OP: For me, this is one of the costs of the concept of "social discouragement"; people follow their 'gut' about a position and are content to stand by that decision because they have the power of the masses behind them. The masses can be wrong all day long, but the popularity of an idea is very powerful.

I have set this aside for a little bit and occasionally lightly brushed across the idea in my mind, a bit like looking at something with your peripheral vision or with an unfocused view... And I got a clearer sense of where I am coming from in a visit to the conversation on emotion versus logic.

So I don't have a problem being honest and falling back on "gut" as a justification, and I also don't have a problem being honest and saying that my "gut" does not always agree with what the masses say. It appears to me (and please correct me if I'm reading you wrong here) that you're saying that I hold an illogical position because I was socialized to believe it by the society I live in and grew up in and that therefore I cannot support it properly with logic, and can only lamely fall back upon "well...gut."

OK. But it is worth mention that I believe my gut to be shorthand for a rather complex system of indicators, from subtle and nonverbal to extensive and logical and complex, supported by a volume of anecdotal social experience. For me, it is every bit as valid, if not more so, than a consensus of the masses, or a book, or a law, or a "scientific study." You can buy science to prove anything nowadays, surely you know this. Bias is everywhere.

So when I think of incest, I don't think of getting together with a cousin or accidentally dating your unknown half-sister here. And because I have never encountered two rational grown informed and consenting adults who suddenly decided they ought to marry a mother, brother, grandchild or what have you... I think of things that involve children. Ravenscroft mentioned sexual hangups from suppression of genital exploration among siblings. Can we view it as perfectly natural and fine among children? Really? No one thinks that's a problem? An 8 year old boy would like to insert things into his 2 year old sister, and that is fine? More damage if it is shamed or suppressed? No one has a gut-deep rejection of this idea? Yeah, I do. I think it's a fucking problem. I think there is a difference between unrelated kids on occasion "playing doctor" and someone you live with day in, day out, and cannot escape, having sexual access that you can not withhold (or even properly give) consent to. It's not ok.

You could supply me with science that says it's not a problem. You could drop me into a culture where it's "normal." I still think it's wrong.

My gut disagrees on plenty of positions held by "the masses," though.

Most where I perceive there to be victimization or exploitation or unreasonable restriction of freedoms. And sometimes my gut gets to direct some thinking for me and not other thinking, such with the case of abortion. I find abortion morally repugnant...FOR MYSELF. However, I strongly support the freedom of women to make that choice. And in fact if I were to become pregnant today, morally repugnant or not, I'd probably do it. I evaluate the wellbeing and needs of myself and the sons I have already created as higher than the needs of a zygote, or an early conception fetus, given the limited resources presently in my life, I feel they are better allocated than to the raising of a new human, by reserving them for the ones already here living life.

And get this. I could put a baby up for adoption. But it might suffer...I hear a lot about foster kids, and sex trafficking...nah. I prefer the notion of an early abortion, than even taking the chance of birthing a baby into a life of suffering. (I haven't quite assimilated to Buddhism enough to agree that life IS suffering...I actually think life, ideally, is pretty nice.)

Now, we have some people who don't really get the whole concept of rape. Assuming the victim isn't beaten or killed, what really is the big deal? I mean, especially if they are unconscious, why, they didn't even have to be there for the use of their body. The rapist got something good out of it, the victim lived another day, why would they have trauma, it is only sex? Isn't sex good? How confusing. Heck, we are having arguments in some states over parental rights for rapists. Maybe victims should just get over it, or heck, try to enjoy it, like the weather, if it's just going to happen anyways.

Some rape victims recover just fine and go right on with life. Some commit suicide because they can no longer live in the bodies that were violated. Maybe they just weren't strong enough to hang in there, probably they were "emotional" or had "issues." Does that justify ruining the life of a promising young man with an accusation? Hell, who is the REAL victim here?

Maybe women aren't really people after all and we should outlaw abortion, and not really prosecute or punish rape. Maybe just put women in pens and breed us like livestock. I mean really, compared to men, women don't contribute THAT much to society as free, thinking people, right? Why not treat us as the sexual and breeding commodity that we are?

Gosh, my gut says no, but probably I was socialized that way. Probably it is my bias showing.

Probably it's just the masses handing me my ideas of right and wrong. There is no science to back it up. How can I PROVE that women should be free to live like human beings, equal (ish) to men?

I can't.

I can't prove to you that most cases of incest involve victimization that is probably harmful and traumatic to at least one of the participants.

I can't prove in fact that rape is bad or should be prevented.

I can't prove a lot of things, socially accepted or otherwise.

I can't prove that polyamory is morally fine, or that BDSM is not a bunch of seriously sick and messed up people doing terrible things.

I can't prove that unborn early stage zygotes/fetuses have no particular right to live, that needs to be protected by law, or that women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Yet I still believe many unprovable things, because LIFE has taught me to trust my gut. And no matter now much scorn anyone on the internet might give me for it, I'll keep right on standing by my convictions even if you cite a mountain of evidence to refute it, and even in the utter absence of "proof."

That is my prerogative as a thinking human...just as it is yours to disagree if you wish.
 
Holy shit!! lol

It appears to me (and please correct me if I'm reading you wrong here) that you're saying that I hold an illogical position because I was socialized to believe it by the society I live in and grew up in and that therefore I cannot support it properly with logic, and can only lamely fall back upon "well...gut."

Within the context of a conversation about "socially discouraging" a behavior, I am against using "gut feeling" to do so. A gut feeling is based on environmental input as filtered through our neurology. When it comes to telling *other* people what they ought to do, I think we should demand much firmer ground.

When it comes to deciding my own personal behavior within my own life, sure, if I can't (yet) figure out why I feel the way I do, I'll just let my gut lead the way for the moment.

So when I think of incest, I don't think of getting together with a cousin or accidentally dating your unknown half-sister here. And because I have never encountered two rational grown informed and consenting adults who suddenly decided they ought to marry a mother, brother, grandchild or what have you... I think of things that involve children.

So again, you equate the word "incest" with "child molestation".

I am not defending or even having a conversation about child molestation (or any other rape variation you are clinging to). I'm sure that is an interesting conversation, but that's not the one that I am having.
 
So I thought that I established this but maybe not.

My ethics are mine to come up with over the course of my lifetime.

Yours, are yours to come up over the course of your lifetime.

Many of mine are based on the complex concept that I shorthand down to the word "gut" for sheer lazy simplicity's sake.

The internet is chock-bloody-full of arguments where people take the position that more citable evidence = I'm right and you're wrong = "winning" some "debate." Which frankly I think is straight up silly because I've never heard anyone say, "Well I used to believe in X, but this guy online posted so much proof that I was wrong, that I changed my mind."

So. I am opinionated about many things. And many of them I cannot prove. Yet I stand by them. Why? Gut.

For the most part, I'm in no position to make rules of behavior for anyone but myself. I mean, I share my opinions with my sons, but they are going to grow up forming their worldviews from many sources.

Where are we talking about making rules that other people will follow, and who among us here gets to do that based on ANY standard of logic, reason, emotion, gut, or anything? Who is making the rules, Marcus? And where do they get their yardstick? That's the point I'm trying to drive at, with some persistence.

Your "wow" does not dismiss or dissuade me. I joined this conversation, and I'm here...conversating. Yes, I used extreme examples. I'm not "clinging to" anything, I'm trying to get to the marrow here.

Even when it comes to things that pretty much any sane person would agree are WRONG, why? Where is the proof, the evidence, the research, the facts, the logic, WHY ARE THEY WRONG? Who decides?

We don't hold with church in my family, so it sure is not a religious moral structure. I don't need a Bible to tell me that I should not kill, steal, rape, etc. I don't avoid these behaviors because society or the law says they are very naughty and I will surely be punished. I have a sincere desire to get along with my fellow humans and exist in ways where we can all do alright with and among one another. That desire to be ok with my fellow humans, is what drives a lot of my moral choices.

For me personally a lot of it comes right down to whether there are victims in a situation, whether someone is being harmed or wronged.

Again, I have met plenty of people who were molested as kids. I have never in my life met anyone who wanted, starting with all involved parties as adults, to have sexual relations with a member of their immediate family, let alone acted on it. Not that I know of. And I've gotten very close to many people, I'm often the one people confess things they aren't proud of to. No one has ever said to me, "Yeah, when I was 25 I wanted to bang my Mom." or anything like.

So every instance of "incest" to which I have personally been privy, HAS been one of child molestation. And THAT is not in my opinion, victimless. Not even among child-siblings, necessarily.

The mere fact that in immediate family THERE IS NO EASY ESCAPE from the relationship, is a problem for me.

OK, so how about these folks who come forward from these big cult families, that's another incest case in modern times. Where is the family where no one suffered and there were no victims and there was no lasting harm?

For the making of laws and the ethics and morals THAT EFFECT OTHERS, as in social contracts and covenants that exist to do the best possible job of protecting rights and freedoms and preventing harm and abuse...I think that it's not outrageous to say "how about no" to incest, insofar as the overall balance of harm to good there.

Now interestingly (to me at least) I have another topic where internally, my gut and emotional reaction is negative, but my logic, AND my socialization says it's fine...I can find no victims, everyone else is cool with it, but my gut doesn't like it. I've talked elsewhere about it, the whys and wherefores particular to my own history, so I won't get all into that...but porn, basically. It bothers me. But I take that upon myself as an internal conflict and do not take a position that there is any moral wrongness to it. I believe that despite SOME trafficking and exploitation, the majority of it is consensual and the actions of free adults...and everyone else likes it, it's socially accepted and not going anywhere. So I have to manage my gut and my own issues around it as simply "my problem."

*shrug*
The travails of being human in the world man. Whaddya gonna do?
 
I'm calling TOO MUCH RABBIT HOLE!

The direction all this went is so not likely to be applicable to most anyone's anything here. And I fear, Marcus, that I for one will only be repetitive if I continue to pursue this line of particular subject matter.

I am ready to agree to disagree, though I won't presume to ask anything of you.


Can I turn the page to another question of sexual ethics? One more likely pertinent to most polyfolk?

Cheating. The hiding of relationships and sexual interactions from partners, involving either non-disclosure or deception. I'll go so far as to even say, with no DADT agreement in place...simply...cheating.

I find that to be tricky moral territory.

I know some people who think it is justified if one's needs are not being met.

I know some people who would not cheat on their own partner, but if someone else is cheating they are willing to be the third party and consider it none of their business.

I know some who won't be involved with someone who is potentially cheating on their partner.

I know some who class all forms of poly as cheating (but I think we all know what we consider to be the difference.)

I know some who think that the third party, if they know about the cheating and have sex with a partnered cheater, is more guilty, disgusting, deserving of censure or even violence, is a "home wrecker."

I know some who think that if you treat your wife like a queen, you should be able to keep some side action outside of the castle. I know some ladies in the "queen" position there, who would agree.

I know some who think that cheating under specific circumstances, such as the deployment of a soldier, is more unforgivable than in a more typical setting.

I know some who think that "just sex" is less of a cheating behavior or doesn't "count" as much, compared to a romantic connection. I know some who think that "emotional cheating" is worse. I know some who consider even attempts at platonic friendship with a member of the opposite gender, especially if they suspect the third party has a sexual interest, to be inappropriate as pertains to their spouse.

Personally...I find cheating ethically uncomfortable, but not punishable with hysterics and violence, or even necessarily the end of the relationship. If my significant other were to cheat on me, I would want to know why they felt it necessary to be deceptive, and I would consider their need to lie and hide things to be possibly indicative of a deeper problem that should be solved if possible. Their desire to have relations with others...well, that we could negotiate around, in my opinion. But then...I'm poly-ish. *shrug*

Thoughts on the ethics of cheating?
 
Cheating. The hiding of relationships and sexual interactions from partners, involving either non-disclosure or deception. I'll go so far as to even say, with no DADT agreement in place...simply...cheating.

I find that to be tricky moral territory.

Deception, like a number of other less than beneficial behaviors, is the enemy of intimacy. It tears at the ability to build and nourish intimate associations.

"Cheating" isn't one of those things that is real in my world, since I do not have control (nor do I want it) over what my loved ones do with their time, energy, and bodies. This only exists in contexts where partners accept this kind of rule. So that particular example of deception isn't something I take very seriously. I get that people agreed to rub their junk on only a particular person or group of people, but it's a promise I think was dumb to begin with... so I have limited motivation to have an opinion.
 
Ah! And I thought it was going to devolve back to the basics of explaining the difference between morals and ethics. (Which still comes into play with cheating)


In my view, cheating at its core is very simple to define. Cheating is a subcategory of betrayal/breaking an agreement either spoken or unspoken and assumed, that we use for romantic relationships.

No agreement/promise = No cheating, even if the act doesn't fit current definitions of appropriate

Broken agreement/promise = cheating, even if promise is insanely restrictive, unhealthy, suppressive, or unspoken

Where it gets confusing for people is the mountains of unspoken assumptions and relationship definitions in our society. Just because you didn't explicitly state "I won't kiss other girls now that we are serious" doesn't mean you didn't tacitly agree.

We act like having these predefined guidelines are natural and universal, or easier.... But it just leads to misunderstanding and an excuse to avoid discussing your real desires and expectations. Not to mention pressure to make a relationship fit a predefined mold that may not be the best for those two people.

How loaded are those words "friend" "lover" "spouse" do I really know for sure that my understanding of that role and the rules of it are the same as yours? Do I really want to just assume? No way!


For those who say "this is cheating regardless of agreement" ... I think they are mostly trying to come to a universal consensus of the rules of a romantic role. Maybe so we can all go along with those unspoken assumptions safely.


I don't think that works. Relationships are as unique as the people in them, and assumption is the first step to misunderstanding. Be clear about your expectations and be flexible enough to allow a relationship to take its own form.


As far as being with a cheater...


Well, if I didn't make the agreement I'm not at fault. It's not my job or responsibility to make sure you honor your commitments. I'm going to assume you are an adult managing your own shit and I don't need to check with your mommy that you have permission. I really don't think that's unreasonable.

I'm nearly full RA. Many commitments that are common in romantic relationships I find disturbing and unhealthy anyway, much like many ppl here might be disturbed to know a woman who wasn't allowed to show her face, even in private. She made the commitment, and therefore should follow it, but would you help enforce it?

I'm not to go out of my way to support a format I'm against. Especially when I suspect many only agreed to those restrictions because they felt they had no choice. No way am I going to help enforce that.

On the other hand, if you were my friend, I would consider it not very friendly to help your partner break an agreement, even if it were a restriction I found distasteful. But that's me honoring my friendship with you, my unspoken promise to you, rather than supporting that model.

Further, I don't have much trust or respect for those who break agreements, especially if it hurts those they claim to love. I will totally judge that and have no room for those people in my life long term.

There is some sympathy in my mind for cheaters just discovering there is another way and who (honestly) stop, try to make amends, and decide to proceed ethically. It can be a bumpy road escaping the values you were taught.

So yeah, I'd sleep with a cheater assuming I wasn't friends with their partner. And I feel ZERO need to make sure a person has permission. But it would be a casual and very short term thing as I wouldn't trust or respect them much. Even if the cheating were part if a wake up call in their life, I wouldn't continue on long with them while they are figuring things out.
 
My ex considered anything that made him uncomfortable in terms of an interaction between me and other men...or even getting myself into situations that aroused his suspicion, to be cheating or leading to it or essentially unethical behavior on my part. And I would be "in trouble" as though a child with a parent (though he was often the childish person in our relationship) for doing these things...because he claimed to simply have a greater grasp of morality than I had in general, because he is a man and I'm a woman. It was his job to make me good, by controlling my behavior.

Zen has a friend who behaves similarly in his marriage, and we are almost to the point of taking bets as to how many years she'll strategically hang in there before he comes home and finds she has changed the locks.

Zen on the other hand, now that has been wonderful. We actually TALK about these things, and negotiate agreements in good faith, and for instance I get to agree only to things that feel reasonable and doable to me, and if I need to change those parameters, I'd talk to him before I acted. He owns his choices and I own mine.
 
I realize this thread has moved toward cheating, but I have a question about the previous topic...though it does to relate to social ethics as a whole. Does anyone think that some of the things we find morally or ethically wrong stem from basic animal instincts? We are animals after all.
 
My ex considered anything that made him uncomfortable in terms of an interaction between me and other men...or even getting myself into situations that aroused his suspicion, to be cheating or leading to it or essentially unethical behavior on my part. And I would be "in trouble" as though a child with a parent (though he was often the childish person in our relationship) for doing these things...because he claimed to simply have a greater grasp of morality than I had in general, because he is a man and I'm a woman. It was his job to make me good, by controlling my behavior.

Do you think he actually felt he had a greater grasp of morality, or was he just using that to shield his insecurity?

Mary's husband is very similar. He is very insecure and with reason. Essentially, he has nothing to offer in the relationship. Now that the kids are grown and have actually left the house, he realizes that she realizes she has options. This causes him to be more controlling.
 
Ravenscroft:

You said, "Such official banning (of incest) didn't seem to occur until the 1500s."

Do you consider the word of Yahweh "official?" Since he is God to the Jews and Christians, I'd consider that pretty official for many in our society. See the list from Leviticus 18:6-18, purported to be recorded by Moses (direct from Yahweh) in 1200 BCE, but more likely to have been a law decreed by the Levitical nobility for the diaspora of the Hebrews in the 6th century BCE.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 18:6-18
 
Oh, one last reply, please? Before we properly shift to the ethics (morals?) track.
Do you consider the word of Yahweh "official?"
No, I do not. It had force of law amongst the Jews & in areas of the world under their control. As such, I'd regard it as akin to local custom.

You forgot Deuteronomy...? :D

Some acts of incest in the OT are defended as "necessary endogamy."

And I don't think the OT ever explicitly bans a man marrying his own daughter. That doesn't make it RIGHT.

If Christians were actually influenced by Levitican principles, they wouldn't eat shelled seafood, or put butter on ham bagels, so that's likely indicative... ;)
________________

Actually, that DOES kinda bring us up to morals/ethics. Someone told me that ethics is the list of rules you claim to support, morals is what you actually DO.
 
No, I do not. It had force of law amongst the Jews & in areas of the world under their control. As such, I'd regard it as akin to local custom.

I'd say Jews and many Christians even today would object to your condescension.
You forgot Deuteronomy...? :D

Heh, I cited the most important passage. Deuteronomy is um, deuteronomistic. Secondary.

Some acts of incest in the OT are defended as "necessary endogamy."

Yes, it can appear marrying a cousin or second cousin was actually preferred by the Hebrews. But they didn't go so far as to allow siblings to marry, as the Egyptian nobility encouraged. They liked to draw a line.

And I don't think the OT ever explicitly bans a man marrying his own daughter. That doesn't make it RIGHT.

The argument there was that that should be obvious. He should never. But, it is very curious and funny it isn't mentioned, especially in light of Lot's daughters enebriating him after the destruction of Sodom, and having sex with him and bearing his sons. Cute little myth that is.
If Christians were actually influenced by Levitican principles, they wouldn't eat shelled seafood, or put butter on ham bagels, so that's likely indicative... ;)

Now now that's going way too far down a rabbit hole. (Paul invented Christianity and changed the dietary laws for the "New Jerusalem," but he didn't change the incest laws except in one case: something about how it's OK in the Last Days for a man to marry his daughter if he found himself behaving inappropriately with her!) I just wanted to point out the WORD OF THE LORD on incest could be seen as an "official" guide on whom to fuck, by millions or billions of Christians and Jews throughout the past 2600 years. Some random king in the 1500s who made a law, as you cited, doesn't hold a candle to GOD.
 
Do you think he actually felt he had a greater grasp of morality, or was he just using that to shield his insecurity?

Mary's husband is very similar. He is very insecure and with reason. Essentially, he has nothing to offer in the relationship. Now that the kids are grown and have actually left the house, he realizes that she realizes she has options. This causes him to be more controlling.

Yes, it's a matter usually of shielding insecurity. However, that is not something that he (either my ex, or Zen's friend who is also being controlling of his wife) would wish to admit, due to fragile egos and all, so they will simply assume this mantle of superiority to make them feel comfortable with the behavior.

The insecurity, justified or not, does not in any way excuse it. Especially given the fact that the behavior makes it all the more likely that they will end up losing the woman they're trying to control and keep.

Which has often made me wonder if it's a sort of sabotage of the relationship, in the hopes that they'll drive the woman to leave and then be able to claim they were a righteous victim of a cruel abandoning female.

In the case of my ex, it is a repeated replaying of his innate belief that all women are abandoners in the mold of his biological mother (he was adopted.) He pushes and shoves his partner away, expecting them to fight their way back to his side, and when they finally give up, and leave him, he sits and cries about being alone.

That is another curious area around sexual ethics... As often, sex, attachment, and relating are entwined, does our own baggage of insecurity or emotional issues from our past, justify harmful behavior in relationships? Is it reasonable to expect everyone to do the self-work to unravel their own stuff and own it enough to treat a partner ethically, in loving and respectful ways?
 
Back
Top