ravishingravi Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 I had a long discussion recently about this and can't help but thinking that this one of the bits of social programming that is done on us. Personally don't see how a person who is "loyal" or claims to be loyal is in any way superior to the one who philanders. Some might even argue that biologically man was never meant to be monogamous and this has been thrust on his to bring some structure to society. Does that mean I want to "cheat" on my partner ? No. But I wouldn't hold myself in higher esteem if I don't and someone else does. The truth of the matter is for a man or a woman, happy or unhappy in any relationship, it really boils down to a moment of choice. Temptation exists for one and all, so this puritanical yardstick seems rather redundant since almost everyone has this temptation at some level.
punjabi_khota Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 It is honesty to the partner. IF you value honesty, you value fidelity. On the lines of your argument, you can make an argument that "person who is honest is no way superior to one who is not, since the temptation of being dishonest is alway there.". :dontknow: I don't think people "don't cheat" in order to feel superior. That is not the point.
Ram Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 Very good remarks in the OP. But in general terms, I disagree with the sentiment that biologically, man was never meant to be monogamous. That would be true if we are look at man just as an another branch in the species tree. But I think we are different from the other species in that we have a constantly evolving morality. Our entire society works on trust, trust in certain attributes we take for granted. For example, when I board a plane, I trust that the manufacturers and the engineers have done their job right and the plane wont fall off the sky. When I drive a car, I trust that the car makers have made sure the brakes work, so even when I am driving at 120-130 kph, I feel safe. I trust my family, I trust my friends and I trust other people. And that trust can only be earned through time and a commitment to loyalty. It Even though from a pure ‘survival of the fittest’ perspective, it might seem like we’re just here to propagate our genes, If it that were to hold true, we would just be Godless killing machines cannibalizing fellow humans. But our existence demands that we co-exist. And for that to happen, we have to trust each other and trust only comes from sustained loyalty and earned credibility. Else, society as we know it, will simply fall apart and ultimately end up destroying our species. So even from a Darwinian perspective, there could be selfish angle to why we follow the rules that we follow.
Zap_Brannigan Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 If girls settling for guys with money is socially acceptable then men cheating should be acceptable too. Afterall, arent those the genetic disposition of both men and women.. just FYI, i have never cheated because i have been cheated upon and i know the pain that can cause to the person you love.
Nova Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 The social programming you are referring to is about the level of trust between the partners. Once you enter a marriage or a relationship, putting it bluntly...it becomes a contract where some terms are subject to negotiation and some are not. Morality has got nothing to do with it - there are swinging couples who have a open relationship. For the majority, fidelity is definitely a positive attribute if it is required by both partners, to make the relationship successful. Temptation can be equated to a biological need, but fidelity is a facet of one's resolve, character and conscious decisions where the right and wrong of it is dependent on the type of relationship a couple has. No one cares about the temptation, everyone cares about the actions.
Sachinism Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 The social programming you are referring to is about the level of trust between the partners. Once you enter a marriage or a relationship, putting it bluntly...it becomes a contract where some terms are subject to negotiation and some are not. Morality has got nothing to do with it - there are swinging couples who have a open relationship. For the majority, fidelity is definitely a positive attribute if it is required by both partners, to make the relationship successful. Temptation can be equated to a biological need, but fidelity is a facet of one's resolve, character and conscious decisions where the right and wrong of it is dependent on the type of relationship a couple has. No one cares about the temptation, everyone cares about the actions. :two_thumbs_up:
Ram Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 The social programming you are referring to is about the level of trust between the partners. Once you enter a marriage or a relationship, putting it bluntly...it becomes a contract where some terms are subject to negotiation and some are not. Morality has got nothing to do with it - there are swinging couples who have a open relationship. For the majority, fidelity is definitely a positive attribute if it is required by both partners, to make the relationship successful. Temptation can be equated to a biological need, but fidelity is a facet of one's resolve, character and conscious decisions where the right and wrong of it is dependent on the type of relationship a couple has. No one cares about the temptation, everyone cares about the actions. Completely disagree. Almost everything we do, almost all of our behavioral traits, the way we interact with other people, whether it be family, friends, foes etc, can be traced back to our moral roots. To suggest that our morality has got nothing to do with our relationship tenets is completely inaccurate. Darwinian principles can be used to explain almost all (if not every) one of our behavioral traits. If I am loyal to my partner, it is out of a selfish expectation that it will win me back loyalty from the other side. It is for the same reason why you go out of your way to help your family/friends in trouble. In short, the ‘loyalty’ in question is the ‘price’ you pay for a commitment to that relationship.
fineleg Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 It is honesty to the partner. IF you value honesty, you value fidelity. On the lines of your argument, you can make an argument that "person who is honest is no way superior to one who is not, since the temptation of being dishonest is alway there.". :dontknow: I don't think people "don't cheat" in order to feel superior. That is not the point. I really liked this answer p.khota. Despite the fact that you always twist things to try and make fun of me, I would like to acknowledge when you write a good post :winky:
Nova Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 Completely disagree. Almost everything we do' date=' almost all of our behavioral traits, the way we interact with other people, whether it be family, friends, foes etc, can be traced back to our moral roots. To suggest that our morality has got nothing to do with our relationship tenets is completely inaccurate. [/quote'] You misunderstood what I said. Let me rephrase it. Morality here is in context to engage in extra marital flings and if that is considered right or wrong depends on a given relationship. If the couple agrees for a open relationship, then that act does not remain immoral for them. It is subjective, although a minority view. Darwinian principles can be used to explain almost all (if not every) one of our behavioral traits. If I am loyal to my partner, it is out of a selfish expectation that it will win me back loyalty from the other side. It is for the same reason why you go out of your way to help your family/friends in trouble. In short, the ‘loyalty’ in question is the ‘price’ you pay for a commitment to that relationship. For me I don't really care for evolutionary biology here. So won't comment as to why people have the tendency to cheat, etc. Well isn't any relationship a two way street? It's all about compromise. Not only is one willing to be loyal but also empty our pockets to be happy in a relationship. :D --->
fineleg Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 If the couple agrees for a open relationship, then that act does not remain immoral for them. It is subjective, although a minority view. Correct. But if someone so chooses, it would be prudent to discuss this ahead of time with a partner before committing to the relationship or a marriage. There is an implicit assumption that a person enters a marriage (or comm. rel) with expectation of fidelity from both sides. Therefore if nothing is said beforehand, fidelity expectation is to be assumed.
dial_100 Posted November 15, 2010 Posted November 15, 2010 You misunderstood what I said. Let me rephrase it. Morality here is in context to engage in extra marital flings and if that is considered right or wrong depends on a given relationship. If the couple agrees for a open relationship, then that act does not remain immoral for them. It is subjective, although a minority view. For me I don't really care for evolutionary biology here. So won't comment as to why people have the tendency to cheat, etc. Well isn't any relationship a two way street? It's all about compromise. Not only is one willing to be loyal but also empty our pockets to be happy in a relationship. :D ---> Well, in that case couple changing definition for all other social norms like steeling, bribing, absing etc. should be acceptable as well. This, "as long as two people agree" notion has tossed up all important virtues that we once used to possess. Now, they have become useless for people. To me, morality in me is not decided by/because of my partner at all. It is always decided by me, what is acceptable to my conscious. So yes Fidelity will only come from understanding of morality. Its not like, you eat the dirt so I eat it as well kind of stuff.
Nova Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 Well, in that case couple changing definition for all other social norms like steeling, bribing, absing etc. should be acceptable as well. This, "as long as two people agree" notion has tossed up all important virtues that we once used to possess. Now, they have become useless for people. To me, morality in me is not decided by/because of my partner at all. It is always decided by me, what is acceptable to my conscious. So yes Fidelity will only come from understanding of morality. Its not like, you eat the dirt so I eat it as well kind of stuff. Now you are drifting away. I should then ask you - how do extend your logic to pre-marital relationships? If two consenting partners engage in that, would you want to label that as immoral? At one point it was considered as such, but sexuality and culture is changing over time. That's why I said it is subjective. What you label as dirt might turn out to be another person's delicacy. I will agree that this viewpoint is in minority, and I did make it clear before. Not getting divorced and maintaining a life long relationship even if one is unhappy is also considered a virtue in some cultures, whereas other couples are more open to split in such situations.
Clarke Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 It's a 'mutual' fund after all, if the parties do not indulge in excessive risks and play sensibly, it has a tendency to pay off over the long term and hence can be an asset. It still is a personal asset since others do not directly gain from it.
DomainK Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 I have seen marriages where husband and wife mutually decide not to be accountable to each other. If one does not come home for a night, the other takes it easy. Marriage is an agreement based on trust. If you wish not to remain faithful, make sure that that is the understanding from the beginning. There are enough women who would be pleased to have the freedom to sleep around. Find one and marry her. But if you enter into a marriage with an understanding (remember that no such express understanding means an understanding of faithfulness) that you will remain faithfully devoted, you have to keep your end of the bargain. Besides, faithfulness is not a condition of just marriage. It's a condition of every relationship. Why does a boy friend get hurt when he finds out that his girl friend slept with someone else? And no, men are not programmed not to be monogamous. There are enough examples around to prove that. As far as sex is concerned, it's well known that females have a higher sex drive. They also want sex as bad as we do. But men have a tendency of easily falling for other women. You think it's your right to sleep around? Fine, but make sure that your wife knows it before marriage and dont complain when she sleeps around.
dial_100 Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 Now you are drifting away. I should then ask you - how do extend your logic to pre-marital relationships? If two consenting partners engage in that' date=' would you want to label that as immoral? At one point it was considered as such, but sexuality and culture is changing over time. That's why I said it is [b']subjective. What you label as dirt might turn out to be another person's delicacy. I will agree that this viewpoint is in minority, and I did make it clear before. Yes. It is..at least for me. Not getting divorced and maintaining a life long relationship even if one is unhappy is also considered a virtue in some cultures, whereas other couples are more open to split in such situations. Thats another issue.
beetle Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 Completely agree with Punjabi khota and Domaink. The belief that men are polygamous by nature and women are monogamous is a load of bullshit that men wish was true. Given the same environment and opportunity women can be as polygamous.Men just like to believe otherwise.
Sooda Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 Men are the weaker sex when it comes to willypower.
Guest Gunner Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 A woman can have most men but this is simply not true for men. I would say that men need fidelity more than women do. I think all this programming stuff is BS.
dial_100 Posted November 16, 2010 Posted November 16, 2010 It really depends on where you find pleassure. If sleeping around gives pleassure to a person then that person will seek that in every way possible.
Recommended Posts