Is sexual jealousy inappropriate?

Sexual jealousy: is it time to get over it?

  • I have no problem if my partner has other sexual partners

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • I insist on sexual fidelity or else!

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • Some other opinion

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Total voters
    24
Lucy: I'm pretty sure that Katherine Hepburn was a lesbian and that Tracy helped keep the lid on this fact in exchange for cover for his lifestyle which didn't fit the Catholic family man image. Hollywood has maintained such charades for years and continues to do so with todays 'stars'. It is interesting to scrape at this veneer and have a good peep at 'what lies beneath' because I believe it reflects society generally. A high shine is easily tarnished.
 
I have never heard of Hepburn being a lesbian. You will have to offer a little proof there. Why would Tracy need to enter into an affair with a woman who is a lesbian? Doesn't make any sense. It was the affair that was kept silent not sexual orientation. Even back then Hollywood was quite liberal about bisexuality and homosexuality within its circles, only keeping things out of the press for obvious reasons. Dietrich, Crawford, and Flynn were bisexual and it wasn't a secret in Hollywood.
 
Whats the role of co-dependency in such relationships?

Cole and Linda Porter come to mind.
 
Lucysnow said:
Huh? You should elaborate on what you mean by co-dependency
Click to expand...

From wiki

A "codependent" is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A "codependent" is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The "codependent" party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
Click to expand...
 
Asguard said:
SAM thats a very black view of how sexual relationships generally work
Click to expand...

Its not specific to sexual relationships and its pop psy in many cases, but I found it an interesting consideration while watching De-lovely; did Linda Porter really love Cole Porter? Is that why she looked away from his predilection for young men? Or was it because she had previously been in a physically abusive relationship and was conditioned to abuse, hence reconciled herself to her husbands growing lack of attraction towards herself as Well, nobody's perfect.
 
Yup, who knows? Its hard to know what motivates the people to look the other way.
 
Well why say 'look away'? Maybe they are looking directly at it and there are other aspects of the relationship which over-ride the sexual predilictions. Again its the assumption that sexual fidelity is the most important aspect of a relationship when clearly in many marriages its not.
 
"Absolutely," Mann answered. "But at the same time, sex itself was never a real defining aspect of any relationship in her life, whether with men or with women. It was really about, for her, she found she preferred the companionship of women and the nurturance of women, but her great passions, even if they didn't include sex, were always reserved for men."

This doesn't prove her to be a lesbian, the most you can say is she was open to bisexuality, it takes nothing away from what turned out to be a life long relationship with Tracy, the most important love relationship in her life.

The article also says:

"You are reluctant to call her a lesbian," Storm pointed out, "but is it possible these relationships were sexual in nature?"

"It's certainly possible," Mann responded, "but contemporary labels just don't — they're not helpful in understanding historical figures, and certainly not someone as individual as Katharine Hepburn."

Possible! This means he isn't quite certain.
 
I think the idea of exclusive sexual preferences is more a Puritan concept than an actual one.
 
Lucysnow said:
The article also says:

"You are reluctant to call her a lesbian," Storm pointed out, "but is it possible these relationships were sexual in nature?"

"It's certainly possible," Mann responded, "but contemporary labels just don't — they're not helpful in understanding historical figures, and certainly not someone as individual as Katharine Hepburn."

Possible! This means he isn't quite certain.
Click to expand...

Litigation, litigation!
 
S.A.M. said:
In the age of birth control and casual sex, is sexual jealousy and monogamy in relationships something that has outlived its usefulness?

Should people disregard sexual fidelity?
Click to expand...

So when was this 'age' when people were not having casual sex? Lets not kid ourselves here!
 
"What makes you think it would bother someone's conscience either way? If infidelity is wrong its wrong right, whether one does so for an hour or for a few years. You say its wrong but its only considered wrong for you. The question is whether sexual jealousy is APPROPRIATE OR NOT! Whether it serves someone given that many people do, have and will continue to go outside a relationship." - lucysnow

What are you talking about? Clearly the whole point of this post kind of relies on morals. And morals are what guide people. Whether it is appropriate or not also relies on a persons morals. They would consider it wrong if they have morals and wouldn't if they were immoral.

"Perhaps if you had read the opening question you wouldn't have YOUR head stuck so far up MY ass." - lucysnow

This makes no sense! If this was true then wouldn't I be agreeing with you as I would be a brown-noser? Think before you type you Jack of Clubs.
 
Ravosk: This makes no sense! If this was true then wouldn't I be agreeing with you as I would be a brown-noser?

No it would make you a little shit.

Now look here doodoo why don't you go and read Casanova's memoirs it would do you good. Better yet go educate yourself at www.sexualfables.com


"What are you talking about? Clearly the whole point of this post kind of relies on morals. And morals are what guide people. Whether it is appropriate or not also relies on a persons morals. They would consider it wrong if they have morals and wouldn't if they were"

What a boring simpleton you are. You and your infantile idealistic morals would suck the scent from a rose and rob the ocean of its breeze. Puritans like yourself despise sensuality, romance but most of all seduction. It bothers you that others can fullfill their desires doesn't it? You sound fearful. You would shackle the loins if you could wouldn't you? Wild hot passionate desire would leave you impotent. I hope you take your morals with you next time you jack off, the next time you look upon a naked body but most importantly the next time so and so pulls that dildo from your ass.
 
Last edited:
Infantile idealistic morals? Everyone has some sort of morals as towhich they base their life around. And besides, I'm not saying that I am perfect and always right. Just that in order to say whether sexual jealousy is appropriate or not depends on the person considering it. Is this not why it is in the philosophy section? Everyone abides by their own sense of right and wrong. Maybe for some it is OK to have multiple partners, or have an affair or whatever. I've just stated my opinion.

"Puritans like yourself despise sensuality, romance but most of all seduction. It bothers you that others can fullfill their desires doesn't it?" - LS

As for that load of bollocks. How can you judge what a person is like by what they say on a forum? As for your opinion on my sex life, who gives a crap? Maybe I'm a 36 yr old who has never made it with a woman, maybe I lost my virginity at 14. What difference does any of that stuff make?

I seem to be trying to piss you off. I'm not its just a natural occurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top