Do you think people who do not feel a desire to explore their sexuality with several people are lacking?
Is sexual jealousy inappropriate?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Do you think people who do not feel a desire to explore their sexuality with several people are lacking?
Is any kind of jealousy inappropriate?
Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....
So one can be sexually jealous even if one knows better...
Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....
So one can be sexually jealous even if one knows better...
Profound enough for no-one else to have realised. That makes a lot of sense.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Sam: Do you think people who do not feel a desire to explore their sexuality with several people are lacking?
If you had read my posts you would see that the answer is obviously not.
Syzygys: Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....
This can be said true for every feeling known to man
If you had read my posts you would see that the answer is obviously not.
Syzygys: Kind of silly question, because with certain feelings, we just feel it and can't do anything against it, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate they are....
This can be said true for every feeling known to man
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ravosk: 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.
Whatever
Whatever
That's why I said silly question...
*************
M*W: Being a boomer myself, I can tell you that boomers and hippies are of the same generation.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"Every dogma has its day." ~ Israel Zangwill
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:
"We must always change, renew, rejuvenate ourselves; otherwise we harden." ~ Johann von Goethe, 1749-1832, German Poet and Writer
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Syzygys: That's why I said silly question...
But Sam's question doesn't negate investigation and thought, your response does. Pointing out the obvious doesn't make the statement profound as Ravosk deems it to be but simply prosaic at best.
Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy? Where is the exploration of ideas? To simply say to do this is immoral not to do this is moral, if one does that it's because they have no morals, if they refrain they do, shows no philosophy nor investigation of the topic at all. To think all matters of humanity can be shoved into neat little packages or categories as right or wrong, black and white, good and bad is to completely miss the multifarious nuances of human experience with its many shades of grey. Its to completely overlook the dyanmics of ephemeral passion, commitment, love, seduction and sexual adventure. Not to mention to underestimate the power of sex and longing. This is why I told the turd to read Casanova's memoirs as he philosohpically explores these issues and more.
An example of a philosophical approach: Is jealousy a sign of love or simply egoism? Is jealousy a form of resentment? How does jealousy serve us? If so how? What is a marriage anyway? Does marriage imply ownership of ones partner? Why is infidelity wrong? Is it because it hurts? Many things hurt. etc.
Or
Are human beings designed towards monogamous relationships? Is it natural or a function of religion and culture? Is man more fulfilled through monogamy? Does it serve society at large while negating the needs of the individual? Is it possible that one can love one and still desire another? etc.
Left to the 'wisdom' of a few of you here Somerset Maugham's 'Painted Veil' and Edith Wharton's 'Age of Innocence' would amount to nothing more than two pages of she was married, she had an affair, he was good, he was hurt, therefore she was immoral, it was wrong. He was married, he desired another woman, he'd be bad save he didn't leave. They desired, I have compassion for them and other such mundane, dull inanities. Really all that out-of-a-box of cereal wisdom sounds like Dr. Phil or Oprah and god how it dulls the mind.
And then one asks why I find these utterances of morality unsophisticated and infantile.
But Sam's question doesn't negate investigation and thought, your response does. Pointing out the obvious doesn't make the statement profound as Ravosk deems it to be but simply prosaic at best.
Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy? Where is the exploration of ideas? To simply say to do this is immoral not to do this is moral, if one does that it's because they have no morals, if they refrain they do, shows no philosophy nor investigation of the topic at all. To think all matters of humanity can be shoved into neat little packages or categories as right or wrong, black and white, good and bad is to completely miss the multifarious nuances of human experience with its many shades of grey. Its to completely overlook the dyanmics of ephemeral passion, commitment, love, seduction and sexual adventure. Not to mention to underestimate the power of sex and longing. This is why I told the turd to read Casanova's memoirs as he philosohpically explores these issues and more.
An example of a philosophical approach: Is jealousy a sign of love or simply egoism? Is jealousy a form of resentment? How does jealousy serve us? If so how? What is a marriage anyway? Does marriage imply ownership of ones partner? Why is infidelity wrong? Is it because it hurts? Many things hurt. etc.
Or
Are human beings designed towards monogamous relationships? Is it natural or a function of religion and culture? Is man more fulfilled through monogamy? Does it serve society at large while negating the needs of the individual? Is it possible that one can love one and still desire another? etc.
Left to the 'wisdom' of a few of you here Somerset Maugham's 'Painted Veil' and Edith Wharton's 'Age of Innocence' would amount to nothing more than two pages of she was married, she had an affair, he was good, he was hurt, therefore she was immoral, it was wrong. He was married, he desired another woman, he'd be bad save he didn't leave. They desired, I have compassion for them and other such mundane, dull inanities. Really all that out-of-a-box of cereal wisdom sounds like Dr. Phil or Oprah and god how it dulls the mind.
And then one asks why I find these utterances of morality unsophisticated and infantile.
Last edited:
I never said that there was only right or wrong. This argument is spurred on by each person's point of view. There are always shades of grey, and when we a forced to make decisions we can find ourselves in a difficult position as an action can have consequences.
"Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy?" - Lucy Snow
If this wasn't a philosophical question then why the hell is it in the philosophy section?
"Ravosk mentions this subject being a philoshophical one, but where is the philosophy?" - Lucy Snow
If this wasn't a philosophical question then why the hell is it in the philosophy section?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Its the responses that made the discussion unphilosophical. An unwillingness to ask questions beyond this is right and this is wrong. If you go back and check your posts you will find you did write at one point cheating is wrong, its a matter of morality, if the person was moral they wouldn't do it etc.
There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement.
There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement.
"Its the responses that made the discussion unphilosophical. An unwillingness to ask questions beyond this is right and this is wrong. If you go back and check your posts you will find you did write at one point cheating is wrong, its a matter of morality, if the person was moral they wouldn't do it etc.
There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement." - Lucysnow
Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed.
There is no philosophical debate in that response, no philosophical exploration only opinion and judgement." - Lucysnow
Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ravosk:
Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed
Are morals something rigid, concrete and something everyone agrees on? Can people hold a different criteria for what is considered moral? For some people it is immoral to kill a killer or a thief, to others it may be justice. To some it may be that having an affair is immoral, for others it would be immoral to deny yourself as life is short. In the way you express yourself there is a de facto response, for example you imply the man who stole to feed his family is still 'immoral' because you add this " The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out". He could steal and still be moral. It assumes that the act of stealing is de facto immoral, and that he would therefore feel badly about stealing and if he didn't he would be immoral (its in the language you use). Maybe he feels justified. Why is it not that the system which keeps him impoverished is immoral? Why is it not that societies expectations of marriage or fidelity isn't to blame and simply designed to stifle someone's sexual freedom? You still though, give no basis for you ideas of morality? How was it formed? Where does it come from? You speak of morality as if it were contained in a book of law.
Fair point, I may not have been as clear as I intended. In my opinion I would say that having an affair is immoral, but I can see that this is based on how I see things. But (I know this may not seem relevant) if a man steals people can see it as wrong. What if he is stealing to feed his family i.e. he doesn't have the money to support them and has to resort to stealing. People could still say it was wrong as it's against the law but there is reason for it. The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out in which his morals are swayed
Are morals something rigid, concrete and something everyone agrees on? Can people hold a different criteria for what is considered moral? For some people it is immoral to kill a killer or a thief, to others it may be justice. To some it may be that having an affair is immoral, for others it would be immoral to deny yourself as life is short. In the way you express yourself there is a de facto response, for example you imply the man who stole to feed his family is still 'immoral' because you add this " The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out". He could steal and still be moral. It assumes that the act of stealing is de facto immoral, and that he would therefore feel badly about stealing and if he didn't he would be immoral (its in the language you use). Maybe he feels justified. Why is it not that the system which keeps him impoverished is immoral? Why is it not that societies expectations of marriage or fidelity isn't to blame and simply designed to stifle someone's sexual freedom? You still though, give no basis for you ideas of morality? How was it formed? Where does it come from? You speak of morality as if it were contained in a book of law.
Sam, are you going to vote? Where do you fall in all of this?
I think most of the sexual jealousy I've ever had is being jealous of those getting some while I'm not. 
Seriously, I think I would be more jealous of a platonic emotional affair than a sexual who cares one. I would be angry both ways, but I would be more upset over him loving someone.
Seriously, I think I would be more jealous of a platonic emotional affair than a sexual who cares one. I would be angry both ways, but I would be more upset over him loving someone.
"Are morals something rigid, concrete and something everyone agrees on? Can people hold a different criteria for what is considered moral? For some people it is immoral to kill a killer or a thief, to others it may be justice. To some it may be that having an affair is immoral, for others it would be immoral to deny yourself as life is short. In the way you express yourself there is a de facto response, for example you imply the man who stole to feed his family is still 'immoral' because you add this " The man could have been a moral guy up until his luck ran out". He could steal and still be moral. It assumes that the act of stealing is de facto immoral, and that he would therefore feel badly about stealing and if he didn't he would be immoral (its in the language you use). Maybe he feels justified. Why is it not that the system which keeps him impoverished is immoral? Why is it not that societies expectations of marriage or fidelity isn't to blame and simply designed to stifle someone's sexual freedom? You still though, give no basis for you ideas of morality? How was it formed? Where does it come from? You speak of morality as if it were contained in a book of law." - Lucysnow
As I've said, I think that morals can change according to circumstances. I don't think that morals are fixed otherwise no one would ever change. There are many events that can change people for better or worse.
And the bit where I said the guy could have been moral but has resorted to stealing I meant that at one point he may have considered it immoral, but as his role is reversed, it could be a grey area or hes in the right as there is no other way.
As I've said, I think that morals can change according to circumstances. I don't think that morals are fixed otherwise no one would ever change. There are many events that can change people for better or worse.
And the bit where I said the guy could have been moral but has resorted to stealing I meant that at one point he may have considered it immoral, but as his role is reversed, it could be a grey area or hes in the right as there is no other way.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ravosk: Okay but where does your idea of morality stem from? What's the basis of the convictions you hold?
Really, I don't know how my brain works. (May seem stupid but I have different influences) I was raised to see right and wrong, and taught not to do wrong. I guess that my idea of morality was influenced by my parents, but I also see things in a different light to them in some cases. I don't know where some of the ideas I have come from or how I even thought them up.
I think that for me a situation has to occur and then I'll decide how I should act. Not based on morals but based on whatever feeling I get there and then.
I think that for me a situation has to occur and then I'll decide how I should act. Not based on morals but based on whatever feeling I get there and then.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
A very honest answer.