Morality of relationships and sex.

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
1

I’ve been pondering various ethical, naturalistic, pragmatic, and all other kinds of questions and thoughts about relationships lately. I’ll admit to being a bit apprehensive about broaching the subject here, mostly due to how I think the subject of sex is viewed in our culture and especially since, no offense, a lot of people on this forum seem to be a bit more “mature” than I am and are bound to have more conservative opinions on the matter.

Since my skepticism set in I haven’t really settled on what I think is “acceptible” or even a status-quo for how I approach matters of relationships and sex. I think this really is an area where once you throw religion out the window, there isn’t much left in the realm of “guidelines”.

Let me be clear, I’ve searched this forum already and read all the “well whatever floats other peoples’ boats is fine” opinions various people here have expressed throughout the years. This is not what I want to discuss. I want to know YOUR opinions on what YOU think would be not only acceptible, but would be something you think YOU yourself could really do IRL without remorse, maybe even without consequence.

Tricky yes, in a public forum nonetheless, and emotionally uncomfortable, for me definitely. But, on to the gist:

I have difficulty understanding why we bother in the secular world with single-partner relationships, and especially marriage. And the effects of how it’s done currently seem severe to me. I think I understand why this mechanism developed, I was recently watching an episode of “Through the Wormhole” (I think) that touched on the subject: The premise set forward was that since human babies are pretty much useless at birth and require lots of effort to raise, it is through evolution that humans started forming pair-bonds to ensure security for the child. Fair enough. Then we skipped to Bonobo’s, one of our closest cousins, and they bonk whatever and whenever they please. They even use sex to resolve conflict and build pack bonds. They raise offspring “as a villiage”, and so on. Which you could argue is even more secure for the infant… So there are the extremes. But where would you think is the ethical place to be?

In the modern world, it’s hard for me to see why humans don’t just go that route. Single mothers and fathers are all over the place, most of whom exclusively believe in single-partner committed “secure” relationships … but it didn’t work out, and they divorce, next moment they are raising a child alone. So what was the point? It’s not like we’re fending off predators and having trouble collecting food. Single parents manage these days. It’s not easy, but even then I’ve noticed they usually find another partner quite keen on the kids and life goes on. … And the people who believe these things have “affairs”, which are supposedly extremely morally reprehensible and shameful, yet happen all the time. But why? If it happens so often surely it means we’re trying to suppress a core part of our natural instincts.

So of course I’ve been doing homework and read about homosexual parents, “Polyamorous” relationships (where some people love, have sex and raise children in small groups), stumbled on some docu’s about mormon polygamy (they all seem fine with it, in an anti-woman kind of way), and so on…

I can’t really end this post with any conclusions because I have none. I once watched a committed (bi) gf of mine passionately make out with another woman. I felt a tinge of jealousy and insecurity but quickly got over it and realised it really wasn’t that big a deal… and everything was fine. Besides it was pretty hot, and I’m an atheist so didn’t quite see the harm. The question quickly became “Ok, but if it was a man?”. I’ve contemplated it and I THINK the answer is: I’d be fine with it as long as I was sure it wouldn’t affect our bond.

I feel that since I love this person, and want to see them happy, why would I stand in their way?

Does that make me a wierd freak outlier of some sort? Because I don’t generally feel inclined to go out there and chase that, I’m not into all kinds of kinky sex stuff, and I wouldn’t attend a “swinger” party since that just seems icky… but I think the only difference between me and other people is that I see other people and feel attracted, and I don’t feel guilty about it. Whereas other people view such an attraction as “betrayal”, prejudicial, shameful, and so on.

My current partner definitely is the single-partner type and so of course I feel obliged to toe the line with her… which to me indicates this may be what many people do. I don’t think humans are really, truly, biologically inclined to single-partner relationships. For me there is way too much experiential evidence that this cannot be the case. I think we all just do what our societal framework dictates since the social fallout from NOT doing so is severe. I think disproportionately severe.

The polyamorists have this idea that love is not a finite resource: That loving a second person does not impinge on your love for the first. And I buy that.

Of course nobody, and I mean nobody, around me sees it that way. I’m venturing a guess that even us skeptics (incl me) have a hard time pushing the boundaries of what we would do IN REAL LIFE that would be counter to ye olde ‘One partner, get married/settle down’ mantra. In spite of me having these philosophical ideas swirling around in my head I’m not sure how I would react if the situation got a lot more real than it did that one time.

Thoughts? Opinions? Indictments?

(Apologies for the wall of text)

2

I think jealousy is a socially conditioned reaction based on insecurity. From a purely rational perspective, many of the so-called ethical prescriptions we follow, especially about love relationships, don’t seem to make much sense and/or provide any useful benefit but we (mostly) stick to them because that’s the way we’ve been taught. Perhaps our single-partner imperative is the optimal general solution to the problem of balancing individual agitations against overall quietude (the point to remember being that social rules profit the society, not necessarily the individual). It’s also probable that certain behaviours of ours re procreation are genetically determined, and many of these may no longer be relevant but still in force because genetic adaptation happens slowly over many generations.

In short, ethics is just as knotty as the problems it strives to address.

'Viewthon64

3

I think the problem is that our society is over-romantic about marriage. A marriage should be more like a business relationship, if you ask me. Which means cultures in which they arrange marriages actually have a good idea. This is how it should be done, but in the modern world, the prospective marriage partners should play the main role instead of having the arrangement foisted upon them. A marriage built on shared interests and children may well be more solid than one based on transitory romantic and sexual feelings. Those feelings will pass, whereas the children will not.

However, virtually everyone does like a bit of romance, so how to get this in a marriage arranged coolly and rationally? Well, discreet marital infidelity is the answer. If both partners are mature enough, and do not allow their romances to interfere with marital obligations, then they can both also have their fun on the side, and there needn’t be any jealousy or other troubles. If the marriage isn’t built on romance in the first place, then romance will never threaten it either.

As for single parents, as school teacher I see the result every day. Some manage. Many do not. The ideal is not just two parents, but extended families of the African traditional sort in which grandparents, uncles, aunts, older siblings and cousins etc. all help out. This was in fact common in the West as well, until fairly recently. My experience is that today’s insulated nuclear families, in which parents are often physically and/or emotionally absent, is what causes a great deal of the troubles we have in schools and society at large.

One last idea, which I ran into in a science fiction book (if memory serves, it was Steve King’s “The Running Man”): instead of romantic marriages that are supposed to last forever, we have marriage contracts, specified to extend for a finite time. That way both partners are in a position to plan for what happens if they end up deciding not to renew their contract.

Of course, I am blissfully happily single and believe in life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit, so I can afford not to take the whole subject all that seriously. :slight_smile:

4

There exist only two schools of thought on the topic of relationships and sex. The first group represents about half the human population and holds the view that a relationship is a prerequisite for sex. The other group is generally known as men.

Perversely, members of these two schools often end up with each other.

Rigil

5

I can personally attest to it, once I realised my relationship was safe the jealousy disappeared in an instant. I have to say it was an interesting experience.

It’s also probable that certain behaviours of ours re procreation are genetically determined, and many of these may no longer be relevant but still in force because genetic adaptation happens slowly over many generations.

I’m not convinced of the genetics involvement. Whilst that documentary infers DNA to be the origin, much of what I see people actually do contradicts it.

I actually do believe in long-term love. The familiarity of many years of shared experience does bond people in a special kind of way. However I think often the undoing of this is ether a new romantic interest or being “stuck” in a situation.

Well, discreet marital infidelity is the answer. If both partners are mature enough, and do not allow their romances to interfere with marital obligations, then they can both also have their fun on the side, and there needn't be any jealousy or other troubles.

The poly-people claim the trick is to NOT be discreet about it. Discretion, in their opinion, breeds mistrust and insecurity: Your partner is only “cheating” on you because there is a lie involved. Their view is that being honest about it removes the distrust and insecurity.

As for single parents, as school teacher I see the result every day. Some manage. Many do not. The ideal is not just two parents, but extended families of the African traditional sort in which grandparents, uncles, aunts, older siblings and cousins etc. all help out. This was in fact common in the West as well, until fairly recently. My experience is that today's insulated nuclear families, in which parents are often physically and/or emotionally absent, is what causes a great deal of the troubles we have in schools and society at large.

I stand corrected. And I agree that us westerners have insulated ourselves from both our families and friends way too much. As an aside: I’ve read that the people of Okinawa are unusually long lived and one of the speculated reasons is that their communities are incredibly close-knit, resulting in very little life stress for any particular individual: There is always a safety net of friends and family.

The first group represents about half the human population and holds the view that a relationship is a prerequisite for sex. The other group is generally known as men.

Funny enough, some of the stuff I read indicated that in theory a lot of men are all for it, until it happens, then the men often have a harder time dealing with it than the women. There are a couple of “triads” in videos I watched where it was 1 woman with 2 men. I found this particularly interesting because it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom outlined above.

6

I’m a one-man kind of girl. I did not have any issues flirting around when I was single, but the moment I “liked” someone, the flitting stopped and I watched to see whether it would grow into a relationship or not. I am not forgiving when it comes to abusing my trust in others, and I would not tolerate being betrayed, if the man wants to go bonk someone else, he needs to tell me before he goes off rather than shamefacedly come tell me afterwards because of feelings of guilt. I would likely (and I say likely as I have never been in this situation with a partner), be more tolerant (although probably pissed off beyond conversation) of being told what is on the agenda…

I also dont believe that humans were made to mate for life, I have yet to come across an old couple married 40+ years that claim actual happiness with each other, most of them actively hate the other and make no pretenses to hide it either.

I’m currently in a solid relationship (I hope :P) and I trust the guy with my kids, it is also almost six years later and I still have a flutter in my tummy when I think of him, I consider him my growing-old-with mate.

My first marriage lasted 9 years on paper and about 3 in my mind. The moment the kids arrived the relationship floundered, and if I look at friends and colleagues, its a trend. Many stick it out for the “sake of the children” others divorce also, “for the sake of the children”.

I love my guy, but I will not waste my time and my life with him should I wake up one morning realising that I dont like/love him anymore. I’m not afraid of being alone, which many people are and it is probably the reason so many marriages “work”…

7

I have also pondered the question of whether humans are naturally monogamous. Our sexual attractions are certainly not limited to only one partner. Insistence on fidelity in a relationship appears to be out of kilter with such urges. Yet, jealousy also comes to us spontaneously and can be a very strong emotion.

A polyamorous community does not come across as unethical to me on the grounds that people have multiple sex partners. I am, however, less convinced that it can provide a stable environment for raising children. Modern lifestyle dictates that people often have to relocate in the pursuit of their careers, resulting in discontinuity of the polyamorous community. I also fear that a polyamorous community might not be all that amiable and romantic. It is therefore not unacceptable sexual conduct that bothers me, but sustainability.

8

It would seem that monogamy has been inherited from Greek and Roman practices not for religious purposes but rather for the alliance of interests such as family empires, power, wealth and importantly, bloodlines. It had very little to do with love or romance. Roman Caesars had many wives and many divorces but were usually monogamous. This did not deter them to have mistresses or visit whores but the family and children (heirs) were uppermost in their interests.The chastity of women of class was highly prized and protected while the men could carouse as much as they wished with impunity.
Polygamy per se should be rid of all legal impediments IMHO but could be implemented with certain provisos: e.g. the taking of a second (3rd etc) wife should be agreed to by the preceding wives and mutual arrangements made (sharing of husband’s bed, wealth, looking after offspring etc)If an earlier wife refuses, the man should divorce and then marry again because the 2nd marriage would by implication create many hassles.
Among primates, research (conflicting studies) would seem to indicate that monogamy had to do with infanticide (protecting one’s offspring from attack by a rival male)but in my view, while it may have been an evolutionary issue thousands of decades ago among our forebears, more recent history such as the times of Moses (if he ever existed) would condone polygamy as a survivalist strategy (among small tribes such as the Israelites) where men were killed in conflict and were outnumbered by women.
So getting back to morality BM…I don’t think humans are naturally monogamous but adapt to suit circumstances (moral relativism??? Yech!). Given a scenario where the world population is decimated by a virus that attacks male virility you can imagine how quickly the few fertile men left will be farmed out to protect the survival of the species.

9

@BoogyMonster

I was gonna right something and probably go off on some tangent,
but then I thought maybe I should get clarity on what you asking.

After contemplating it for a while, it sounds to me like you are
making the theist argument, that if we don’t believe in God why
are we not out murdering prostitutes. In the same you
are asking why bother having a traditional relationship if
we have no religious morality.

Or am I missing the boat?

10

So much to catch up on…

Absolutely not. I’m questioning the rationality of loving and living in the framework of the pressures, rules, guidelines imposed, or at least enforced/strengthened by religious dogma (whether they originate in the Bible or with religious institutions non-withstanding).

Without this enforcement we are free to contemplate other societal structures that may/may not be more “moral”/beneficial/detrimental. And I’m wondering how do we (the people on this forum) measure that and what do we do about it. I was curious to see whether our pattern of pair-mating is so ingrained that even as skeptics we are loathe to question it, and moreso (this seems to be the case) loathe to do something that doesn’t fit in that norm.

I recall a statistic that skeptics were less likely to divorce. That is interesting to me since a skeptic doesn’t necessarily have any reason to marry in the first place, much less be more devoted. Maybe the skeptic more easily ends up with the “right person” (if there is such a thing), because the pressures to rush into a committed relationship are less. There are many reasons I could contemplate but I digress…

Notice above I emphasise “love”. I’m not suggesting we go to the other extreme, the “Bonobo method”, complete whoring and reckless sex with abandon. However I’m also not saying that is immoral, because I seem to be in a place where there isn’t much in the way of measuring the morality of any of this.

In the same you are asking why bother having a traditional relationship if we have no religious morality.

I have no problem with traditional relationships, but I feel much of the time it is an imposed construct rather than a voluntary one. I am in a traditional relationship right now and I take it quite seriously. However I feel that if one were to break that mould, you would find those around you don’t take it all that well. I feel the social barriers to actually living outside of that norm are enormous. Which comes back to my point above, much of the time this is imposed.

Another thing that intrigues me is: how would we know a skeptic’s relationships don’t fit that mould because of lifelong conditioning? Which is the point Mefi is trying to address in her first reply. To me it’s akin to asking someone if they are biased, you just can’t trust the answer, even if the answer is completely honest.

At the same time I’m raising examples of other structures that other people DO use and seem quite happy in. However in larger society these people are probably viewed with much suspicion. Which to me seems senseless.

11

The question seems really to come down to how much of a fringe participant/outsider/outcast you are willing to be, regardless along which avenue you came by that status, and perhaps also how many companions you want/can get to tag along with you. It just so happens that society is especially tuned in to relationships and sex (magazine shelves abundantly testify to this, and not just women’s either!), so that’s a very provocative route to follow.

Sceptics are, I think, already at the fringe (not necessarily their own preference), and the main handbrake probably consists of not wanting unduly to upset friends and family, a sign of their essential humanness.

BTW, I think that the reason that sceptics have lower divorce rates (if indeed it is so) is probably to be found in them being on average older and more mature when they marry, itself likely an upshot of constantly viewing the world through critical eyes and the desire for holding well-founded beliefs, including the belief that their marriage/relationship will last.

'Luthon64

12

Well if I had to look at my self and have to think why I “chose” the relationship I am in. Yes certainly societal pressures can’t be under estimated,
but we also have to look at the Darwinian advantages that I think at least a traditional relationship has when it comes to raising children.

If you take polygamy as my example, in our western society it is so discouraged that it is illegal in most places. Now ask why is that? If all party’s are
consenting adults why make it illegal? I think it has to do with countering the evolutionary advantage a man will gain in such an environment.

13
I have no problem with traditional relationships, but I feel much of the time it is an imposed construct rather than a voluntary one. I am in a traditional relationship right now and I take it quite seriously. However I feel that if one were to break that mould, you would find those around you don't take it all that well. I feel the social barriers to actually living outside of that norm are enormous. Which comes back to my point above, much of the time this is imposed.

This is not something that our generation would be able to answer imo, I had an interesting conversation with my 17 year old this afternoon when I picked him up from school and I made an observation about the kids just about all wore the same type and shade of “civvies”. He himself was wearing a tracksuit pants and baggy shirt which I bitched about this morning saying it looked tacky and certainly set him apart from the rest of the crowd. He is not one of the “popular” crowd but quite at ease with himself for a lad his age (I think…)

He commented that I taught him to “be himself” and not to abide to society’s impositions if you did not agree on a personal and rational level, and that what I was observing is exactly what he is trying to do. He noted that the only time that he will step in line with the agreed societal expectations is if the alternative is “stupid” - his example was being violent or getting yourself a tatoo on your face but I suspect it goes deeper than that, he is only 17 after all.

what I’m trying to get at in a rather long winded kind of way, is that all of us here grew up with the traditional values and discipline, something which my son was not exposed to, and he grew up with an extended mush mash of divorced and remarried extended family who all get along with each other - our family gatherings are an interesting combination of exes married to exes and is normal in his life. He is a bit young to ask an opinion for here though (the girlfriend is still a pinup out of FHM…) but I am curious to see what he and his older brother will evolve into in their adult years. Both commented that they dont want to get married but would like to have children.

14

I suppose I am a conservative killjoy here, but I can not see how a Bonobo type community can work. Not with human jealousy and I /we are better than you / them.

15

Me neither. I don’t even fancy bonobos in that way. 0:)

Rigil

16

Oh I’m all about saying so-and-so shouldn’t be illegal, even though it is. I seriously don’t consider “things that are illegal” to all be immoral. I’m pretty sure the above falls under “argument from authority”. Puff and pass man…

If all party's are consenting adults why make it illegal?

My point exactly.

I think it has to do with countering the evolutionary advantage a man will gain in such an environment.

I could argue that the evolutionary fit person is then being subjucated by his non-fit counterparts. But then mefi would point out this is what makes them fitter than him, and then it’ll all get relativistic… and besides the point. Once again, just because other people say you shouldn’t do something is not a reason to not do it.

To take the words out of mefi’s mouth:

I think jealousy is a socially conditioned reaction based on insecurity.

So, what if we drop the jealousy, as I have, and did, would you then consider it OK?

and I /we are better than you / them.

“Better” because our sexual practises are different? This is a weird argument…

“We’re christians, that’s what makes us better than unbelievers”
“Why?”
“Because we’re christians, and that’s better”

See, I don’t see how our sexual habits make us “better than” anything. Seriously, it’s a mystery to me. It’s catholics vs homosexuals and christians vs mormon polygamists and puritans vs prostitutes, etc. etc. Everyone claims a moral high-ground due to some sexual orientation/proclivity/lack-of and I see no basis for any of it. Why do people think that sex is so goddamn shameful, dirty, animalistic, and “un-evolved”?. It would seem social conditioning is a more powerful force than I often like to give it credit for.

I just, my brain, it’s different, you know? I need reasons for stuff, evidence, logic, I’m weird like that. I know I don’t fit, and as Faerie says, apart from being on a fringe I seem to be on a fringe of a fringe. (Well, it would seem, Mefi can at least in part agree with the philosophy).

I thank ya’ll for your honest opinions though, for or against. Really informative stuff.

17

Yes, to the extent that it would seriously contravene my libertarian principles to presume to know and tell others what’s good or bad for them when no obvious harm is evident and mutual adult consent is in play. It would be equally brash and unconvincing to argue speculative hypotheticals that are not grounded in any society’s real experiences, past or current, for example something like, “Look at what happened to the Roman Empire” (on which note Brian has delivered some thought-provoking points to consider).

I myself would not easily or freely choose such a lifestyle for myself — which is probably my conservative upbringing talking — but I wouldn’t condemn those who try it or live it, just as little as I would condemn those who love watching the Twilight films’ overwrought dramas of Bella and Ed in rapt fascination and morose longing.

'Luthon64

18
Why do people think that sex is so goddamn shameful, dirty, animalistic, and "un-evolved"?. It would seem social conditioning is a more powerful force than I often like to give it credit for.

We shouldn’t underestimate the power of our own indoctrination. Sex WAS described as dirty…it is the outcome of the original sin, to Think as described in Genesis. My own mother denied my Dad sex after the birth of my younger sister in 1950 until his death in 1986! She saw it as an evil necessity FFS! She came from an Afrikaans Boere family (in fact my grandad was a Rebel against Jan Smuts’ forces in the Northern Cape!)…now it’s an interesting outcome of our own upbringing that everyone of my siblings are atheist!!

19

Two thoughts…

  1. what a waste of a perfectly good vagina
  2. your poor father…
20
My own mother denied my Dad sex after the birth of my younger sister in 1950 until his death in 1986

Holy mother! That’s got to hurt doubly so if you believe masturbation is evil, talk about some serious frustration! (Or more likely, a LOT of shame)

..now it's an interesting outcome of our own upbringing that everyone of my siblings are atheist!!

Completely understandable given that context.