Now, you admitted that people who cheat "monitor their behaviour", one example of yours being you don't cheat with your wife's sister. Well right there you undermine your claims, because you keep saying moral codes specific to sexual relations cannot be substantiated
You are misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said. I don't cheat with my wife's sister for
pragmatic reasons rather than moral reasons.
If it is normal (and it is clear from stats alot don't cheat, or alot don't cheat most of the time) for people to suppress things, then by your logic, a morality that says suppressing their urges is bad (inappropriate) is a life denying morality. You are done like bad turkey. Again.
I agree. Not sure why you think this is a point against my argument, though. Whether people choose to suppress their urges or not is something they will evaluate based on their odds of success.
In any case, I agree, it would be wrong to construct a morality that says it is immoral to suppress those urges.
Again, more of your sleight-of-hand. Serial or overlapping must absolutely be specified, otherwise it is too easy to get agreement for a conclusion the interlocutor would not assent to.
Bullshit pedantry.
Fuji implies the associated desire is to cheat. But this is not necessarily so.
You are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say the associated desire is to cheat. I said there is a sexual attraction there, a desire to have an additional sexual partner. Whether that would require cheating or not depends on your circumstances!
What fuji constantly does is use the line "we desire multiple sex partners"
The study I cited on the subject quantified it as "desired partners per month" but the point stands no matter how you would want to quantify it.
So it cannot be life denying not to cheat.
That's correct. It's only life denying to say that it's immoral to cheat. Whether or not an individual's best choice is to cheat in a given situation depends on factors that defy rational, logical analysis, and require the application of the whole host of human faculties, including intuition, emotional intelligence, experience, social intelligence, and anything else a person can bring to bear to make the decision.
It's incorrect for a morality to tell them what to do one way or the other.
What you're saying is that because you want to have sex with many people but you also want a partner who is not fucking anyone, the only way you can do that is be a self-centered, lying schmuck.
Correct, although I prefer the phrase "womanizing slimeball".
You're probably terrible in the sack and know it, so promiscuity means there is always a new person who doesn't yet know you suck in bed.
Nope. Most of my sexual relationships with civilians are long lasting. Months at least, and in several cases years. Both my wife and my girlfriend I've been with for years.
Of course if you were a stronger person you would just stay unattached and fuck as much as you can
I value having a wife for a lot of reasons, not only sexual ones.
or maybe getnin an open relationship
I've argued that being in an open relationship also requires the suppression of basic human desires. I'm capable of self actualizing WITHOUT suppressing those desires, so why would I?
I agree that other men in other situations, or women, might find themselves in relationships where they have no choice but to accept monogamy or an open relationship, but my situation allows for a broader, richer life experience than that.