How's the girl to prove the deceit was deliberate?
Why are you assuming that the girl was forthcoming with her intentions, but Fuji was not?
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Why are you assuming that the girl was forthcoming with her intentions, but Fuji was not?
You really do pine for the Victorian days of yore when sex outside of marriage, infidelity, sexual cheating were viewed as criminal. You're plainly off your rocker at this point!There have been lawsuits on that sort of breach of promise/deception/palimony continuum. Even if she doesn't win do you want to have to defend?
I have not, and will not ever tell her that I am going to marry her. I have not even indicated that I would be willing to be her boyfriend.
Isn't this similar to another thread dealing with a girl he was misleading in some foreign country. Slimey guys never shower I guess.
You fill 3/4 of your post with childish bullshit insults, and you think you have standing to say that? Pathetic. Show some backbone, if you can`t take it, don`t dish it out.That`s the gambit of someone who has already lost.
No, you did not address anything there. I pointed out that your Victorian era thinking involves viewing a relationship as subject to a lot of pat, near, logical Platonic rules. That applies both to old fashioned monogamy, and also to your notion that open relationships are somehow different. Both are defined by the application of principles of fairness that do not in reality exist.First, I fixed your post. I had already addressed your point about Victorianism and so on here:http://https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?343552-The-ten-solitudes-of-Toronto-dating&p=3629855&viewfull=1#post3629855
Specifically you think you`ve addressed your Victorianness by saying you believe open relationships are superior, presumably because you think they are fair. That is an application of some nice little moral principles, that everybody should be treated equally. But, objectively, in sexual relationships no-one is EVER treated equally. It just doesn`t happen.
A more advanced understanding of what people ACTUALLY do is that people do whatever they can do. Some people who want multiple sex partners can`t get away with simply having them, so they opt for an open relationship as a compromise. They do that because they are actually unable to have a fully satisfying relationship in which they have multiple sex partners, without offering the equal opportunity to do so to their partners.
No, I don`t. I have talked about meta properties of the relationship, like power dynamics, and hypocrisy, without attempting to deal with the intricacies of the relationship itself. Specifically:Second, for someone who thinks sexual relationships defy language, you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time using language to describe your version of sexual relationships.
-- I do not propose any moral rules to govern sexual relationships
-- I do not claim claim to analyze the reasons why one person has more or less sexual power over another
-- I do not attempt to assign blame or fault to either party in any sexual relationship
What I do is note what is objectively apparent. It`s objectively apparent that some people have more sexual power than others. It`s obvious that human sexual relationships are never fair. It`s clear that some people are able to have more mates, and better mates, than others do. It`s clear too that this applies equally to men and to women: Some women can get any man she wants and bend him around her little finger, make him put up with her cheating, and treat him like shit. Other women are lucky if they can find a fat lardass boyfriend who will even give them the time of day. Same goes for men. Some men are able to maintain multiple female partners, other men can`t even find a single one.
Yes I`ve had to repeat myself a few times because you still haven`t actually comprehended the point, and you won`t be able to reply to the point until you actually comprehend it. Whether you agree with it or not, debate starts with comprehension, and so far, that you lack.Third, what you are really doing is falling back on repeating the same point.
Do you actually know what the word "misogyny" means? What I do is practiced by as many women as men. Misogyny means hatred of women, yet of all the people I know who do what I do, those who do it best are women. You persist in laying this claim even though you have no basis. I think you do that because you are a stupid person.On misogyny: dress up your practices as you like. You are a misogynist.
Sounds like you`ve agreed with me that sex is inherently unfair. That`s a good start. The next step is for you to recognize that when things are inherently unfair they cannot be made fair by the application of morality. There is no moral code that you can apply that is going to remove the unfairness of sex. As such, what moral code would you use to justify any assertion that sexual hypocrisy is wrong, or that cheating is wrong?The error in your thinking is to leap right from finding some unfairness in some sexual relationships to the supposition that the manipulative, lie-infested, double-standard dominance of one over the other is the only response to all sexual relationships.
I omitted replying to your childish insults. Grow up. If you can`t back up your arguments with facts and reasons you sure as hell aren`t going to back them up by piling on insults. It just makes you look pathetic.
Either you have reasons for your view, and can explain them, or you don`t, and you should just shut up.
Too much gel, I guess.Isn't this similar to another thread dealing with a girl he was misleading in some foreign country. Slimey guys never shower I guess.
Specifically the 19 year old virgin overseas who was (and is) apparently in love with me(*). As I wrote on that thread itself I decided not to go and see her. While I have no problem banging a more experienced woman in the same situation I don't think that's the way someone should lose their virginity. Maybe I'll visit her someday, but only after she's had at least one other boyfriend.Isn't this similar to another thread dealing with a girl he was misleading in some foreign country. Slimey guys never shower I guess.
I would also pick exploiting to my own ends over understanding any day. These psychopaths seem to me like pretty reasonable people.With psychopaths, you can never deal with them head on. Ever. They always circle around what is being said, looking not to understand per se, but for where they can exploit the view to their own ends.
Nonsense. There's simply nothing you are intellectually capable of responding to. I've highlighted the ONLY actual debating points in your entire post, the rest is all just childish, idiotic, pathetic ranting:There's nothing in your recent post to respond to, Fuji.
The stuff in green is all just stuff and nonsense--you enjoying the sound of your own voice, thinking that you are some clever internet psychologist, when in reality you're just a pathetic troll.An example is that it matters not to you that I explicitly said monogamous, non-monogamous and polyamorous unions are all equal in that they are all examples of what sexual relations are about: they're all difficult, all involve ambiguity, tensions, and so on. Because it suits your purposes, you make up what I said. Ditto for my own preferences, you make up a preference which I explicitly said I don't have.
You do these things because you are hot under the collar. Sometimes it takes a while, but the narcissist eventually switches from smooth talking braggart to ill tempered lout. I am just not smart enough to understand you, am I, Fuji? "No", you gloat, but right there is your failure. Confronted by the negative image I have of you, which is different to disagreement with your intellectual beliefs, you have fallen back more and more on your arrogance. It's not an argument you supply above, just a brutish demand that I give you your due. That's the narcissist's way of dealing with a lack of appreciation. When rejected, get angry.
But with you, fuji, there's your psychopath side too. Ultimately that's the troubling one. Everyone can see how manipulative is your argumentative practice, with it's constant supply of rehearsed rejoinders to the claims you try and force on people regardless of what they say. That repetitive transmutation of what others say is your way of fastidiously scrambling to the lead of any interaction. Other Terb members have just said it makes you a poor debater. But they under-estimate what the argumentative style actually implies. With psychopaths, you can never deal with them head on. Ever. They always circle around what is being said, looking not to understand per se, but for where they can exploit the view to their own ends.
And that's our Fuji boy.
As for the one point you did make, it's already been answered, you're just too dumb to have noticed that:
You are still struggling along with this Victorian notion that relationships have to be fair. Yes, I've said that before, but you have never answered the point. You have never given any good reason why sexual relationships should be fair. You have never said anything convincing contradicting the observation that they are never fair. You've never replied to this, presumably because you can't. You switch to bluster and insult presumably because you KNOW you can't.
Your conception of monogamous, non-monogamous, and polyamorous relationships is that they all be fair. That what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. That whatever rules apply to the relationship apply to all participants equally.
The objective, observed, actualy reality of the world we live in is that sexual relationships are never fair, they are all inherently unfair. That is because some people are more desirable, more successful, more attractive than others. Some participants simply have more sexual power than others and they use it.
It may show up as a monogamous relationship in which one party is pussy whipped.
It may show up as an open relationship in which nominally the two parties are both able to go outside the relationship, but in reality one party is much more successful at doing so than the other.
There is no such thing as a fair sexual relationship, each party strives to the maximum ability that they can to make the relationship unfair, and some parties are simply much more successful in doing that.
That's just objective reality.
The point that you have NEVER answered is that there is no moral code that can or should be applied to this. You cannot come along and go "oh oh oh but that's unfair, you shouldn't pussy whip your husband, it's not nice". Or rather than can say that--but it won't amount to a hill of beans. The woman who can pussy whip her husband is damn well going to do that.
In short this is the point you have NEVER been able to answer:
There is no justifiable reason to apply morality to sexual power dynamics.
Boy oh boy, persumably you intermingle "have to be" and "should always be."You are still struggling along with this Victorian notion that relationships have to be fair.
There is no justifiable reason to apply morality to sexual power dynamics.
It is no wonder to me that you don't want to write to your M.P. If this is how you actually think, I can understand why you believe you would be given short shrift particularly given that probably 95 percent of the population disagrees with you.
Let me put it clearly: You are still struggling along with this Victorian notion that sexual relationships can ever possibly be fair.Boy oh boy, persumably you intermingle "have to be" and "should always be."
The more I see the posts indicating a psychopathy, the more it rings so true. As for what kind, I'll lead that for the experts. Where Niki when you need her insight? Although I think SW1 is doing a great job. It wont really matter as FUJI head just won't let him how others see him. somebody suggested one day that his wife was probably of the blow up type and i couldn't counter it. Who else would put up with his shite.
SW1, you're trying to applylogical thought with FUJI and it just doesn't work. You're not wrong though, but it won't matter.
That's right, blackrock, stick to cheerleading, we all know you're not smart enough to participate in the debate, so continue doing that: Stand on the sidelines and cheer like an idiot. It's all you can do here.SW1, you're trying to applylogical thought with FUJI and it just doesn't work. You're not wrong though, but it won't matter.
That'll be a first for you. Let's see how you do:I am gonna hit Fuji with some good old fashioned logical refutation.
That doesn't follow. It's not a binary proposition. It can be made more unfair. We can talk about the degree of unfairness present in a relationship. It's like saying there is no such thing in nature as absolute zero, but we can still talk about warm and warmer.If there is no such thing as a fair sexual relationship, then it makes no sense to assume everyone is striving to make sexual relationships unfair.
So far you are not doing very well...
You have an error here. First you define P to mean "out to make sexual relationships unfair" and then you define it differently to be "fair". Worse the subject in the first P is a person, and the subject in the second P is a relationship. Despite having incompatible definitions of P you then try and proceed with an argument that assumes P means the same thing."Everyone strives to make sexual relationships unfair" is a Universal Affirmation, of the form all S are P, where S is "everyone" and P is "out to make sexual relationships unfair".
"No sexual relationship is fair" is a Universal Negation, of the form no S are P, where S is "sexual relationship" and P is "fair".
That's a basic error in logic. Your big show of trying to put this all into formal terms makes you look pretty stupid when you get something basic like that wrong.
So this isn't going to work out for you, you are making too many very basic errors here.
The rest of your post was a bunch of self-congratulatory blather that really was just you enjoying the sound of your own voice, but since you've failed in your actual argument, it wasn't worth quoting.
Hey I'll give you credit, this in my opinion is the first time you've ACTUALLY attempted to grapple with the issue here. Keep it up! I have a different view but I appreciate that you did finally make an effort, instead of just blathering idiotically as in your other posts:
Now many people will feel uncomfortable with the hypocrisy inherent in that--this leads us into the subject of discussion here. How to deal with that hypocrisy. You can either feel bad about it, and try and suppress yourself, or you can embrace it in various ways. You've tried to embrace it, but in a rather Victorian way--you've tried to make it fit into a nice little equality box, asserting that whatever the relationship is, it must be equal for all participants. So you advocate these open relationships where all the hypcoritical behavior is allowed for everyone.
While that's a nice theory, it's also NOT what people have done. For most of human history they have just cheated. So, if you want to make an argument from what people have already done--it's cheating, hypocritically cheating.
So yes, historic societies have made a variety of attempts to impose morality here--but it has been a struggle and a fight, as you say--it has never been successfully done.
The complexity here can extend beyond the simple male/female relationship to the larger family. There are good questions as to what is the "unit" of evolution, it is probably not strictly the individual. But it's undeniable that whether it's a larger social unit, or a gene, or a meme, in any case the process of reproduction is tightly related to sexual relationships, and the complexity that is inherently driven into our existence by the competitive struggle is going to show up very strongly here.
I see this in almost Godel terms: If you were able to nail things down so well that you actually DID perfectly understand people's sexual behavior, somebody somewhere (or some family unit, or some meme or gene) would gain an evolutionary advantage over others by behaving differently than expected in sexual relationships. Thus every time we verge on understanding the complexity inherent in the relationships, we ourselves make them ever more complex, to ensure that our competitors never do achieve that. We're driven to complexity here, whereas in OTHER relationships, we're driven to simplify things.
For clarity I am talking about voluntary, consensual sexual relationships between adults. We can agree up front that the use of force or violence is wrong, and that children are not old enough to consent to sexual relationships of any kind. Those are some pretty clear bright lines that I think we should all be able to agree on. Sure, you could argue that some of those cases are gray and fuzzy--and they are--but we've agreed as a society that it's better to err on the side of caution anyway, due to the real harm done by physical violence, or by exploitation of a child, in the non-grey cases.The fact there are justifiable reasons for applying morality to sexual power dynamics, beyond all of the legal and humanitarian arguments about protecting the young and the vulnerable
Have they? Objectively that does not seem to be in evidence. Cheating is widespread and commonplace. I think if you look at this in an objective, empirical sense you will find that people have generally NOT behaved that way. This is unlike, for example, prescriptions against murder where the overwhelming majority of us will never murder anybody. The majority of us will cheat in our sexual relationships in one way or another, the majority of us WILL be hypocrits.begin with the fact that humans always have done so and always will.
Now many people will feel uncomfortable with the hypocrisy inherent in that--this leads us into the subject of discussion here. How to deal with that hypocrisy. You can either feel bad about it, and try and suppress yourself, or you can embrace it in various ways. You've tried to embrace it, but in a rather Victorian way--you've tried to make it fit into a nice little equality box, asserting that whatever the relationship is, it must be equal for all participants. So you advocate these open relationships where all the hypcoritical behavior is allowed for everyone.
While that's a nice theory, it's also NOT what people have done. For most of human history they have just cheated. So, if you want to make an argument from what people have already done--it's cheating, hypocritically cheating.
I agree that people have always fought and struggled over this. Various peoples and cultures have proposed codes to govern sexuality, but it's evident that those codes were never really observed. Unlike codes against murder, theft, extortion, etc., which are rigorously applied by societies and generally only violated by fringe elements, the moral codes on sexuality appear to have been violated by almost everybody, almost all the time, in almost every society.Now humans, as individuals and as groups and as communities, and across time and ethnic-nationalisms and all other distinctions you can think of, have constantly fought and struggled over the moral codes to apply to sexual relations.
So yes, historic societies have made a variety of attempts to impose morality here--but it has been a struggle and a fight, as you say--it has never been successfully done.
Actually I disagree with this. Sexual relationships are different in a fundamental way from all other human relationships. Reproduction is at the point of the evolutionary spear, it's subject to adaptation, competition, and selection in ways that other aspects of human behavior, human anatomy, human culture are not. This is the basic reason, in my opinion, why morality breaks down in this area, why our language has been unable to describe relationships effectively, and so on. There is such a level of competition, such a level of complexity, that our entire beings are wrapped up in these relationships in a way that they are just NOT in other relationships. You can have a relatively simple relationship with your neighbour, but you CANNOT have a relatively simple relationship with your spouse.The real kicker in the argument thus becomes the very basic point that sexual relationships are a subset of human relationships, not the converse.
The complexity here can extend beyond the simple male/female relationship to the larger family. There are good questions as to what is the "unit" of evolution, it is probably not strictly the individual. But it's undeniable that whether it's a larger social unit, or a gene, or a meme, in any case the process of reproduction is tightly related to sexual relationships, and the complexity that is inherently driven into our existence by the competitive struggle is going to show up very strongly here.
I see this in almost Godel terms: If you were able to nail things down so well that you actually DID perfectly understand people's sexual behavior, somebody somewhere (or some family unit, or some meme or gene) would gain an evolutionary advantage over others by behaving differently than expected in sexual relationships. Thus every time we verge on understanding the complexity inherent in the relationships, we ourselves make them ever more complex, to ensure that our competitors never do achieve that. We're driven to complexity here, whereas in OTHER relationships, we're driven to simplify things.
FFS, check it out, shite is one way to spell it. You might not be as smart as you think you are Rubbie.FFS, the word is shit. No "e" grandpa.
Secondly, you need to pipe down and go back to the little table while the academics talk. I can barely keep up with them so I don't keep my mouth relatively shut within those arguments except for some humour.
YOU have no laughable clue about the words arranged in the order they are and you have no context to assess them as you deliberately put half the conversation on "ignore".
So... as a fellow TERB character I am suggesting you STFU for your own credibility
From; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit
Shit is usually considered a vulgar and profane in Modern English. As a noun it refers to fecal matter (excrement) and as a verb it means to defecate or defecate in; in the plural ("the shits") it means diarrhea. Shite is also a common variant in British English and Irish English.[1] As a slang term, it has many meanings, including: nonsense, foolishness, something of little value or quality, trivial and usually boastful or inaccurate talk, or a contemptible person. It may also be used as an expression of annoyance, surprise, or anger, and has other usages as well.
I could offer a few more sources, if that one doesn't suffice.
Nobody is as smart as Rubbie thinks he is, well, except for fuji or course.FFS, check it out, shite is one way to spell it. You might not be as smart as you think you are Rubbie.
It won't matter SW1, FUJIs an expert on locks too.OK folks, I gotta admit something here. Unlike Rubmeister a few posts above, I struck out at the bar last night. Friends had even went to the trouble of setting me up. I guess I am just hopeless sometimes. So wading through Fuji's post #228 made me grumpy. Thankfully I have coffee and a lakeview....................
You're such a charmer, aren't you? Don't worry Terbies, my door is locked.
And Fuji admits it, almost in spite of himself
......................So what? The difference between sexual relationships and other human relationships in no way inverts the relationship I claimed exists, which is that sexual relationships are a subset of human relationships. Bestiality notwithstanding. So given that sexual relationships between people are a subset of human relationships, and given that human relationships display a complex, myriad, often tension-ridden series of moral codes, it stands to reason that moral codes both infuse sexual relationships and are justified in doing so to the extent we are not beasts.
I just, again, demonstrated that Fuji's social philosophy stands on extremely weak grounds. Now I am going to check the lock on my door, because earlier he tried to charm me and when a narcissist is trying to charm you ya gotta watch your back!
Hey, amazing, once again not a bad post from you. It starts out well you make a good debating point, one that was actually interesting to respond to, keep it up Sw1tch you're progressing beyond the idiocy and childishness of most of your posts:
Plainly I think we all want to agree that they do intrude. We all want to be able to say that rape is wrong, and that child molestation is wrong. At the same time I think we do recognize things like "no fault divorce" as a society precisely because it's just too complex to work out who is really to blame, if anyone, for a breakdown of a marriage.
I would say that these universal conventions that govern ALL human interaction, like "voluntary consent", and "no use of force" apply to sexual behaviors. I think where you run into trouble is when you try and propose additional rules only to govern sexual behavior.
Thus it's wrong to propose a rule like, "infidelity is wrong", because it attempts to regulate purely sexual behavior. On the other hand saying that rape is wrong is just the specific application of the general notion that consent is required and the use of force is unacceptable.
- - -
This next bit is a little muddled, it's hard to make out what point you are driving at:
It's hard to see that you're really trying to make that point because you haven't also gone on to provide any reasons why anyone should think that's true, but at any rate, I'll give you my reason for thinking it is NOT true.
Rules that govern human behavior should be rules that everyone can follow. In law, when there is a law that nobody can adhere to, or that very few people adhere to, I consider that a bad law. For example, you could pass a law against breathing, but nobody would adhere to that law. It's bad, pointless law.
That's an extreme case, but the principle applies well enough to fuzzier cases as well. Prohibition strikes me as a good example of bad law: Although alcohol was nominally made illegal, and although some people actually followed that law, it appears that the overwhelming majority in society simply refused to go along with it, and found ways to continue drinking. Although it was technically possible to follow that law, nobody did, so it was a bad law.
I apply the same approach to moral codes. A good moral code, an effective one, is one that most everyone can follow, and will follow. Saying "rape is wrong", or "murder is wrong" is a good moral code because almost all of us will follow that principle. A few deviants won't, and we can punish them for being deviants.
The various sexual moral codes that have been proposed, where they are not the application of a more general principle, have always failed the way prohibition failed. You can say that cheating is wrong, but that "rule" is routinely ignored. There is much evidence (cited on another thread, and can be cited again if wanted) that not only do many people cheat, but actually a great majority of people will at some point or other cheat in a relationship.
When you have a moral code, or a law, or other rule, that is routinely violated by the majority of the population I think it's fair to criticize that code or law, and say that it is a bad code or law, an ineffective one, one that is not really embraced by the population.
On the other hand you haven't answered the point that sexual behavior is in and of itself fundamentally complex, and complex in a way that other behavior is not, for reason of being at the driving point of evolutionary change, the very subject of natural selection, and the reason d'etre for our existence as living creatures, one of the core definitions of life itself being our ability to reproduce.
In short, you haven't given any reason to believe that we are actually capable of understanding purely sexual behavior--like infidelity--well enough that we can make effective rules relating to it.
Moreover I'll repeat the Godel-like argument I made earlier: If you DID manage to understand some element of human sexual behavior well enough to make such a rule, someone would have an incentive to behave differently than you predict, to achieve an evolutionary advantage. Thus the complexity of sexual relationships isn't just coincidental, it isn't just that we haven't looked into it far enough yet. The complexity is literally inherent.
This is a fair point, there is a valid question here. We have these very general social conventions that violence is never acceptable, and that voluntary consent must govern all transactions and interactions between people. Meanwhile I've proposed that in the area of sex moral codes break down. So where is the dividing line? How far do these general principles, that govern everything, intrude into the sexual space?I mentioned the legal and humanitarian justifications for moral codes in sexual power relations, and fuji agrees violence in sex and exploitation of a child are wrong. Well for fucks sake, Fuji, you said there is no justification for moral codes in sexual power dynamics. Now you say there are such justifications. So you just disagreed with yourself.
Plainly I think we all want to agree that they do intrude. We all want to be able to say that rape is wrong, and that child molestation is wrong. At the same time I think we do recognize things like "no fault divorce" as a society precisely because it's just too complex to work out who is really to blame, if anyone, for a breakdown of a marriage.
I would say that these universal conventions that govern ALL human interaction, like "voluntary consent", and "no use of force" apply to sexual behaviors. I think where you run into trouble is when you try and propose additional rules only to govern sexual behavior.
Thus it's wrong to propose a rule like, "infidelity is wrong", because it attempts to regulate purely sexual behavior. On the other hand saying that rape is wrong is just the specific application of the general notion that consent is required and the use of force is unacceptable.
- - -
This next bit is a little muddled, it's hard to make out what point you are driving at:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here because you ramble on and it's a little muddled, so please correct me if I don't quite catch what you were driving at. I'd sum it up as something like, "Yes cheating has been commonplace throughout history, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong."Well guess what. Truth has no place in talk, because it never has, because look over there, some lying is going on. A pretty weak argument, huh? One might say that the very ability we have to identify cheating is because we have non-cheating, so the presence of cheating implies non-cheating, and the negative evaluation of cheating implies a positive one of non-cheating. We all know this because all of us have cheated and hidden it. And our cheating also tells us that there are probably some counter-norms to cheating-is-bad. As Fuji admits, cheating has gone on forever. Well strike me fucking blind if all of that, the mixing of cheating and non cheating, and positive and negative evaluations distributed across those activities in norm and counter-norm relations, distributed throughout history and various human groupings, doesn't establish that morL codes have infused the human history of sexual relationships.
It's hard to see that you're really trying to make that point because you haven't also gone on to provide any reasons why anyone should think that's true, but at any rate, I'll give you my reason for thinking it is NOT true.
Rules that govern human behavior should be rules that everyone can follow. In law, when there is a law that nobody can adhere to, or that very few people adhere to, I consider that a bad law. For example, you could pass a law against breathing, but nobody would adhere to that law. It's bad, pointless law.
That's an extreme case, but the principle applies well enough to fuzzier cases as well. Prohibition strikes me as a good example of bad law: Although alcohol was nominally made illegal, and although some people actually followed that law, it appears that the overwhelming majority in society simply refused to go along with it, and found ways to continue drinking. Although it was technically possible to follow that law, nobody did, so it was a bad law.
I apply the same approach to moral codes. A good moral code, an effective one, is one that most everyone can follow, and will follow. Saying "rape is wrong", or "murder is wrong" is a good moral code because almost all of us will follow that principle. A few deviants won't, and we can punish them for being deviants.
The various sexual moral codes that have been proposed, where they are not the application of a more general principle, have always failed the way prohibition failed. You can say that cheating is wrong, but that "rule" is routinely ignored. There is much evidence (cited on another thread, and can be cited again if wanted) that not only do many people cheat, but actually a great majority of people will at some point or other cheat in a relationship.
When you have a moral code, or a law, or other rule, that is routinely violated by the majority of the population I think it's fair to criticize that code or law, and say that it is a bad code or law, an ineffective one, one that is not really embraced by the population.
To an extent I've agreed with you, that it's appropriate to take general principles that apply to ALL behavior and apply them to sexual behavior.So given that sexual relationships between people are a subset of human relationships, and given that human relationships display a complex, myriad, often tension-ridden series of moral codes, it stands to reason that moral codes both infuse sexual relationships and are justified in doing so to the extent we are not beasts.
On the other hand you haven't answered the point that sexual behavior is in and of itself fundamentally complex, and complex in a way that other behavior is not, for reason of being at the driving point of evolutionary change, the very subject of natural selection, and the reason d'etre for our existence as living creatures, one of the core definitions of life itself being our ability to reproduce.
In short, you haven't given any reason to believe that we are actually capable of understanding purely sexual behavior--like infidelity--well enough that we can make effective rules relating to it.
Moreover I'll repeat the Godel-like argument I made earlier: If you DID manage to understand some element of human sexual behavior well enough to make such a rule, someone would have an incentive to behave differently than you predict, to achieve an evolutionary advantage. Thus the complexity of sexual relationships isn't just coincidental, it isn't just that we haven't looked into it far enough yet. The complexity is literally inherent.
The actual claims are subtly different. I claim that sexual relationships are inherently unfair, and that people have a strong incentive to make them even more unfair.I noted Fuji made two claims, one that no sexual relationship is fair and the other than everyone strives to make them unfair.
Sexual relationships are inherently unfair because no two people are going to bring the same level of attractiveness/desirability/ability/etc to the table. One person is going to be more desirable, or more social, more successful, more intelligent, or what have you. That is going to result in a balance of sexual power in the relationship where one person is able to extract more benefit, more concessions, more freedoms than the other.
People have an incentive to make them as unfair as possible because maximizing your sexual power in the relationship maximizes your reproductive opportunities. Specifically having more freedom than your partner means having more opportunities to mate, more sexual encounters, with more people. On the other hand if you can limit your partner's ability to do the same then you maximize the odds that any children arising, and any resources available, go to your offspring.
One criticism of this view is that the individual is not the unit of evolution, but the same argument applies if you look at it as a joining of two families, or two memes. One brings more to the table than the other, and will seek to maximize its ability to reproduce.
Contrary to the rest of your post these two claims are not in any opposition to each other, you fooled yourself via a botched attempt at formal logic.
