How is it cheating if they have one another's permission? That's not cheating.
Anyone find cheating hot?
- Thread starter B_Partryckes Pinque Leviathan
- Start date
How is it cheating if they have one another's permission? That's not cheating.
I'm not too sure who is; ah, he had religious views on Jungian psychological archetypes (in addition to Commerce, I did a secondary degree on Social and Anthropological Psychology). While psychology is not my speciality, I did write a thesis on 'Religious Impacts on Human Sexual Behaviour', so I know a bit about all of this.
I'm not sure what Jungian archetypes have to do with middle class, working class and farm labourers marrying for love and not inheritance though. Actually, lower socio-economic groups didn't always marry, nor register childhood births (no birth certificates) until late in the 19th Century. They often used to live together, as we do now. The more you dig, the more confused it gets, no?
You miss the point entirely. They had extra-relationship sex because that's what they wanted or, most likely, needed to do. In the African example I quoted, there was pain involved as the person who had the extra-marital sex had to be discreet, and conduct their affair in another village. In my Polynesian studies, there was reported emotional pain, particularly from men, but this didn't stop the practice.
There is no such thing as 'simply wrong'. If there was, all those hundreds of lectures and tutorials I attended were in vain. Instead of studying why we behave in certain ways, I could have had a Eureka moment and decided that certain behaviours are 'simply wrong'. And, therefore, the majority of human emotional conflict is solved!
The concept of faithfulness is driven by religious beliefs, which were driven by men's desire to control the parentage of their female partners offspring. If female sexual behaviours are controlled, then men have relevance in the line of inheritance. If female sexual behaviours aren't controlled, then male relevance is precisely zero. And that is the beginning, middle and end of why we insist on monogamy.
Judaism evolved by dumping Goddess worship (the whore of Babylon - look her up), and making the male father-figure the supreme spiritual deity, and making middle-aged men in charge of religion, and therefore in charge of society and therefore able to set the rules to the betterment of their gender. It really is that simple.
To understand where God comes from, think of the six universal spiritual deities. Peel them away, one by one, until you have one left. Indeed the deity of the fertile young man is represented, in Jewish/Christian terms, as the devil, so he arises from lust and desire. The whore of Babylon (Ishtar for the Babylonians, but also Innana, Isis etc) is the female counterpart of this deity.
Stats are correct, more or less, and I disagree that it's wrong, given that it seems to be a universal human condition.
Good gracious, you make me exhausted. You're supposed to be sooo educated, but you're clueless. That's like saying, I've got a degree in biology but I've never heard of this Francis Crick before, or I've got a degree in philosophy, but I've never heard of this Schopenhauer. Give me a break!
You can't have any idea what I was talking about with a 5 minute Google search when the man's intellectual career spanned more than 50 years. He was an intellectual in the field's of cultural anthropology, history, and mythology as it relates to cultural anthropology and history, with many writings on psychology. The idea that you're some sort of expert in any one of these areas and you've never heard of him is preposterous. And I was paraphrasing directly from his book Transformations of Myth Through Time, which is his scholarly work on the cultural anthropology of mythical stories (including biblical ones) and how they related to the people of the historical era (as well as I can remember it since it's been ages since I read it). Why do you think he was the one I brought up? Why do you think I was shocked that you responded with "some people don't understand history"?
Seriously, you're about 5 seconds away from being the first person on my ignore list, which surprises me, I thought it would probably be someone acting creepy. I've tried to be polite, but I honestly think you're just making stuff up, all of them feeble attempts at ad hominem bullying other people's ideas by claiming absurd degrees. Either that or you bought all of your degrees online.
With that, that's my last response to one of your posts.
I have been on the receiving end of this I've been cheated on and it is heartbreaking. It's just me I understand some of your have a fetish for this but I don't.
The concept may be hot but the reality rarely is for all parties involved.
The concept may be hot but the reality rarely is for all parties involved.
I'm a social and anthropological psychologist, not a clinical psychologist, so I was never taught Carl Jung's theories or anything of that nature. I couldn't even quote his archetypes, and what I picked up on your hero was, literally, a five minute browse of a Wiki article.
That's because I'm not in that space, and I don't need to be. My studies were about human interaction with other humans, and human interactions with cultural morals and values, and where those morals and values came from. I also know how the brain and nervous system functions, and how memories are stored and retrieved and so on (physiological psychology).
Human interaction includes sex, so that's why my thesis was on sex.
I wasn't trained to mess with people's heads; I will leave that to the clinical psychologists who practice it as a living.
In our evolution of being human many many people can point out evidence where human cultures have been fine with extra "marital" (or just multiple partners). And this is true. As a species, and part of nature; it is hard to find any animal that stays faithful as a whole to 1 specific partner.
I would even go as far to say, that there are biological urges that may have come from out evolutionary path that have lead to us as a species to want multiple partners....
Studies from out DNA across many cultures have shown a blueprint of our genetic gene pool/ depth/ variety. There is a new theory that our species was at the very brink of extinction as we began our evolutionary jump from a random hominid to human being. This bold new scientific study of our DNA suggests at one point there were less than 600 humans. That all humans on the planet today evolved from these 600 hundred humans ancestors. (the very incident that made us evolve our minds... and our choice of foods)
I wont go into further detail on this subject but i will say this. It was needed on a genetic level for their to be "straying".
However despite this evidence i don't condone cheating, or straying. We have evolved a great deal from our early days of being hominids that made simple stone tools, that scoured the coasts for food. Trying to survive. We are a species of several billion. There is no further need for further genetic variance.
Although this biological urge may still be programmed in us, we now have evolved to think past these urges. However... even though i know this... i still tend to fantasize about having sex with a "taken" woman. I've done my best to not cheat, and to not help other women cheat. I've never strayed, or helped others stray... i find it morally wrong... however the dark side of me finds it "hot".
I would even go as far to say, that there are biological urges that may have come from out evolutionary path that have lead to us as a species to want multiple partners....
Studies from out DNA across many cultures have shown a blueprint of our genetic gene pool/ depth/ variety. There is a new theory that our species was at the very brink of extinction as we began our evolutionary jump from a random hominid to human being. This bold new scientific study of our DNA suggests at one point there were less than 600 humans. That all humans on the planet today evolved from these 600 hundred humans ancestors. (the very incident that made us evolve our minds... and our choice of foods)
I wont go into further detail on this subject but i will say this. It was needed on a genetic level for their to be "straying".
However despite this evidence i don't condone cheating, or straying. We have evolved a great deal from our early days of being hominids that made simple stone tools, that scoured the coasts for food. Trying to survive. We are a species of several billion. There is no further need for further genetic variance.
Although this biological urge may still be programmed in us, we now have evolved to think past these urges. However... even though i know this... i still tend to fantasize about having sex with a "taken" woman. I've done my best to not cheat, and to not help other women cheat. I've never strayed, or helped others stray... i find it morally wrong... however the dark side of me finds it "hot".
Would you like to just call it 'not be monogomous'? For most people being in a relationship and having sex with someone else constitutes cheating.
Cheating is a very bad way of simply saying unfaithful. Now explain how having permission is not unfaithful in a monogomous relationship.
I've already posted the same opinion probably 3 times in this thread and it is becoming a bit repetitive.
I hate to repeat myself, so you could just go a page back and read my previous posts in this thread on this subject if you're interested in my opinion on it? :silly:
TheEnforcer
Experimental Member
It's weird... I've dealt with a couple of DL men before... 1 of them having a girlfriend and the other was married. We used protection of course, but during sex, as I was pounding their asses, the naughty thought came into my mind "Is this how you fuck your wife/girlfriend?!?!?!?!" ... I know this is soooooo wrong and I felt a little guilty about being "The other one" but the fantasy was nice.
I personally, would not cheat on anyone... Why not just ask your partner to have a threesome? It would be more fun I guess...
I personally, would not cheat on anyone... Why not just ask your partner to have a threesome? It would be more fun I guess...
Hilarious. I love it when gay moralists get challenged on their unconsidered biases, especially when they don't even realize how complicit they are with the gay-hating Vatican. Thanks for that.
BINGO... We have a winner. And circumcision was a rite of passage for boys that intended to mimic and usurp the female menstrual rituals of the goddess-based religions by producing blood from the male genitals, thereby granting adolescent males the ritual power once held only by females, and putting males in control of determining and managing the divine. This is first-year Religion and Culture stuff. It doesn't take any 'credentials' to know this. And you've got the implications of it right, too.
Our sense of morality, our understanding of love, our concepts of self: these things are all more or less "received" from the dense superstructure of religious/economic/political systems which stem pretty much invisibly from powerful, vested interests. These interests, in the form of impossibly large and labyrinthine organizations and their powerful directors (church, state, corporation, neighbourhood association, you name it), insist that we ordinary citizens follow all the rules, which are tailored to appear "commonly agreed upon" and "natural". But then these masters of the universe don't themselves see the need to follow the same rules, being, of course, morally above it all. So you have sex romps and greed permitted by an elite, hidden behind the curtains of the church and the legislature, but not in the bedrooms of the people.
Sure, there is " human nature" in there somewhere. But it's so twisted and obscured that it certainly doesn't resemble what we think it is. We can't imagine it because we've been so psychically transformed since we left the caves and decided to live together and then hold private property. And I don't know whether Jungian archetypes get down to it or not, but then I'm no expert, so I won't comment. (For me, archetypes merely function in a literary way. More of a Northrop Frye sort of thing.)
Oh, for heavens sake! What I wrote has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jungian archetypes! He did a 5 minute Wikipedia search and got confused! It's the reason why I got so frustrated with him. It was so clear that he was full of it.
Please just drop that subject, it's so ignorant.
Last edited:
Oh no! I was referring to HIS reference to Jung, not anything you wrote. It was one of the things about his argument I didn't really get. I also couldn't figure out where he got Jung from. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I understand! It can be confusing if you don't read far enough back in the conversation, and I don't bother to do that most of the time either!
good point. but irrelevant to the original question.
and FWIW there are people who find lying, stealing etc "hot"
For me the idea of a seemingly innocent wife & mother in say TX or SC webcamming with some LPSG studs, while the hubby is away & the kids are asleep or at school and increasingly drawn to more contact incredibly hot!!!
:biggrin1:
Similar threads
