FreedomPhilosophy Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I read this article, it seems completely logical but does it leave a bad smell and if so, why?"If I complain that my girlfriend has cheated on me, it really makes it sound like what happened is about me. That she and her other lover are doing whatever they are doing just so they can hurt me. This puts me both in the role of the victim, and in that of the main character. But most of the times, I’m neither. They’re probably just enjoying themselves, and not thinking about me. I’m not the star. This is the first uncomfortable truth: What is happening between my partner and his or her other lover has only got to do with the two of them. It is not about me. My partner and her lover like each other, and they want to connect intimately. They would do it if I didn’t exist. And they want to do it even though I exist. Ouch, that hurts. My ego doesn’t like this a single bit." http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/01/cheating-2-uncomfortable-truths-about-it-that-we-need-to-hear/
Will Torbald Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 A relationship is a voluntary contract. You can't say it isn't about you because you are part of the association and she broke the contract. Anything else trying to paint you as self absorbed is vile.
Jot Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 "If I complain that my girlfriend has cheated on me, it really makes it sound like what happened is about me." Invalid. "This puts me both in the role of the victim, and in that of the main character." How come? "What is happening between my partner and his or her other lover has only got to do with the two of them. It is not about me." How does the author know? "They would do it if I didn’t exist" How does the author know? Also, "makes it sound", "It is not about me" are too obscure in order to consider them any kind of argument, they could mean multiple different things...when you are making the case for a truth about reality you need to use precise terms with clear meanings and definitions so they cannot be equivocated. Does it seem completely logical to you? Why?
AccuTron Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Where did my post go? Eventually, no place....Imgur:
Archimedes Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Honestly, I don't like that kind of reasoning. It's used in several moral topics and it always seems manipulative to me. It always boils down to this: "Having this reaction towards X means that you care about your ego to much. And you don't want to be an egomanic, don't you?" It's usually used to distract from X.
Frederik Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I read this article, it seems completely logical but does it leave a bad smell and if so, why? I can hardly believe that an article like this genuinely seems "completely logical" to an educated guy like you! I really can't. You are waaay too smart to not see those fallacies! Maybe there is some psychological thing going on subconsciously when you were reading it? To me the article isn't completely logical at all. Having listened to just earlier today, I would argue that at the center of the article, there is to be found a : Now, there is still a narrow passage through which my wounded pride can escape: claiming that my girlfriend should have told me first. That she isn’t being honest with me. That by cheating on me, she has broken an agreement of sexual exclusivity. That we had agreed to be monogamous. So cheating has to do with breaking an agreement of sexual exclusivity to each other. And yet, most often, we don’t pay much attention to the agreement. We only talk about the people involved. Sooo, instead of discussing, for example, what a cheating girlfriend incident actually says about her capacity for trust and bonding, the quality of the original relationship, the fundamental dishonesty probably of all parties, childhood history, etc. etc. he is going on this weird irrelevant "analysis" of the "agreement of sexual exclusivity"? There is soo much more going on in a romantic relationship! Can we not all agree that cheating in itself is really, really fucked up and the symptom of countless bad decisions by all the people involved, including the person cheated with? I really don't get where this man makes sense, because I don't see him reasoning from first principles, and making a lot of empty claims, pretending to make an argument of some sort. Am I totally off here? I am happy to be completely corrected if you make a convincing case. Disclaimer: I didn't take the article particularly serious at all, because the problem that I see with articles like that (and thanks god (Stef, actually) that I can think properly now and see those things), is that when they start out with fallacies, the stuff that comes after that is just garbage. Also, this guy has no credibility to me, because I get the strong impression that he is not striving to be open, honest and vulnerable towards himself, let alone a romantic partner. I find it staggering how often the author disregarded or invalidated his own emotional experience, and I have to think about this wonderful podcast that fits the subject very nicely!
Copper_Heart Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 "If I complain that my girlfriend has cheated on me, it really makes it sound like what happened is about me. That she and her other lover are doing whatever they are doing just so they can hurt me. This puts me both in the role of the victim, and in that of the main character. But most of the times, I’m neither. They’re probably just enjoying themselves, and not thinking about me. I’m not the star." First and foremost, cheating is a breach of trust, by the definition of the word cheating and implied type of relationship. This type of relationship, which is intimate and monogamous, implies set of boundaries that are taken by each party and honored. Saying that it "has nothing to do with him" is contrary to the fact that they were in relationship. Second, he is free to break the relationship any time he wants, by any reason he dims worthy. Even if first paragraph was not true, if current dynamic of relationship is hurting him it would be reasonable to stop it all together or at least declare his needs. Declaring ones needs is a natural and healthy things to do, protecting them even more so. Which leads me to the conclusion. The author's primary reason to write this article is not to explain why "cheating" has nothing to do with him, but to find an excuse to stay in the relationship that is clearly not satisfying to him. The only reason why one would stay in that relationship is because of very strong attachment(not bound) and fear of not being worthy of any better relationship. Low self esteem that ultimately provokes loss aversion. 1
FreedomPhilosophy Posted January 30, 2016 Author Posted January 30, 2016 Does it seem completely logical to you? Why? I agree with the central themes that people have other lovers for their own benefits and not generally as a method to hurt the other (although that may be a motive). And I agree that people are not property and that treating them as such doesn't seem compatible with basic ideas about freedom of the individual and self ownership. Much of the rest of the article is poorly argued as has been pointed out.
Worlok Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 It defines "cheating" as doing it with intention of harming the person. I don't know where they got that from or why they included it. that one point appears to be the basis of the article by itself. The article seems to me to be either dishonest or short sighted. Evidence and logic may suggest that you are correct, but more evidence may prove it wrong. I think their logic and evidence proved their point, so I'm not sure if they had something to prove or are just incredibly ignorant. There was a contract in the relationship. That contract was broken. We can all understand a breach of contract. There was also time and emotion that you invested into each other. You not only trust each other to maintain the contract, but also not to throw out all the time, emotion, and effort. You cheat, and you betray all of that. Out of the nine circles of hell in The Divine Comedy, the 9th, deepest circle is for the betrayers.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted January 31, 2016 Author Posted January 31, 2016 There was also time and emotion that you invested into each other. You not only trust each other to maintain the contract, but also not to throw out all the time, emotion, and effort. You cheat, and you betray all of that. Yes completely agree that cheating is a breach of contract and unacceptable in a relationship. If you explicitly signed up for sexual exclusivity and broke that, then it's a potential deal breaker. I'm sure about applying the concept of investment in each other to emotions. Obviously if I invested materially in something then I could get that back when I leave, but what you invest in a person is your time. You can't get that back, it just passed and you both put in the same amount so one leaves a broken relationship equal in terms of investment. Was that time lost, it may have been a good time, or was it just spent? Anyway, I'd like to hear you explain this "invest into each other" concept further with respect to emotions and the implications of that if you would please?
FreedomPhilosophy Posted January 31, 2016 Author Posted January 31, 2016 I can hardly believe that an article like this genuinely seems "completely logical" to an educated guy like you! I really can't. You are waaay too smart to not see those fallacies! Maybe there is some psychological thing going on subconsciously when you were reading it? If I had to summarise the piece, I would call it an in-cogent word salad. That doesn't change the essence of the article, that "cheats" are really just after having some fun with someone else. Now if there was no contract for exclusivity (which seems to treat people as property) then it's not cheating. If it is ok to do X with person A then it is okay to do X with person B unless we have agreed otherwise. The denial and self erasure present in the author for describing jealousy as "ego" is noteworthy and in my mind the worst aspect of this article.
Frederik Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 [...] "cheats" are really just after having some fun with someone else. Now if there was no contract for exclusivity (which seems to treat people as property) then it's not cheating. If it is ok to do X with person A then it is okay to do X with person B unless we have agreed otherwise. I fully understand and agree on the "fun", "not cheating" and "okay" statements. Do you see a problem (moral or amoral) in agreeing to let yourself be treated like property? I heard some people get a kick out of that?! I find myself quite confused about this whole thread, actually. I still don't get what the point of the discussion in general is (I'm not arguing my older post was good or necessary). The article is largly boloney, includes some obvious but seemingly irrelevant facts, the author lacks credibility, ... what am I missing? I would really like to understand your specific intentions for the thread, and what you got out of the article and the discussion, besides the mere intellectual understanding. I'm not criticising you at all, I am just curious to understand what this is really about. Thank you!
FreedomPhilosophy Posted February 1, 2016 Author Posted February 1, 2016 I would really like to understand your specific intentions for the thread, and what you got out of the article and the discussion, besides the mere intellectual understanding. I'm not criticising you at all, I am just curious to understand what this is really about. Thank you! I wanted to hear criticisms of the article and they have been most helpful although they don't really deal with the key points raised. Obviously people can contract to be like property in a relationship. I think the article attempts to challenge the practicalities and fears that may accompany this approach and highlights opportunities for a more realistic and flexible approach.
Frosty Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 I don't agree with the premise that cheating necessarily requires intent to do harm. Look at some definitions and this doesn't really come up, in fact i'd argue more or less the opposite, it's in the favour of people who cheat not to do harm because causing harm increases the chances of you being caught, cheaters want to continue cheating to their benefit. However it should be acknowledged that there are obviously people who cheat for their own gain and some people who cheat to hurt others, that is an important distinction. I find this particularly interesting: What is happening between my partner and his or her other lover has only got to do with the two of them. It is not about me. This seems like a deferral of responsibility, it ignores the fact that you get to spend time with your partner and get to judge their virtues (or lack of them) and make a decision about them being a virtuous person before you enter a committed relationship with them. I think that's most uncomfortable truth about the whole cheating situation, I think the most upsetting thing after a breakup due to infidelity is that you were stupid enough to trust someone who's capable of hurting you. One thing I've been trying to do more and more is take responsibility for my choices, I don't like deferring blame to others, sure people do bad things but as smart people who like philosophy and rationality we ought to be able to classify these kinds of people and mitigate the effects of their bad behavior.
Troubador Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 Cheating doesn't require the intent to harm as part of its definition. Of course a betrayal makes it about the betrayed, and that is where my natural compassion and sympathy lies. That ego they are trying to drown out is a sense of self preservation. If you are in a relationship with someone who has such a colossal disrespect for your health or agency that they are willing to risk your health with an unknown extra sexual partner without affording you the opportunity to weigh up the extra risks is not someone who has your interests heart, and sure as hell doesn't love you. If that thought genuinely hasn't occurred to them then they probably aren't smart enough to desire mixing genes with down the line with anyway....
FreedomPhilosophy Posted February 2, 2016 Author Posted February 2, 2016 If you are in a relationship with someone who has such a colossal disrespect for your health or agency that they are willing to risk your health with an unknown extra sexual partner without affording you the opportunity to weigh up the extra risks is not someone who has your interests heart, and sure as hell doesn't love you. If that thought genuinely hasn't occurred to them then they probably aren't smart enough to desire mixing genes with down the line with anyway.... Agreed, but it's possible to make arrangements so that sex is kept "safe".
Recommended Posts