Well I didn't see it so you accusation that it was "just another one of my sophisms" is completely out of line. — John

Indeed, I wasn't aware that you had not seen it, so my apologies.

the lone supporter — John

That was a supporter for punishment, but there were many more which quarreled with your black and white, dogmatic way of putting the issue.

I'm pretty much done arguing this subject; which held little interest for me from the start. — John

That's why you opened the thread, I see! ;)

Indeed, I wasn't aware that you had not seen it, so my apologies. — Agustino

It's all good; I don't become offended or entertain bad feelings on account of online exchanges (or face to face ones for that matter), no matter how heated or outrageous they may become.

That was a supporter for punishment, but there were many more which quarreled with your black and white, dogmatic way of putting the issue. — Agustino

You may be right, but I can't remember any; but in any case even if it were true that would be an argument against style, not against substance. Anyway, can you cite some examples, just in order to support your claim?

That's why you opened the thread, I see! ;) — Agustino

I already explained in the opening post of the thread that I had little inclination to argue much for what I posted and against your position; and I expressed the hope that others would share the burden and join in the good fight to save your soul ;) . I explained my feelings, my lack of real enthusiasm, from the start so that if it had turned out that I contributed even less than I have done, it wouldn't have disappointed anyone's expectations.

You may be right, but I can't remember any; but in any case even if it were true that would be an argument against style, not against substance — John

Not only against style - but against your presuppositions - namely that such views are ultraconservative, irrational and shouldn't be held in the modern world - coupled with your seeming disrespect of those who hold them.

I already explained in the thread that I had little inclination to argue much for what I posted; and I expressed the hope that others would share the burden and join in the good fight to save your soul ;) . I explained myself lack of real enthusiasm from the start so that if it had turned out that I contributed even less than I have done, it wouldn't have disappointed anyone's expectations. — John

A lack of enthusiasm saves the day sometimes ;)

Not only against style - but against your presuppositions - namely that such views are ultraconservative, irrational and shouldn't be held in the modern world - coupled with your disrespect of those who hold them. — Agustino

But, such views are ultraconservative. just as my views are liberal. From this it does not follow though that you are aligned with any far right conservative ideology or movement, any more than it follows that I am aligned with any progressivist liberal ideology or movement. As I have repeatedly said it has always been you wanting to bring in such characterizations in to the discussion.

If you do advocate legal punishment for adultery then I would say your views are extremely conservative insofar as such views are not espoused by any political party or movement; well certainly not here in Australia, although I can't speak for the USA.

Also, I disrespect the views, not those who hold them. I don't deny anyone the right to hold any view, no matter how outrageous or absurd I may judge those views to be. I might not respect the understanding or intelligence of such a person, especially if they cannot mount a decent argument to support their views, but even then I wouldn't disrespect the person, if by that you mean claim that they have, on account of their stupid views, forfeited the right to be considered human and to be treated as others are.

I can't find the post, because this discussion has raced along so fast that I've lost track, but I just wanted to give my observation, Agustino, on what I think you said, something about society no longer condemning adultery, or nowhere near as much as it did. On reflection, I have to question whether that is actually the case.

If we compare it with the treatment of Hester Prynne in the Scarlet Letter, then that's certainly correct. But I'd say the Puritanical society of 17th century Massachussets was an aberration, not at all representative of views throughout the world at that time.

The impression I get from my kids is that they are really judgemental about what they call 'cheating' - a word that was never used when I was their age - but which covers adultery as well as sex with anybody that isn't your girlfriend/boyfriend, if you have one.

While they are much less judgemental about sex between people that are not in a heterosexual marriage, than people were 'in my day', I feel that they are more judgemental about cheating. I wouldn't dare to judge whether that increased judgementality is a good or bad thing, but it interests me that it is there. I wonder if it is peculiar to my little niche of society (upper-middle class, educated, left-leaning, inner-urban South-Eastern Australian). I'd be interested in what others' experiences are, in their local worlds, of young people's views of cheating. I love the French word for it, by the way, which is 'tromper', meaning 'to trick' or 'fool'.

Also, in assessing whether society has become harsher or more lenient in its view on adultery, we should focus on how it is applied to men, not women. Adultery of women was until recently, in most societies, regarded very harshly because the women were essentially property of their husbands and for a woman to make love to someone else was like a slave being disobedient - completely unacceptable. But my understanding is that, at least in Europe, adultery of a man was laughed off, if not actively admired, as long as the person they had sex with was not another man's wife. I do wonder whether, at the same time as societal condemnation of female adultery has abated (thank goodness), condemnation of male adultery may have become somewhat harsher than it was.

The two opposing directions could be for the same reason. If a woman is property then it is OK for a man to have sex with somebody else. One has no obligations to one's property. But when society rejects that view, perhaps it becomes more accepting of straying by the woman and less so of straying by the man.

I watched a French movie recently Detrompez-vous (English title 'Game of Four'), in which two people find out their spouses are having an affair with each other, and work together to try to break it up. Despite coming from the country that many people think of as having adultery as a national sport and ancient tradition, it seemed to me that the movie strongly directed the viewer's sympathies to the two cuckolded partners, rather than the adulterers.

good observations.

This isn't a matter of adultery, strictly speaking. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, married to multi-millionaire art heiress Anne Sinclair, and at the time, head of the International Monetary Fund, was accused of raping Nafissatou Diallo, a housekeeper, at the Sofitel Hotel in New York City. Legal forces were brought to bear on the accuser, a million dollar bail was paid, and charges were negotiated fairly quickly.

Not very long ago, Strauss Kahn would probably not have been arrested, and his denial would have been believed. His preference for what the Daily Mail called "'rough' libertarian sex" might have been frowned upon slightly, tittered over, or laughed about, but opprobrium would not have fallen on him. His various sexual affairs would probably have been dismissed as peccadillos--not mortal sins.

Times have changed, though. He did have defenders, but there was also a lot of very sharp criticism of Strauss-Kahn's serial adultery in France, the UK, the US, and elsewhere. When I was in college (mid 1960s) the guys thought a woman being raped "should just lay back and enjoy it". Only the most troglodytic Tromper supporters use such phrases these days.

I'm way way out of the young-folks' circuit, so I don't really know much about what they are thinking, except that I have heard some young people (late teens, twenties) expressing either more responsible or more conservative views about sexual behavior (straight and gay alike). I would say it's something of a ground-swell, certainly not an earth-shattering move towards some older, more traditional values.

My experience is just the opposite. I find that it is still largely unacceptable for women to commit adultery or cheat, although it has indeed become more acceptable than before. Whereas for men, it is more acceptable than ever to cheat. They are lauded by their peers, and they are looked up to for it. BC, you comment about Strauss Kahn - I would remind you that 50 years ago if that was the case with someone, they would have been finished. A Brelusconi would have been impossible 50 years ago.

While I don't debate your personal experiences, and even that it may be so in your communities, it's clear that as a trend adultery and cheating are on the rise - clearly they are not diminishing. This is the case at least in the US and Europe where I have checked statistics. Rates have increased from 10% to 50% in many of those countries. So there is indeed a social problem emerging out of this, which does reflect a more laxity with regards to it, which is not favourable for society.

What must be done I'm not sure, but it seems you don't have many solutions either. As for the 60s :P of course BC, anything is more conservative than the 60s, but we're talking general trends.

As for it getting better for women AndrewK, I disagree. It's always been in women's interest first to condemn adultery. The evolutionary reason is that a woman always wanted (and in most cases still does want) protection while she was pregnant, so she didn't want to be abandoned or cheated on, so that all the male's resources would be focused on her and her offspring, and not on other pursuits. It's always been men who have been complaining that adultery laws are too harsh - not women. Today many men are jumping on the feminazi movements precisely for this reason - it makes their life much easier.

But, such views are ultraconservative. just as my views are liberal. From this it does not follow though that you are aligned with any far right conservative ideology or movement, any more than it follows that I am aligned with any progressivist liberal ideology or movement. As I have repeatedly said it has always been you wanting to bring in such characterizations in to the discussion.

If you do advocate legal punishment for adultery then I would say your views are extremely conservative insofar as such views are not espoused by any political party or movement; well certainly not here in Australia, although I can't speak for the USA.

Also, I disrespect the views, not those who hold them. I don't deny anyone the right to hold any view, no matter how outrageous or absurd I may judge those views to be. I might not respect the understanding or intelligence of such a person, especially if they cannot mount a decent argument to support their views, but even then I wouldn't disrespect the person, if by that you mean claim that they have, on account of their stupid views, forfeited the right to be considered human and to be treated as others are. — John

I will end with a quote from the one whom you called perhaps the greatest philosopher (along with Hegel):

Not every action or emotion however admits of the observance of a due mean. Indeed the very names of some directly imply evil, for instance malice, shamelessness, envy, and, of actions, adultery, theft, murder. All these and similar actions and feelings are blamed as being bad in themselves; it is not the excess or deficiency of them that we blame. It is impossible therefore ever to go right in regard to them—one must always be wrong; nor does right or wrong in their case depend on the circumstances, for instance, whether one commits adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right manner; the mere commission of any of them is wrong. — NE 1107a, Aristotle

Now please do some of your "creative misreading" on that... It's gonna be fun to watch you try ;) (by the way, you notice how adultery is written right next to theft and murder to suggest also the potential gravity of the offence). Sometimes it's baffling how liberal progressives like you can take serious sins and make them into light inconsequential feathers. And by the way, I guess now Aristotle will go from greatest philosopher down to fundamentalist ultra-conservative right? >:O That's what happens when people forget their history, and don't respect their ancestors anymore. We get crazy statements, like condemning adultery is "ultra-conservative" - actually it's just damn common sense - it was so 2000 years ago, and it is so today. The only difference is that today we have a liberal progressive dominated culture imposed over Western society principally by universities, the media, and Hollywood via the mechanism of political correctness. No, let's not talk about adultery, that's a sensitive subject, for each person to privately decide upon >:O . Ben Carson is right:

First, I haven't anywhere said that adultery is a good thing. Second. society was altogether much more rigidly institutionalized in Aristotle's day. Third, note that envy ( jealousy) is right in there with all the other unequivocal sins?

The question we have been examining is whether it should be punishable by law. Please stay on point if you want to have a sensible discussion.

Third, note that envy ( jealousy) is right in there with all the other unequivocal sins? — John

No Aristotle as far as I remember didn't condemn jealousy. And envy isn't the same at all. Envy is when I desire what others have. That's not being jealous - jealousy has to do with injustice.

X is envious when they lust for having sex with Y's wife/husband. Y is jealous when X has sex with his/her wife/husband. Notice the difference? In the first case someone for whom it is unlawful to have sex with Y's partner wants that unlawful thing - thus envy. On the other hand, Y is angered by the fact that X has used what belong exclusively to him - thus jealousy. Hence jealousy occurs as a result of an injustice - something that is unlawful, namely that X doesn't respect the marriage of Y.

Also please note "I am a jealous God" being attached to the commandment not to have idols or worship other gods. Why? Because worship lawfully belongs to God alone - not to idols. Hence God is jealous when you worship idols - why? Because it's giving what rightfully belongs to Him unto others. Jealousy has always had to do with injustice. Envy is purely desiring unlawfully and excessively what others have - and is purely negative.

Envy and jealousy are basically the same. Envy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has. Jealousy may consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has, in which case it is the same as envy. It is perfectly synonymous ordinary usage to say either "Mary was jealous of Cynthia's looks" or "Mary was envious of Cynthia's looks". It's true that only 'jealousy' ordinarily refers to feelings associated with what another might come to have; in this connection jealousy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one might end up with with what another might end up with. But it could also be said in this connection, although it is not usually expressed this way. that one is envious of the situation another is in on account of what the other might end up with.All in all, there is not much significant distinction between jealousy and envy; they both consist in comparing oneself with others.

If your wife has sex with someone else; you may rightly be angry, but that is not jealousy. You are never jealous of the wife. IF you are jealous you are jealous of the other. You might be angry with the other too, but that is a different thing to being jealous of him or her. In any case the other has not transgressed any vows, because the other has made no vows declaring that they will not have sex with your wife. You might be angry with the other because he does not respect the laws of society, but you will be jealous of him only on account of comparing yourself with him or her. Your wife might enjoy sex with them, or even just being with them, more than sex with you or being with you. This is the source of jealousy, it is based in the fear that you may lose your wife and that someone else may have here instead.

Envy and jealousy are basically the same. Envy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has. Jealousy may consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one has with what another has, in which case it is the same as envy. It is perfectly synonymous ordinary usage to say either "Mary was jealous of Cynthia's looks" or "Mary was envious of Cynthia's looks". It's true that only 'jealousy' ordinarily refers to feelings associated with what another might come to have; in this connection jealousy consists in the feeling of losing when comparing what one might end up with with what another might end up with. But it could also be said in this connection, although it is not usually expressed this way. that one is envious of the situation another is in on account of what the other might end up with.All in all, there is not much significant distinction between jealousy and envy; they both consist in comparing oneself with others. — John

Check the additions to my previous post.

If your wife has sex with someone else; you may rightly be angry, but that is not jealousy. You are never jealous of the wife. IF you are jealous you are jealous of the other. You might be angry with the other too, but that is a different thing to being jealous of him or her. In any case the other has not transgressed any vows, because the other has made no vows declaring that they will not have sex with your wife. You might be angry with the other because he does not respect the laws of society, but you will be jealous of him only on account of comparing yourself with him or her. Your wife might enjoy sex with them, or even just being with them, more than sex with you or being with you. This is the source of jealousy, it is based in the fear that you may lose your wife and that someone else may have here instead. — John

If I am jealous of the one she had sex with, that is clearly different from envy. If I were envious of him, it means I would want to be like him. And I totally don't want that. So there's a big difference right there. Furthermore, the other is doing evil because he has taken what rightfully doesn't belong to him - regardless of the fact he made no vow - the vow makes husband and wife rightfully belong only to each other. Hence whosoever takes either husband or wife in adultery commits the same wrong. Furthermore, I'm not jealous because I'm afraid for losing my wife to that person - or because she enjoys having sex with him more than with me. I would be jealous because he has taken what rightfully doesn't belong to him. It totally has nothing to do with whether my wife enjoys it or not, whether I am sexually inferior or not, etc.

In fact, I would be just as jealous if my wife had sex with a handicapped, crippled person who didn't make her feel good at all. I would be jealous even if my wife was raped for example. Not that I would condemn her for that obviously it wouldn't be her fault, but I would still feel jealousy, which is rightful anger towards the one who has taken what rightfully belongs to me. So there is no question of insecurity in jealousy here. There just is none. It's not about any security - it's not about fear of losing anything or of being inferior. It's simply about justice.

While I don't debate your personal experiences, and even that it may be so in your communities, it's clear that as a trend adultery and cheating are on the rise - clearly they are not diminishing. This is the case at least in the US and Europe where I have checked statistics. — Agustino

And neither will I challenge your personal experiences. We live in different communities and the cultures of those communities may be very different, in addition to which the history of our own particular interactions within our community may differ from those of others in our community.

But then you go on to make a claim that purports to transcend your personal experience, about what you say is 'clearly' the case. I am afraid the veracity of that claim is by no means clear to me. Further, I struggle to see how one could obtain statistics about what adultery levels were for instance amongst the 18th-century French aristocracy, miners in the California gold rush, or soldiers in the Napoleonic wars (or even World War I).

If you'll permit a brief digression: I have been striving for a while now to completely expunge the words 'clearly' and 'obviously' from my vocabulary, in mathematics as well as in philosophy and politics. Usually they are untrue, and are used to cover up the fact that I don't have a good argument to support my claim that P is the case. And in the minority of cases where they are true, they add no useful information to the communication. Especially in mathematics, using the word clearly is simply a slap in the face - an accusation of stupidity - against someone that is unable to see why B must follow from A.

In mathematical writing, there is a substitute that can add useful information without having to produce the entire proof, which is to say something like 'by considering the example of a X that has property P, and trying to perform operation N on it, it can be fairly readily deduced that condition C always holds'. If one is feeling especially friendly, one adds 'the proof is left as an exercise for the reader'. The point is that the sentence has given a guide to the reader about how they might set about convincing themself of the claim's verity. There may be an analog of that for philosophical discussion, but I haven't felt the need to find one so far, as I find that by removing my clearlys and obviouslys from philosophical writing, not only is nothing lost, but clarity is improved.

I commend this vocabularic excision to you and to any others that find that unwonted 'clearly's and 'obviously's keep on popping up in their prose.

But then you go on to make a claim that purports to transcend your personal experience, about what you say is 'clearly' the case. I am afraid the veracity of that claim is by no means clear to me. Further, I struggle to see how one could obtain statistics about what adultery levels were for instance amongst the 18th-century French aristocracy, miners in the California gold rush, or soldiers in the Napoleonic wars (or even World War I). — andrewk

I compared with 50 years ago, not with 18th century French aristocracy. And the trend was a gradual rise from 50 years ago to today.

If you'll permit a brief digression: I have been striving for a while now to completely expunge the words 'clearly' and 'obviously' from my vocabulary, in mathematics as well as in philosophy and politics. Usually they are untrue, and are used to cover up the fact that I don't have a good argument to support my claim that P is the case. And in the minority of cases where they are true, they add no useful information to the communication. Especially in mathematics, using the word clearly is simply a slap in the face - an accusation of stupidity - against someone that is unable to see why B must follow from A.

In mathematical writing, there is a substitute that can add useful information without having to produce the entire proof, which is to say something like 'by considering the example of a X that has property P, and trying to perform operation N on it, it can be fairly readily deduced that condition C always holds'. If one is feeling especially friendly, one adds 'the proof is left as an exercise for the reader/student'. The point is that the sentence has given a guide to the reader about how they might set about convincing themself of the claim's verity. There may be an analog of that for philosophical discussion, but I haven't felt the need to find one so far, as I find that by removing my clearlys and obviouslys from philosophical writing, not only is nothing lost, but clarity is improved.

I commend this vocabularic excision to you and to any others that find that unwonted 'clearly's and 'obviously's keep on popping up in their prose. — andrewk

Thanks for sharing this, I will ponder and consider it, and may let you know what I think by PM as it wouldn't belong in this thread :)

If I am jealous of the one she had sex with, that is clearly different from envy. If I were envious of him, it means I would want to be like him. And I totally don't want that. — Agustino

Well then what are you actually jealous of in a situation like that? I would say you are jealous or envious because you are afraid that he might be a better lover than you. Or you might be envious of the feelings that your wife has for him; that is for the hold you imagine he might have over her. For me, jealousy certainly involves envy, but it may have an additional element of fear that you will be the loser, or will be seen to be the loser. Jealousy can be seen as a kind of pathological extension of envy into fear.

Envy may be very superficial even inconsequential. You know, you might envy your friend's new car, but without much feeling involved at all. You might even jokingly acknowledge it, but it isn't really of any account. But if you are jealous of him having the new car then that becomes more serious. You might be motivated by those feelings of jealousy to try to undermine him in some way.

You say jealousy "has to do with injustice". Then why don't you feel jealous when you see injustices done to others? You are leaving out yourself. Jealousy is a feeling associated with a sense of injustice to oneself, and that sense may or may not be justified. I say that feeling is associated with losing. As a landscape contractor for many years, I have been ripped off by people. You know, at the completion of the project, they owe me $20,000 and pay only $10, 000. This kind of thing has happened only a couple of times, and long ago when I was more naive. An injustice was done to me, I felt unjustly done by, and yet I did not feel jealous, I simply felt righteously (as I thought) angry. How do you explain that, in terms of your usage?

In any case, I don't agree with your interpretation of the terms 'jealousy' and 'envy' and you apparently don't agree with mine; so arguing about it seems pointless since we would then be arguing about different things. Also it is off-topic, since this thread is about legal punishment of adultery.

Well then who are you jealous of in a situation like that? — John

Depends. If she was raped, only of the man. If she willingly did it, of both, because they have both taken what rightfully belongs to me.

I would say you are envious because you are afraid that he might be a better lover than you. — John

I honestly wouldn't care one bit about this. Again, even if he was a cripple - as I said in my previous post - who didn't even make her feel half as good as me, I would still feel jealous.

Or you might be envious of the feelings that your wife has for him; that is for the hold you imagine he might have over her. — John

I wouldn't care at all, again. What I would feel jealous about is that she has allowed another to take what rightfully belongs to me, and that another has taken what rightfully belongs to me. That's why if she willingly does it, it feels worse than if she is raped for example (in terms of jealousy). We would feel jealousy in both cases, but different intensity, because in one case it's two sources of jealousy, and in the other only one. And if she divorced me, and then had sex with whoever - I wouldn't feel jealous at all. I wouldn't care if they are better lovers than me or not. I wouldn't care if she loves them more than me. It would all be irrelevant because no injustice would be done. I would feel the sadness of rejection maybe, but certainly no jealousy.

So you may ask, why then is it unlawful this adultery business? Well because the spiritual goods of the relationship are ruined - intimacy is ruined. And this has nothing to do with whether the other person is a better lover or not, whether she feels good or not, etc. The sexual act itself suffices, because sex is never purely physical - it always also has a spiritual component - hence why all religions talk and moralise about sex. That's why promiscuity in the animals is irrelevant - they have no spiritual side - for them sex is purely biological, the more the better. Us human beings also have other interests. For example, I've had sex with two of my girlfriends that I had when I was a teenager - I regret that, because of the psychological effects it has on the self. Now my capacity for intimacy with another women is diminished - because the images of my previous encounters will always be etched in my mind, which takes away from the specialness of anything in the future. That's why no sex before marriage is a very very good idea, which I wish I had listened to, instead of listening to the liberal progressive dribble. So that's a scar I have to carry on for my entire life - nothing can wipe it away, it remains there. That's why these matters are not things to be flippant about and say "yeah yeah why does it matter?".

For me, jealousy certainly involves envy, but it may have an additional element of fear that you will be the loser, or will be seen to be the loser. — John

Maybe for you, but the way I have described it, I hope I made it clear I don't perceive it in the same way.

Depends. If she was raped, only of the man. If she willingly did it, of both, because they have both taken what rightfully belongs to me. — Agustino

It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to say that you feel jealous of your wife in any case. The way I interpret the term you feel jealous on account of something someone else has or has had that you consider to be rightfully yours. It's easy to see what the other had that you feel is rightfully yours, but what could your wife have had in that situation that you feel was rightfully yours?

I honestly wouldn't care one bit about this. Again, even if he was a cripple - as I said in my previous post - who didn't even make her feel half as good as me, I would still feel jealous. — Agustino

I find that difficult to believe.

I think that if you are being honest about your usage of the term then it is simply a case of you using the term in an unusual way. You are entitled to do that, but I don't believe most people would agree with your usage. So, in any case, it seems pointless to continue with this line, particularly as I already said because it is off-topic. I am only continuing to respond at all to your posts because i feel some responsibility, despite my stated caveats, on account of it was I started the thread.

Which is why I have no qualm about saying jealousy is perhaps worse than envy. If envy is wanting yourself to be something you aren't, jealousy is wanting another to be something they aren't. A demand that someone else is meant to be what you want regardless of who they are. If envy is coveting what you are not, jealousy is coveting someone else being what you want.

You are entirely correct to say your jealousy is not about losing your wife or anyone's sexual prowess. It's about the world not belonging to you. Like envy, jealousy is an emotion of not being able to control the world to your desire.

Jealously is a tantrum at others otherwise to your desire and your lack of power to make them what you want. Rather than righteous anger or ethical understanding, it's nothing more than your disbelief that others have not turned out how you desire. An outcome (supposedly) so impossible, there is simply no way the world would occur like that and make sense.

I think that if you are being honest about your usage of the term then it is simply a case of you using the term in an unusual way. You are entitled to do that, but I don't believe most people would agree with your usage. So, in any case, it seems pointless to continue with this line, particularly as I already said because it is off-topic. I am only continuing to respond at all to your posts because i feel some responsibility, despite my stated caveats, on account of it was I started the thread. — John

I've edited and added to my previous post. And yes maybe my understanding of what I call jealousy is different from that of others. I don't think that's really very relevant, we could pick another term for it if you want.

jealousy is wanting another to be something they aren't. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This must be false, because it potentially holds only for a romantic context, and clearly jealousy applies to other contexts as well - such as John stealing my money and enjoying a car he buys with them in front of my house :D

You are entirely correct to say your jealousy is not about losing your wife or anyone's sexual prowess. It's about the world not belonging to you. Like envy, jealousy is the emotion of not being able to control the world to your desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not quite.

So you may ask, why then is it unlawful this adultery business? Well because the spiritual goods of the relationship are ruined - intimacy is ruined. And this has nothing to do with whether the other person is a better lover or not, whether she feels good or not, etc. The sexual act itself suffices, because sex is never purely physical - it always also has a spiritual component - hence why all religions talk and moralise about sex. That's why promiscuity in the animals is irrelevant - they have no spiritual side - for them sex is purely biological, the more the better. Us human beings also have other interests. For example, I've had sex with two of my girlfriends that I had when I was a teenager - I regret that, because of the psychological effects it has on the self. Now my capacity for intimacy with another women is diminished - because the images of my previous encounters will always be etched in my mind, which takes away from the specialness of anything in the future. That's why no sex before marriage is a very very good idea, which I wish I had listened to, instead of listening to the liberal progressive dribble. So that's a scar I have to carry on for my entire life - nothing can wipe it away, it remains there. That's why these matters are not things to be flippant about and say "yeah yeah why does it matter?". — Agustino

Why not just call it "righteous anger" then, as I have been suggesting?

Sure, let's call it righteous anger :P I really don't mind. My understanding of jealousy is shared by some of the Aristotelians by the way :)

Envy and jealousy are basically the same. — John

If so, how come women have penis envy and not penis jealousy?

Envy seems clear enough: a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck: she felt a twinge of envy for the people on board. Jealousy is more complicated. The root of jealous is Middle English: from Old French gelos, from medieval Latin zelosus (see zealous). Zealous and jealous apparently have the same root in Latin.

Jealous implies envy, a dictionary suggests, but also
• a feeling or showing suspicion of someone's unfaithfulness in a relationship: a jealous boyfriend.
• being fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions: Howard is still a little jealous of his authority | they kept a jealous eye over their interests.
• (of God) demanding faithfulness and exclusive worship.

Jealousy perhaps should be used when the emotion is much hotter and riled up than mere envy. Merely envious people generally don't attack the owners of Mercedes or Lamborghinis the way jealous husbands murder the adulterous interloper.

This must be false, because it holds only for a romantic context, and clearly jealousy applies to other contexts as well - such as John stealing my money and enjoying a car he buys with them in front of my house — Agustino

So you don't desire that John be someone else than a person who steals your money?

What I'm saying doesn't just hold for a romantic context.

Now my capacity for intimacy with another women is diminished - because the images of my previous encounters will always be etched in my mind, which takes away from the specialness of anything in the future. — Agustino

So says the jealously.

You want sexual exclusivity so much that you blame any woman going into the future. Supposedly, your relationship will be soiled, lesser, somehow without intimacy because one or both of you have had sex with someone else. If she feels you have the greatest spiritual connection with here and you come back with: "Ugh, our relationship isn't that great because I've had sex with previous girlfriends. You'd be better off finding some virgin." How exactly is this meant to make your partner feel about your relationship?

This is what I mean about love being an image to you. Rather than love being considered in terms of living people, you imagine it as a statue floating in the sky. It shows two people who are sexually exclusive to each other. An image which amounts to intimacy. Fail to reflect it, and you will lack intimacy. A situation where it is not people who are loved, but a story of what love is supposed to be.

Why do previous encounters stay etched in your mind? Why do the spoil the specialness of the future? Your jealousy. So caught-up in the desire to be exclusive, you can only see those you wish were your one and only. Anyone new cannot be special to you. They will never be important or desirable enough. It's not enough for you to have a connection and care for someone, no matter how strong or beautiful. Your "spiritual intimacy" cannot be given by love of another person, only by the image you love so much. So busy making declarations, marriage vows and masturbating with the statue, you cannot see the world around you, even you own relationships (if you were to have one with this present jealousy).

I agree with all this BC and I think it is mostly in line with what I have been saying about the relationship between envy and jealousy. IT is a complicated relationship, to be sure, tied in as it is with fear, insecurity. anger, possessiveness and so on.

So, penis jealousy would only be when a women does not merely feel vaguely or even subconsciously envious of the other's possession of such a fine instrument, but when she quite consciously feels outraged at the injustice inherent in the difference of the degrees of practical serviceability between his instrument and hers. O:)

I think the passage quoted from Aristotle by Agustino ( sounds impressive that, doesn't it: "Aristotle by Agustino" 8-) ) which mentions the evil nature of envy, would actually be more appropriately applied to jealousy though on account of those "hotter" feelings you mention, and on account of the fact that envy can be a trivial, and hardly evil. feeling indeed.

Actually I think it is when the envy one feels on account of something someone else has, is amplified into a feeling of entitlement, into a feeling that it is not just that the other should have what you do not have, into, in other words, a feeling of jealousy, that the evil really begins.

A lack of enthusiasm saves the day sometimes — Agustino

I don't believe there is any "day to be saved" in this discussion. :P

My understanding of jealousy is shared by some of the Aristotelians by the way :) — Agustino

Who? Aquinas? We have had "Aristotle by Aquinas" and now we have "Aristotle and Aquinas by Agustino" X-)

Hi all,

I've lurked on this forum for quite awhile, but this thread has recently stirred me enough to join the club, so I thought I'd share a few points here in the discussion. Hopefully I can be clear and understandable.

Firstly, the issue of adultery in this thread seems only to be used in the directly physical sense. That is, married person X sleeps with person Z, thus X and Z are cheating on X's spouse Y. I don't think anyone here disputes such social interaction to be unhealthy, unproductive, and even distinctly immoral. I do think, however, that there is at least one non-overtly physical form of adultery. Let me explain.

I was raised in a Christian family, by Christian parents who had taken the commonplace wedding vows, done so by thousands of couples, here in the United States. With those vows came many things, none more important, however, than the agreement between both my parents to be utterly and completely faithful to each other. Were I to tell you all that such a vow between them was broken, I doubt anyone would think anything more than, "well, one or both of them was seeing and/or sleeping with another person, clearly." I would too, understandably, but that's not quite right. My father, in ill-health and frame of mind, turned toward viewing pornography as a means of releasing the many tensions in his life (to no fault of my mother). I didn't know that he had been up to this for as long as he had when I did, finally, realize the weight of the situation, nor even did my mother. I remember being greatly distraught (an understatement) as I slowly put together the pieces of what was going on. And when I did tell my mother one afternoon what my father had been doing, showing her the evidence, as much as that was awkward for me to do, she immediately concurred with my initial thought that this was adulterous, that he had dabbled in infidelity. In not receiving sexual satisfaction, or, to him, proper affection from my mother, he turned to pornography.

Is this any different from physical adultery? In both instances one partner had been replaced, whether by someone or by something. Instead of sticking with what vows they did originally swear, under even their own God's nose, my father threw it all away. Instead of continuing to give his love to my mother, my father gave himself to women on a computer screen, abstract women that are as real as any physical lover might be. This I consider to be adulterous, in such a situation. If, perhaps, there is a marriage where porn is understood to be okay in viewing, then obviously no vow has been broken. But I think that, in the vast majority of marriages, viewing porn is absolutely seen as adulterous, as adulterous as one or both partners seeing another person while still married.

In following from this, the dilemma of punishment for adultery becomes almost comical, and is one reason why I've decided to pipe up here. It's absolutely absurd, in my opinion, to consider adultery as some problem of the state, that my father adulterously (goddamnit I'm making that a word!) viewing porn is of any importance to judges or lawmakers or Obama. Does my father need to serve jail time because he looked at pornstar x, y, or z? Should he be fined, hanged, forced to endure 100 lashes and then walk the plank? I don't think so. He shouldn't be punished by the state for what he did. His punishment is already losing his wife, his children, his God, and his livelihood. Even as I sit here today, knowing all the nuances of my childhood as I do, the last thing I'd ever think of would be that my father should have been punished by the government with some criminal sentencing. I never even thought to think such a thing until this thread came around.

As followup, the state can, however, punish what may come from adultery, but not adultery itself. The state does, if applicable, have to concern itself with childcare and the settlement of assets and all the other wonderful things many divorces have to deal with in light of adultery, but adultery in and of itself should never be up for public punishment.

Anyway, I realize this post is out of the discussion loop a bit, but hopefully my thoughts are welcome here :)

Hi, and welcome to the forum. I am not convinced that porn addiction should be counted as being as significant a betrayal as having sex with someone else.
Should any other kind of addiction that might produce the equivalent effect of emotional and sexual withdrawal also be counted as adultery?

Welcome.

At the core of marriage is a relationship between two people. In a healthy relationship, the two people communicate openly, like each other like best of friends, are supportive, solicitous of the other's well being, and have enjoyable sex. No relationship is perfect. All relationships have flaws (as do all people), and under the stresses of life individual vitality can be leached away and relationships can go flat. Tired people and flat relationships aren't a disaster, of course, they are more like the norm--at times--for long term relationships.

One of the reasons people get involved in extramarital relationships is an effort to get some energy back into their life. Whether it's moral or not, it sometimes works for the individual. People also masturbate alone and turn to pornography to try to extract some pleasure out of life, once work, childrearing, marriage, et al has become a treadmill. The thing about pornography and masturbation is that there are no performance demands--physically or emotionally. It's reliable. It's cheaper and easier than adultery. And much, much safer.

What's the solution?

Individuals and couples have to find some sort of a workable strategy for the long run. It varies from couple to couple.