---

Hi Fidelity

Continuing on from my last entry in "This I believe" I reach the point where I feel compelled to state my beliefs on fidelity.

Having a belief in personal responsibility I find it incredibly difficult to believe people who state that they stray in a relationship through lust or seduction by a third party.  If you go off with someone it is because you want to, if you don't want to then it's not sex.  It's rape.  Anything else is just an excuse.

I'm not saying that having sex with more than one person at a time is a bad thing.  Consecutively or concurrently.  I am saying that doing so without the approval of your partner is bound to cause ill feelings between you.  At the very least it displays an immaturity and distinct lack of control in the person being unfaithful and at best it is a total lack of regard for the feelings of your partner.

Note that it is not the act of sex that wrong here but the betrayal of trust.

In any relationship we form a set of expected behaviours of your partner.  As a relationship progresses a person is able to further understand the motivation behind certain behaviour and to refine their understanding of it.  Most relationships are formed of two partners who each desire a monogamous relationship.  There are those who do not adhere to this expected norm and who live quite happy lives as a result but most relationships are expected to be monogamous.

A person forms a relationship with the best available partner that they can expect to get.  One that conforms to their own criteria as to what constitutes the perfect mate.  Necessity naturally refine these criteria.  i.e. if I desire only buxom blond women and I live in a place where available partners are flat chested red heads then I will find myself single.  An undesirable condition for someone seeking a mate.  In the end we all settle for the best person that we think we can get. 

It is therefore perfectly natural to continue to look for better options while in a relationship.  Everybody does it and if you don't then you must be perfectly satisfied with your current partner.  So, the supermodel who marries a pop star is happy in her situation and the beaten wife sincerely believes that they have no other option available to them.  Right or wrong this is what I believe is the case.

I am fortunate to be in a relationship where I have little or no desire to abandon my current partner and seek another or to risk losing my current partner by pursuing another.  For me the benefits of remaining within my current relationship outweigh any possible gains of finding someone else.  Good company and witty conversation, semi-regular sex, intellectual stimulation, family support, financial stability, etc are all available to me and beat the prospect of a new sexual partner.

I would hope that The Hildy feels the same.

Here is the crux of the fidelity issue though:  If either The Hildy or I decided to take on another sexual partner it would not be this event that would cause the pain.  Rather it would be the betrayal of trust that we had invested in each other.  The deceit would cause me to question whether or not my partner was the best one available to suit me.

Personally I don't have an issue with sleeping with other people.  I've been in relationships where it has been acceptable for either partner to do this, I've been the third person a few times and the one left behind.  It has only ever been a problem when it is under handed and deceitful.

People get so hung up on infidelity when they should be getting hung up on the betrayal of trust.  What I'm trying to say is that I have no right to tell someone else who they should or shouldn't have sex with.  I have expectations not to be lied to and for my opinion to be heard and would hope that my partner respects me enough to be honest with me as I would them.

This I believe, but I know a lot of people don't.  What is your opinion?

Current mood: Big-Smiley


Personal Responsibility

I have a pretty basic belief system.  Tangibles are easier to believe in than the insubstantial that seem to preoccupy many people.  Rather than list the many things that I don't believe in (horoscopes, the man in the moon, transparent government, etc), it is much simpler to explain the things that I do believe in.

I believe that my thoughts control my voluntary actions and that my thoughts are determined by the situation, my past experience and genetically inherited natural abilities. I have no power to control the thoughts or actions of others and so cannot accept responsibility for anyone else's actions.  I can influence others with my behaviour but I cannot control them...not till I get my mind control ray perfected anyway.  Similarly I cannot be controlled by others.

Putting aside the concept of some kind of divine puppet master controlling our actions as unworkable* this means that I am entirely responsible for my own actions.  In fact, each one of us is entirely responsible for our own actions.  We are not responsible for the actions of anyone else.  This absolves me of an awful lot of potential guilt but it does mean that anything that goes wrong as a result of my actions or inaction is my fault and I can't escape from that.

Smart cookies may notice that I make no mention of various diseases both mental and physical that can effect the way we behave.  I'm sorry but a person suffering from depression is still a person who should be responsible for their actions, treating them otherwise is to take away their individuality and consign them to a box marked "Reject".  This is both unkind and unnecessary.  Of course, we should try to help people suffering from illnesses.  An illness can strike down anyone at any time, so we should treat sufferers as we would want to be treated ourselves.  I would want someone to help me to recover, not to help me to remain in a state where I wallow in misery.

Some of you may be aware that I hold to the tenets of determinism.  Briefly this means that I believe that a person cannot react to a situation other than by drawing on past experience or natural physical and mental resources that were provided when the DNA of their parents were combined.  This may strike some people as a way to excuse certain actions.  If a person is limited in scope as to their responses to situations by physical ability or lack of experience then how can they have free will?  An abused child who grows up to abuse others is simple reacting to the circumstances put upon them.  A lesser form of free will is therefore required to explain how some people take terrible experiences and turn them around to become positive things.  You've no doubt heard it said that "If God gives you lemons, make lemonade." and this is a soundbite that laughingly forms the cornerstone of my personal philosophy to life.

As I have no control over others I cannot make any steps to improve other people or harm other people except in the small ways that they allow me to.  If I call you stupid you can become upset and withdraw, you can react by returning an insult, you can ignore my comment as blatantly false or you can take any number of actions within your own ability to perform.  Your reaction is within your control as mine reaction is within my own.  Following this train of thought (choo choo) I can only take steps to improve or harm myself.  In fact, I can only take steps to improve or harm myself.  While harming myself is a perfectly valid option it would be insane to actually do so which leaves me with a single option.  I must live my life by taking steps to improve myself as a person.

*The religious reader will hopefully agree that their own god, goddess or pantheon do not control their actions.  The irreligious will no doubt discount the existence of any such controlling force.

Current mood: Sort of intense


Atheism

Taken from Penn Jillette's essay on atheism: 

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this ''This I Believe'' thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, ''This I believe: I believe there is no God.''

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, ''I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.'' That's just a long-winded religious way to say, ''shut up,'' or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, ''How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do.'' So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Current mood: Big-Smiley