It is always possible, and not difficult to realize, that the very physical or psychological traits that inspire sexual or romantic attraction in a person towards their partner will also instill attraction in those outside the relationship. This might not bother certain people at all, while others might be almost endlessly tormented by the fact that it is possible that they are not the only person who could be attracted to their partner. For those who fall into the latter category, the mere presence of their romantic partner could cause as much agony as the joy or pleasure it brings. Of course, no one believes that they should be the only person of their gender who should befriend, look at, flirt with, or otherwise interact with their partner just because it subjectively bothers them. Preferences do not dictate reality as far as morality or logic is concerned.
Anyone can realize these objective logical truths. Even if they wish it was otherwise, they can fully understand and accept these truths in spite of potential emotional worry that is not silenced by this knowledge. After all, if one person is sexually or romantically excited by their partner's body, personality, or intellect, it should be obvious that someone else might have the same interest. It does not follow that the concerned party, his or her significant other, or the outside individual will in any way even attempt to mishandle the situation. Perhaps this will provide some emotional relief. Unfortunately, in a society of non-rationalists, almost none of the logical truths mentioned up until now are universally understood, much less recalled when it might be convenient to act otherwise.
It is much more appealing for a certain kind of irrationalist to pretend like it is some moral error for someone else to feel sexual attraction towards their partner, for someone of the opposite gender to be a close friend with them, or for someone else to flirt with, masturbate to, or quietly sexually admire them--or for their partner to have any of these experiences directed towards someone else beyond the relationship. It would also be especially irrational for someone to condemn or lash out against these things, or even to privately misunderstand any of these things as romantic/sexual betrayal, all while feeling or doing the same, or just longing for the chance to act in the same way. Hypocrisy is in no short supply, and the powerful feelings associated with sexuality are intoxicating to enough people that they voluntarily choose not to see the truth of the matter.
Sexual jealousy drives fools to think that it is fine for them to be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite gender besides their partner, but evil or tragic if their partner is sexually attracted to anyone else. This kind of perhaps involuntary emotion can be ignored, understood for what it is, and kept from dictating beliefs or actions, yet it could be strong enough for people to prefer to think that they have some special right to sink into assumptions, hypocrisy, selfishness, and controlling behaviors. The errors are only compounded when Christians of all people think it is righteous to succumb to these things or think that it is in fact other people who are sinning when they are not also seized by this kind of emotionalistic insecurity or anger (Deuteronomy 4:2 has so many vital ramifications for sexuality that it would shock or enrage most self-professed Christians if they actually realized the extent of what the Christian God morally permits with regards to sexuality).
Being noticed by someone else out of sexual attraction or interest is not the same as even entertaining the thought of betraying one's partner. Noticing someone else of the opposite gender out of sexual attraction or a desire for flirtation is not the same as betraying one's partner, and the same is true even if there is open flirtation or acknowledgment of the sexual attraction. A rational person, of which there are relatively few, would not make assumptions or believe in anything contradictory here, and this is all that it might take for some people in dating or marriage relationships to be at peace. More than that, they could celebrate or appreciate the fact that their partner has qualities that make them romantically or sexually desirable--not so they can watch with an arrogant possessiveness or asinine belittlement if other people are also attracted to their partner, but so they can savor the partner that they supposedly care about for who they are.
Love Every•Body: Problem solved. Moses reportedly had 2 wives; David 8. In Hinduism, Arjuna had 2 wives; his first wife had 6 husbands ( total ).
ReplyDeleteThough having multiple husbands or wives is not Biblically sinful, to the confusion or distress of many Christians I've talked to, not everyone is personally suited to polyamory, though there are other, less involved means of acting on extramarital attraction or attraction to multiple people that are also legitimate. However, Hinduism is irrelevant to Christian ethics, and while there is evidence that Christianity in particular is very likely true, Hinduism does not have this support. More importantly than this, the pluralism of Hinduism automatically renders it inherently false, as conflicting metaphysical concepts cannot all be true at once, and some cannot be true at all because they contradict logical axioms or themselves.
Delete